John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I recognize Kylee Kettering, an intern in my Washington, DC office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Kylee is a graduate of Mobridge High School in Mobridge, SD. Currently, Kylee is attending Augustana College, where she is majoring in government and communications. Kylee is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kylee Kettering for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize John Klumpp, an intern in my Sioux Falls, SD, office for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. John is a graduate of Brandon Valley High School in Brandon, SD. Currently, he is attending Iowa State University and majoring in finance. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to John for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to recognize Ruth Latterell, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD office for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the state of South Dakota over the past several months. Ruth is a native of Aberdeen and a graduate of Aberdeen Christian School. Currently, she is attending South Dakota State University, where she is pursuing a degree in human development and family sciences. She is a very hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Ruth for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to end on what my colleagues, the Senator from Kentucky and the leader, Senator McConnell, say. Senator Graham, Senator Ayotte, and I appreciate Senator McConnell's leadership in making very clear what is at stake here, pushing hard to make sure that the Senate is doing its job in support of Israel, making sure they are able to defend themselves and the funding for the Iron Dome which has been so effective as a defense mechanism against these rocket attacks is done in a way that allows them to continue to use it in that capability. As you look at the situation in Gaza, I want to start by taking a step back and looking at this conflict in both the historic and regional context. In Israel we have the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. Israel is a nation that emphasizes human rights and tolerance. Its population includes religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity. In Jerusalem you can hear the Muslim call to prayer, the bells from Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, and the prayers of the Jews at the Wailing Wall all at the same time. There is no other place like this on Earth. This democracy, however, is situated in a region of intense brutality and extremism. Historically that has meant seemingly endless conflicts with Israel's neighbors, intentionally targeting civilians in order to maximize casualties. One need only look across the border into Syria to get a glimpse of this brutality. When Syrians made the first attempt at striving for democracy, the Assad regime began systematically slaughtering opponents, including gassing civilians with chemical weapons. As that violence spread into Iraq, radical terrorist organizations such as ISIS began killing not only Shia opponents but also other Sunni clerics who would not swear allegiance to ISIS. Communities with ancient traditions such as the Christians in Mosul, who just 10 years ago numbered 60,000, have been forced to flee for their lives. Mosul has been completely emptied of Christians for the first time in 1600 years. It is in this context the people of Israel have built their nation. It is in this context that we now view the conflict in Gaza. The current conflict in Gaza is one that Israel did not start. It started with Hamas firing over 2300 rockets from Gaza into Israel, specifically targeting civilian populated areas to maximize potential casualties. In response, Israel has conducted a methodical and enforceable response, as you would expect any nation to do. First Israel locates the source of the rocket. Then an attempt is made to call the residents by phone to tell them to evacuate. In many cases a flare is sent onto the roof as a warning that the location is about to be hit, before that location is ultimately destroyed. In a region where neighboring leaders indiscriminately drop barrel bombs on residential areas for the sole purpose of slaughtering civilians, Israel goes out of its way to save lives. These are not just civilian lives Israel is saving, because they know that by their efforts they are giving the aggressors a chance to escape as well. After Hamas continued to launch rockets into Israel, even when Israel agreed on multiple occasions to cease fire, tunnels were used to insert combatants near Israeli settlements. Israel responded with a ground assault to destroy the tunnels and eliminate Hamas's stockpiles of weapons. As the attacks and rocket launches continue, it is understandable that Israel would want to seek out and destroy stockpiles of weapons to keep the cycle from being repeated a few months from now. Like all of my colleagues on the floor today, I want to see peace in the Middle East. Specifically I want to see peace in the Gaza and West Bank. I want to see peace in such a way that the Palestinian people can live with the prospect of a better life. But as we have seen, peace is not possible when a terrorist organization continues to pursue its cause of annihilating Israel. Peace cannot be achieved while Hamas rejects cease-fire agreements and continues to fire rockets. As violent as the current conflict in the Gaza strip is, it would be far worse--it would be far worse--if Israel did not have the Iron Dome. In any conflict, civilian casualties are a tragedy and if Israel did not have the sophisticated, purely defensive weapons system that allows it to shoot these rockets out of the sky, the number of civilian casualties would be far greater. Hamas does not drop leaflets telling civilians to evacuate. Hamas does not send flares to warn residents to get out of harm's way. If not for Israel's Iron Dome, civilian casualties in Israel would be staggering. The United States must continue to support Israel by ensuring that Iron Dome missile defense systems remain an effective deterrent to even greater civilian casualties. For as long as Israeli men, women, and children need to run to bomb shelters ahead of Hamas rocket attacks we must support Israel's ability to defend itself. The United Nations Council on Human Rights and other countries around the world continue to do things that are consistently at odds with the facts and with reality. Here in the United States we need to do as my colleague from South Carolina said, the right thing and the smart thing, and in this case, the right thing and the smart thing are one and the same. So I hope my colleagues in the Senate will make a priority providing the necessary funding for Iron Dome and in standing united--united--behind our ally and our friend Israel as they defend themselves from these attacks. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Texas is on the floor, and I would simply ask him what role he sees the United States playing in both supporting Israel and providing support for the Iron Dome.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the legislation pending before the Senate, the so-called Bring Jobs Home Act. I oppose this bill because it is a political stunt designed as an election-year campaign ploy that will have no meaningful impact on job creation or on economic growth. In fact, this bill is a carbon copy of a bill the Senate rejected 2 years ago when it was offered by another Democratic Senator who just happened to also be up for reelection. Simply put, if there is a Democratic bill on the Senate floor supposedly about outsourcing, you can rest assured it must be election season. The bill before us purports to deal with the problem of companies relocating jobs from the United States to foreign countries by denying the deduction associated with doing so. This must be the tax benefit for shipping jobs overseas that we heard so much about from the Obama campaign in 2008 and again in 2012. There is only one problem with repealing this special tax break for companies that ship jobs overseas. It does not exist. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, ``Under present law, there are no targeted tax credits or disallowances of deductions related to relocating business units inside or outside the United States.'' That is from the Joint Committee on Taxation. This statement is not surprising, given that numerous independent fact checkers disputed the repeated claims in 2008 that companies were receiving tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. These fact checkers called that statement ``false'' and ``misleading.'' But I guess the facts do not matter when it is an election year. What this bill will do is insert yet more complexity and uncertainty into our Tax Code. The reality is the United States economy is a $17 trillion enterprise, with businesses all across this country constantly closing old operations and opening new ones. If this bill becomes law, companies that might want to close an old factory or open a new one would now have to worry if they will have to pay a tax penalty, even if their decisions are totally unrelated to any business decisions they might make outside of the United States. The legislation also includes a new tax credit for companies that eliminate a business operation in a foreign country and move that operation to the United States. Well, that sounds like a good idea. But consