“While the Obamacare exchanges unravel, health insurance costs on the exchanges are soaring. More than 6 million people are enrolled in plans facing average rate increases of 10 percent or more.”
WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) spoke on the floor of the Senate today on the double-digit premium increases many Obamacare consumers are facing and the continued broken promises of this failed law.
Click here to watch Senator Thune’s remarks on the Senate floor.
Remarks as prepared for delivery:
“The president made some comments yesterday on the upcoming Supreme Court Obamacare decision. Referring to his health care law, the president said, and I quote, ‘What’s more, the thing’s working. Part of what’s bizarre about this whole thing is we haven’t had a lot of conversations about the horrors of Obamacare because it hasn’t come to pass.’
“Let me repeat that, Mr. President. The president thinks Obamacare is working and that negative predictions about the law haven’t come to pass. To respond to that, let me just read a few headlines from the past couple of weeks.
“From CNN: ‘Obamacare sticker shock: Big rate hikes proposed for 2016’
“From the Associated Press: ‘Many health insurers go big with initial 2016 rate requests’
“From The Hill: ‘Overhead costs exploding under ObamaCare, study finds’
“From the Associated Press: ‘8 Minnesota health plans propose big premium hikes for 2016’
“From the Lexington Herald-Leader: ‘Most health insurance rates expected to rise next year in Kentucky’
“I could go on.
“The truth is, Mr. President, not only is Obamacare not working, it’s rapidly unraveling.
“A May 1 headline from the Washington Post reported, and I quote, ‘Almost half of Obamacare exchanges face financial struggles in the future.’
“Hawaii’s exchange has already failed. California’s exchange is struggling to sign up consumers. One-third of the consumers who purchased insurance on the California exchange in 2014 declined to re-enroll in 2015.
“Massachusetts’ exchange is being investigated by the federal government. Colorado’s exchange is struggling financially and has raised fees for consumers purchasing insurance plans. Rhode Island’s governor is pushing for new fees on insurance plans to help fund the $30.9 million operating cost of the Rhode Island exchange. Incidentally, that’s $30.9 million to run an exchange that serves just 30,000 people.
“The Minnesota exchange was supposed to cover more than 150,000 individuals in its small-business marketplace by 2016. So far, it is covering 1,405 individuals, or approximately 1 percent of the number it’s intended to cover. The Minnesota exchange has cost federal taxpayers $189 million so far — $189 million, for an exchange that provides coverage for just 61,000 people.
“A recent Forbes piece notes that Vermont’s exchange, and I quote, ‘will need $51 million a year to provide insurance to fewer than 32,000 enrollees – or $1,613 per enrollee in overhead. Before Obamacare, $1,600 would have been enough to pay the entire annual premium for some individual insurance plans.’
“Mr. President, while the Obamacare exchanges unravel, health insurance costs on the exchanges are soaring. Insurers have requested double-digit premium increases on 676 individual and small group plans for 2016.
“More than 6 million people are enrolled in plans facing average rate increases of 10 percent or more. Around the country, rate increases of 20, 30, 40, and 50 percent are common. One health care plan in Arizona is seeking a rate increase of 78.9 percent.
“So much for the president’s promise that his health care plan ‘would bring down the cost of health care for millions.’
“In my home state of South Dakota, proposed rate increases range up to 44.4 percent. That’s not something South Dakota families can afford.
“Mr. President, the discussion about Obamacare’s success or failure is no longer theoretical. The evidence is in, and it shows that the president’s health care law is broken. It’s time to repeal Obamacare and replace it with real health care reforms that will actually drive down costs. Five years under Obamacare is long enough for American families.”
WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) joined his colleagues in introducing the Patient Freedom Act, a conservative response to protect millions of Americans who are at risk of losing their health care coverage following the Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell. The Patient Freedom Act, introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), lowers costs, eliminates mandates, gives states the power and puts patients in control of their health care.
“The Administration has no plan to protect the American people if the Supreme Court rules against Obamacare’s healthcare subsidies, a decision that could come any day now,” said Rounds. “For 19,000 South Dakotans, that means lost federal healthcare subsidies and up to a 178 percent increase in their health care premiums. Our legislation, carefully crafted by Dr. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, is a long-term solution that is patient-centered and puts states back in the driver’s seat. It provides states with the flexibility, funding and control to determine the best health care plan for their needs and rids them of Obamacare’s federal mandates.”
Original cosponsors include Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX), Sens. David Vitter (R-LA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Jim Inhofe (R-OK). A companion bill will be introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Dr. Ralph Abraham (R-LA).
Overview
The Patient Freedom Act is a market-based solution that gives patients the power by lowering costs, eliminating mandates, returning power to states over insurance, and giving patients knowledge.
·Doing nothing is not an option
o King v. Burwell will be decided this month and Republicans need a plan
o Americans expect Congress to have an Obamacare alternative for the 5-10 million people impacted
· Under the Patient Freedom Act, states have three options:
o Continue Obamacare and establish a state exchange
o Do nothing while 5-10 million people lose their health care
o Enact the Patient Freedom Act – choosing conservative, free market health care solutions
· This plan lowers costs by repealing unpopular Obamacare federal mandates, including:
o Individual mandate
o Employer mandate
o Federal essential health benefits mandate
· The Patient Freedom Act ensures health care dollars go directly to the patient:
o States could choose to receive this funding through either a per capita patient grant or a federal tax credit, depending on the state’s preference
o However, unlike under Obamacare, this funding goes DIRECTLY to patients
· Patients are empowered:
o Patients receive their money through a Health Savings Account (HSA), empowering patients to make the best decision for them and their families
o HSAs are reformed to allow patients to use their health care dollars for more options
· Patients have the power of portability, protection and price transparency:
o Patients can move between health insurance plans without penalty each year
o Those with pre-existing conditions are protected
o Providers must publish a cash price for services reimbursed from HSAs, empowering patients to make informed decisions
I strongly believe in the outdoor heritage that makes South Dakota such an amazing place to live, work, and raise a family. Whether it’s earning a living off of the land, like so many of our hard-working farmers and ranchers, or enjoying a weekend pheasant hunt with friends and family, South Dakotans take seriously their responsibility to help protect the outdoors.
While certain protections are necessary to ensure these resources are available for future generations, there are limits to the federal government’s role. In some cases, the rules and regulations that come out of Washington, D.C., specifically the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), can often cause more harm than good in places like South Dakota.
Many of the Washington bureaucrats who write and implement these rules have never stepped foot in the states in which the rules will apply. Therein lies the problem: Rule-makers in Washington’s concrete jungle are forcing agriculture producers, homeowners, and small businesses across the country to comply with rules that will have devastating effects in rural America.
Take, for example, last week’s EPA announcement on the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which is one of the largest federal government power grabs over private land we’ve ever seen. The EPA’s broad new definition of U.S. waterways could classify a small ditch or creek on South Dakota farmland or housing subdivisions as a waterway, which under these new rules, could now be subject to federal permitting, compliance costs, and potentially significant penalties and fines. I am especially concerned about the EPA claiming jurisdiction in the Prairie Pothole Region throughout East River.
The EPA delivered a one-two punch to South Dakota farmers last week, when following its WOTUS announcement, it proposed new Renewable Fuels Standards (RFS) volume requirements for 2014-2016. Not only do the EPA’s proposed requirements fall short of the RFS volumes first prescribed by Congress, but they fail to provide the certainty needed to spur investment in our domestic biofuels industry.
I strongly oppose EPA’s overreach, and will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to do whatever is possible to block these heavy-handed regulations and help mitigate the damage they will inevitably cause to South Dakotans.
Protecting the 2nd Amendment
Senator Mike Rounds
June 5, 2015
As an avid hunter and lifelong gun owner, I have always been a strong defender of the Second Amendment. We cherish our right to bear arms in South Dakota, where we have a strong outdoor heritage and lively economy based on sportsmen activity. This fundamental right is embedded in the Constitution and must be fiercely protected. That’s why I’m greatly concerned about the Obama administration’s latest attempt to circumvent congress and impose sweeping new gun restrictions on the American people. It is an assault on the Second Amendment.
The Department of Justice recently announced plans to impose these new regulations on gun ownership through executive order in the coming months. These new regulations range from imposing new requirements for gun storage to allowing the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to impose new regulations on pistols. The heavy hand of government is once again attempting to penalize law abiding citizens. What this administration hasn’t figured out is that these proposals penalize the wrong people and ignore the Constitutional rights of citizens—an all too common theme under this president. This assault on the Second Amendment will do nothing to reduce criminal activity. South Dakota has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the country, and one of the lowest crime rates. In my opinion, that’s not a coincidence.
We all want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, but the administration’s proposals are too broad and threaten the rights of law-abiding gun owners across the nation. These new rules make it harder for ordinary citizens who pose no threat to society from exercising their second amendment rights. Any changes that effect these constitutional rights should be enacted legislatively. Regulations that aim to prevent serious offenders from obtaining a gun must not unfairly root out other prospective gun owners who are not a danger to society.
I’m also concerned about how broad and how far the ATF will go when finalizing these new gun restrictions. Based on the president’s previous track record of imposing intrusive regulations, I have little faith these new gun rules would be reasonable or well-received. The president knows he would not have the support of Congress if he tried to pass these new rules through legislation. He failed to convince Congress to enact new gun restrictions just two years ago and I am concerned that this is just a back-door attempt to allow unelected bureaucrats to change our gun laws. I’ve always believed that if a rule that will affect millions of Americans is a good one, it should be able to stand up to Congressional scrutiny.
I’m also concerned that President Obama’s new gun regulations could make it so onerous to purchase and own a gun that it deters law-abiding citizens from even having one. Too many of us know too well what can happen when too much government red tape stands in the way. In preventing gun violence, we must focus on the offenders, not the weapon.
Our right to bear arms is one of our most important rights as citizens. In South Dakota and across the nation, hunters, gun collectors and sportsmen alike take seriously their responsibilities of owning a gun. We must push back against President Obama’s anti-gun agenda to protect the Second Amendment. As a member of the United States Senate, I will continue to work to defend the right to bear arms and put a stop to the president’s overreaching gun policies.
Where the Billions Go
By Rep. Kristi Noem June 5, 2015
Month after month, nearly every American worker makes payments to the federal government. And year after year, our concerns increase about the lack of genuine accountability over how those hard-earned dollars are spent. I believe it’s reached a tipping point.
As an example, in FY2014, the Unemployment Insurance program made $5.6 billion worth of improper payments. That means about 12 percent of their overall payments went to the wrong recipient, were made out for the wrong dollar amount, were offered without proper documentation, or were given to a recipient who used those taxpayer funds improperly.
The same was true for the Supplemental Security Income program, which is intended to help give a hand up to disabled Americans who have limited income and resources. This program made $5.1 billion in improper payments in FY2014, totaling about 9.2 percent of the program’s overall expenditures. We can do better.
Earlier this month, I joined House Republicans in introducing a series of bills intended to strengthen the integrity of these programs.
I led on a bill, for instance, that aims to prevent wanted felons from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits. It’s almost unbelievable that this is a problem – that a felon can evade prosecution for months or years, but somehow still receive checks from the government every 30 days or so. It has to stop and my bill, the CUFF Act, helps accomplish that.
More specifically, the CUFF Act ensures anyone who is violating a condition of their probation or parole or running from a felony charge – in other words, a crime carrying a minimum term of one or more years of prison – will not be able to receive Social Security benefits. It’s that simple. If passed, the legislation would save hardworking taxpayers as much as $4.8 billion over the next decade, according to preliminary Congressional Budget Office estimates. To me, it seems like an obvious correction to make.
Another bill introduced – the PERP Act – states that you can’t receive unemployment benefits if you’re in prison. Technically, those in jail or prison aren’t supposed to be receiving benefits, but they do because of unclear legal language.
In Illinois, for instance, more than $2 million in unemployment benefits went to inmates, according to a 2012 report. In New Jersey, a 2013 audit showed 20,000 inmates were paid nearly $24 million in state and federal benefits. In Pennsylvania, more than 1,000 inmates were collecting about $334 every week, according to another 2013 report. The PERP Act would close the loopholes and ensure your money stays out of the hands of prisoners.
Without question, more must be done to respect your hard-earned tax dollars. Our confidence in the federal government’s ability to spend our money responsibly has been broken – and for good reason. The package of bills I helped introduce earlier this month would allow us to save billions of dollars, but we still have a lot more to do.
Rounds Cosponsors Legislation to Increase Veterans’ Benefits
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, today joined Chairman Johnny Isakson (R-Ga) and other senators in introducing legislation to increase veterans’ disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2015 (S.1493) would increase the rates of VA disability compensation, dependency compensation for surviving children and spouses, and the clothing allowance for veterans based on rising costs of living.
“Our nation’s veterans sacrifice everything to protect and defend our country,” said Rounds. “With costs rising on everything from groceries to healthcare, our vets and their families deserve to have their compensation and benefits adjusted accordingly.”
This cost-of-living adjustment, which is equal to the amount of the adjustment given to Social Security recipients, is determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index on a yearly basis. The cost-of-living adjustment for veterans would go into effect on December 1, 2015.
Other original cosponsors of the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2015 include the ranking Democrat on the Senate VA committee, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., John Boozman, R-Ark., Dean Heller, R-Nev., Bill Cassidy, R-La., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, Patty Murray, D-Wash., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, Jon Tester, D-Mont., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii and Joe Manchin, D-W.V.
Rounds Criticizes EPA Proposal to Radically Alter Ozone Standards
“EPA’s ozone plan could be the largest regulatory burden in history.”
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), today at a hearing questioned Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal that would dramatically alter ozone standards in the U.S.
“This hearing was especially important to understand the impacts of what could be the most costly regulation ever imposed on the American people,” said Rounds. “These regulations could force South Dakotans to pay to control ozone emissions that could have originated thousands of miles away overseas or are naturally occurring in our environment. It could impact the ability of businesses to expand and construction projects to continue, without achieving any tangible health benefits beyond the current standard. It’s not based in common sense.
“Once again, EPA proves why it’s necessary to pass my RESTORE resolution, which would bring much-needed congressional oversight to the sweeping, costly regulations being imposed by federal agencies. As a member of the Senate EPW Committee, I will continue efforts to prevent these dramatic, costly new ozone standards from taking effect.”
Under current law, the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ground-Level Ozone is to be reviewed every five years. The current standard is 75 parts per billion, set in 2008. Under EPA’s current proposal, the standard would be lowered to 65-70 parts per billion. These new standards could be the most expensive regulations in history, with projected costs of $1.7 trillion and 1.4 million in lost jobs. EPA is expected to issue a final ruling in October 2015.
Thune Introduces CASE Act at EPW Committee Hearing
“This bipartisan bill is a reasonable way forward to prioritize smog in the most polluted areas while not imposing undue costs on the American economy and workforce.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today at a hearing before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) introduced the Clean Air, Strong Economies (CASE) Act, a bipartisan bill that will balance economic growth and environmental progress by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to focus on the most polluted areas that are in non-attainment with its current smog standard before it can implement a lower one.
Thune’s statement (as prepared for delivery) is below, and video is available here or by clicking on the image above.
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Boxer, for giving me the opportunity to speak in front of the committee this morning and I want to thank all the members for giving me the chance to talk about a bill that I’ve introduced called the CASE Act.
“It’s a bipartisan bill–introduced with Senator Manchin, that would prevent the staggering blow that a lower ozone standard would deliver to the economy at a time when many of our industries are seeking to turn the corner.
“After an area is deemed in non-attainment with the smog standard, communities face stiff federal penalties, increased business costs, restrictions on infrastructure investment, and lost highway dollars.
“When businesses are restrained by regulatory overreach, they can’t expand, jobs are put at risk, and innovation is stifled.
“Areas in non-attainment, or even those in marginal attainment, will face steep challenges in promoting economic development or attracting new businesses.
“In fact, it was for these exact reasons—‘regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty’—that the Obama administration withdrew a similar proposal in 2011.
“The cost of a lower smog standard has hardly lessened, and the hit this could have on manufacturing and other economic sectors nationwide would be unprecedented.
“The bipartisan CASE Act strikes a balance between economic growth and environmental progress by requiring the EPA to first focus on the most polluted areas that are in non-attainment with the current standard before it can implement a lower one.
“We have made great progress in cleaning up our air, and pollution levels are at an all-time low.
“However, 40 percent of Americans live in the 227 counties that have not yet met the 75 ppb standard that was set in 2008.
“The CASE Act would require 85 percent of these counties to achieve compliance with the existing 75 ppb standard before the EPA can impose a stricter regulation like the one proposed in November.
“The EPA needs to focus its efforts on areas already struggling with attainment, where smog remains a consistent problem.
“We should first tackle smog where it is the worst, in places like Los Angeles, not go after regions like the Great Plains, where there clearly is not a smog problem.
“The EPA contends that a lower standard will benefit public health, yet most of these benefits will come from the reductions of other criteria pollutants, like particulate matter, which are already subject to their own regulations.
“Moreover, the EPA would be well-served to acknowledge that it has not yet sufficiently implemented the existing 2008 standard and prioritize its efforts to combat smog in the most polluted areas.
“The CASE Act would also require the EPA to consider the cost and feasibility of a lower standard, which it currently does not consider.
“At a standard of 65 ppb, approximately 75 percent of the projected costs are attributed to unknown controls, or technologies and emission reduction strategies that have yet to be developed.
“Hinging a regulation of this magnitude on unknown controls could hamper economic growth with staggering costs for years to come.
“I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before this committee and introduce the CASE Act today.
“I hope you will agree that this bipartisan bill is a reasonable way forward to prioritize smog in the most polluted areas while not imposing undue costs on the American economy and workforce.
“Mr. Chairman I appreciate the opportunity to present this legislation and I encourage its consideration.
Delegation Urges USDA to Take Responsibility for Pautre Fire
Twenty-Six Months Have Elapsed Since Out-of-Control Fire Consumed 10,000 Acres of Land
WASHINGTON, D.C.– U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) today urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS), and Office of General Counsel (OGC) to finally take responsibility for the Pautre fire that beginning on April 3, 2013, consumed standing grass on more than 10,000 acres of public and private pasture land, and damaged and destroyed fences, bales of forage, buildings, and trees.
“We strongly urge you to recognize and quickly take responsibility for the negligence that resulted in this out-of-control fire and ensuing damages, and that you timely resolve and approve all reasonable claims,” the delegation wrote. “Twenty-six months is ample time for USDA, FS, and OGC to investigate and make necessary determinations.”
Full text of the letter can be found below:
Secretary Tom Vilsack
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave., SW
Washington, D.C. 20250
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
On April 3, 2013, the U.S. Forest Service (FS) conducted a prescribed burn located southeast of Hettinger, North Dakota on the Grand River Ranger District of the Dakota Prairie Grassland. This prescribed burn was intended to cover 130 acres of dead crested wheatgrass; however, due to the unsafe hot, dry, and windy conditions present at the time of ignition the fire (known as the Pautre Fire) quickly escalated out of control and consumed more than 10,000 acres of FS land, grazing association controlled land, and private land.
Along with the grass and rangeland destroyed, fences, bales of forage, buildings, and trees were also damaged and destroyed by this fire; and cattle confined to the smoke created by this fire suffered respiratory damage.
As you are aware the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) provides claimants two years from the date of an incident to submit claims against the government. The FTCA generally holds the federal government liable when federal employees commit acts of negligence in the course of their employment.
Twenty-six months have elapsed since date of the Pautre Fire, yet to our knowledge no action has been taken by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), FS, or Office of General Counsel (OGC) to accept liability and process claims.
We strongly urge you to recognize and quickly take responsibility for the negligence that resulted in this out-of-control fire and ensuing damages, and that you timely resolve and approve all reasonable claims. Twenty-six months is ample time for USDA, FS, and OGC to investigate and make necessary determinations.
Rounds Delivers Maiden Speech on Senate Floor “It’s time to end regulation without representation.”
WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D., today delivered his maiden speech on the Senate floor to discuss the bipartisan RESTORE Resolution, which seeks to free Americans from overregulation. RESTORE would establish a Joint Select Committee to conduct a comprehensive review of rules enacted by federal agencies and analyze the feasibility and options for creating a rules review process in congress. Details are available HERE.
Full Video of Rounds’ Floor Speech:
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery:
Madam President, I rise today, for the first time speaking in this chamber, to discuss the future of our great nation.
How truly fortunate we are to live in the greatest country in the world.
We are protected by the best military that has ever existed, and that in turn allows us to live freely here at home to focus on our God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In my home state of South Dakota, we cherish these rights.
We have the opportunity to make our dreams come true because we have these rights, and because we have a common-sense value system to guide us.
When I was elected, I promised to bring South Dakota common sense to Washington and to work to solve problems for the good of every South Dakotan and every American.
But, unfortunately Madam President, when I travel back home, I continue to hear from my fellow South Dakotans about the federal government infringing on these rights and values.
You see, our great nation has been bogged down in recent years with what I believe is one of the greatest hindrances to job growth and economic productivity.
And that is the overregulation of our citizens.
Madam President, overregulation is not a Democrat or Republican issue; it’s an issue that affects every one of us.
But I believe it’s a challenge that we can solve through cooperation and perseverance.
It doesn’t matter if you’re talking about a doctor, a small business owner, a farmer or a rancher; overregulation has affected every sector of our society.
The regulatory burden on this country is nearly two trillion dollars annually, and this is in addition to the tax burden already placed on Americans.
That regulatory burden is larger than Canada’s entire economy.
In fact, this cost to comply with federal regulations is larger than the entire G-D-P of all but only 8 other countries in the world.
Even more staggering, just a few years ago, we surpassed 1 million federal regulations in America. One million.
Regulations are stifling economic growth and innovation and hurting the future of this country by crushing the can-do American spirit that founded our nation, settled the West, won two world wars and put a man on the moon.
And every year, more than 3,500 new federal regulations are added.
This just doesn’t make sense and it’s certainly not South Dakota common sense
What alarms me is not only the volume of regulations being thrust upon our citizens, but also the process for creating them.
The purpose of Congress is to be the voice of the people when making laws.
Unfortunately, the voice of the people in the rulemaking process has been cut out, and replaced by unelected government bureaucrats who think they know better than the farmer or scientist or the entrepreneur.
Our founders recognized the need for making laws, granting the power to create laws to Congress; and only Congress.
They meant that process to be difficult so that our government wouldn’t overburden its citizens and restrict their freedom; freedom they had just fought so hard to obtain.
Through Congress, every citizen should have a voice.
But, unfortunately, Madam President, that is not what is happening today.
Our founding fathers created 3 branches of government with checks and balances for each.
They could never have imagined that we would have a regulatory process in place today where unelected bureaucrats would both write and have the final approval of the rules and regulations under which the people must live.
This regulatory regime – which is responsible for the 3,500 new rules each year – has essentially become a fourth branch of government and a de-facto legislative body.
The problem is exacerbated by the fact that these bureaucrats in Washington have this misperception that they know how to run our lives better than we do.
While working as a business owner, a state legislator, as a governor and now a United States Senator, I’ve seen just how detrimental this “Washington knows best” mentality is on the daily lives of South Dakotans and Americans.
Many of my friends – on both sides of the aisle – have come to the Senate floor in recent weeks and months with some great ideas and legislation to limit, stop, repeal or remove some of the worst regulations currently on the books.
I applaud them for these efforts, many of which I also support.
And I look forward to working with the Senior Senator from South Dakota, my friend Senator John Thune, as well as anyone who is willing to work with me to remove these burdens that are stunting American greatness and bring a little South Dakota common sense back to our regulatory environment.
The regulatory system has run amuck.
Too often, Madam President, burdensome, costly and intrusive regulations are crafted by bureaucrats at the highest level of government, behind closed doors, with little input from everyday Americans who disproportionately feel the effects of these one-size fits-all policies.
It is regulation without representation, and it is wrong.
The American people are being squeezed out, their voice falling on deaf ears in Washington.
Small businesses, which drive our economy and create the majority of jobs in America, are especially hurt by overregulation because they, too, have to hire lawyers and employees to comply with these rules.
This takes away capitol that could be used to hire new production employees and expand their business.
People in my home state of South Dakota feel victimized by their own federal government.
It is keeping crops from getting to market, and it’s keeping our businesses from growing.
The idea that unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats should be allowed to make sweeping rules and regulations with no recourse should be a concern to every American, regardless of political affiliation….because it impacts everyone.
No party has a lock on the American dream and American innovation doesn’t have a party affiliation.
From the stack of paperwork required to process a bank loan to the regulatory price of putting food on the table, the cost of federal regulations are ultimately passed down to each and every American.
Without excessive regulation, imagine how much more money American families could have in their pockets to spend on what they want, instead of what the government wants.
If we cut our red tape, families can stop having to cut their budgets.
The regulatory regime is a dark cloud over our entire economy.
Now, I’m not saying there isn’t a place for rules in our society.
Rules are meant to keep us safe and promote the greater good.
And, I do believe there are some good rules and regulations on the books.
The problem I have is with the bad rules that keep good people from going about their lives.
Unfortunately, there are too many of these bad rules that are hindering our freedoms and stifling growth.
These are the regulations that we must reexamine.
So today, Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss legislation to permanently end regulation without representation.
It takes a giant leap forward in restoring the people’s role in the rulemaking process, and provides a way to reexamine the bad ones.
After all if the American people don’t like the laws we make, they can vote us out.
But they have no such power with unelected bureaucrats. They’re stuck!
You see, Madam President, the legislation I am introducing today would create a Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform whose purpose includes reviewing regulations currently on the books and proposing a new rules review process that includes the elected representatives of the American people.
It’s rooted in South Dakota common-sense and the principles that have made this country great—making government work for Americans rather than against them.
This committee would then make several recommendations to congress to rebalance this broken regulatory scheme:
First, the committee would be tasked with exploring options for Congress to review regulations written by agencies before they are enacted, providing much-needed oversight through the possibility of a Permanent Joint Rules Review Committee, which would be tasked with reviewing rules with a cost of $50 million dollars or more. This Permanent Joint Rules Review Committee would have the ability to delay the imposition of these rules for not more than one year from the time the agency submits the rule for review to enable Congress to act on that rule.
Second, the Committee would examine an option for agencies to submit each regulation with a $50 million dollar impact or more to the appropriate committees of Congress for review – before the rule is enacted.
And finally, the Joint Select Committee could recommend ways to reduce the financial burden regulations place on the economy as well as sunsetting onerous and outdated ones.
This Joint Select Committee would not be a permanent one – but it would be bipartisan, bicameral and hold meaningful hearings so that a permanent solution to our overregulation problem can be properly addressed.
This legislation also offers a starting point for the committee by requiring certain possible solutions to our regulatory problem to be considered.
I firmly believe that regulations should be reviewed by elected officials – those who are accountable to the American people through the democratic process.
This is not a new concept; it is a common practice at the state level.
41 of the 50 states, including my home state of South Dakota, have a rules review process to make sure the executive branch is faithfully executing the laws they seek to implement.
It is worth repeating that regulations are estimated to cost $1.88 trillion annually in the United States – above and beyond the tax burden our citizens already share.
That amounts to just under $5 billion dollars every single day. And it just doesn’t make sense.
It is unfair to those who still believe in – and are working to achieve the American Dream.
Whether Americans are seeking to buy a car, take out a mortgage on a house, start a business or see the doctor to make sure they are in good health, regulations obstruct them.
When I think of those who sacrificed everything so that our children and grandchildren could create their own version of the American Dream, I think about the freedoms and liberties they fought so bravely for.
They fought so we could pursue life, liberty and happiness and trust that our government would not hinder these lifelong endeavors.
It is not Washington that will continue to make this country great, but rather the collective spirit of individual Americans, who want to work hard to be successful for their families and their communities.
But they need the heavy hand of government to be lifted.
Here in Washington, it is not our job to dictate how Americans run their lives, but to allow them to achieve their dreams, not make them nightmares.
The term “Washington is broken” is a far-too-common term used to describe the current state of our federal government.
“Washington” is now used in a derogatory manner.
This city – the capitol of our nation – named after our very first Commander in Chief who led us to victory in the Revolutionary War and birthed this great nation – has become over time, a 4-letter word.
Remember, George Washington left the presidency voluntarily after two terms in office.
He wanted to get away from the monarch-style of government in which rulers held their positions for life.
And now, this city that bears his name is full of lifelong bureaucrats. Even worse, they are unaccountable to the people.
It is a far cry from the republic our founders envisioned.
Madam President, in 2026 our country will celebrate its 250th birthday. That is just over a decade away.
When we get to that point, I hope to join my fellow Americans in looking back with great pride in all we have accomplished, and all we have to pass on to future generations.
President Kennedy challenged our nation to put a man on the moon before the decade of the 60’s had passed.
We should commit ourselves to removing the barrier of government regulations that is weighing on that American spirit and again set free the American economy before the decade preceding our 250th birthday.
I’m not just introducing legislation to start a new committee that exists in name and does no deed. Americans want us and expect us to be up to this challenge, and we can. We can lift the heavy hand of government.
The founding fathers didn’t anticipate thousands of regulators and a million regulations when they created this country.
It’s time to end regulation without representation and restore the lawmaking process to the people.
I encourage my colleagues to sign onto this commonsense approach to addressing the issue of overregulation, so we can work to make this country even greater and safer than we found it.
Then, during our 250th birthday celebration, we can be proud that we RESTORED a little South Dakota and American common sense to our children and their children.
WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) joined his colleagues in introducing the Patient Freedom Act, a conservative response to protect millions of Americans who are at risk of losing their health care coverage following the Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell. The Patient Freedom Act, introduced by Sen. Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), lowers costs, eliminates mandates, gives states the power and puts patients in control of their health care.
I strongly believe in the outdoor heritage that makes South Dakota such an amazing place to live, work, and raise a family. Whether it’s earning a living off of the land, like so many of our hard-working farmers and ranchers, or enjoying a weekend pheasant hunt with friends and family, South Dakotans take seriously their responsibility to help protect the outdoors.
Month after month, nearly every American worker makes payments to the federal government. And year after year, our concerns increase about the lack of genuine accountability over how those hard-earned dollars are spent. I believe it’s reached a tipping point.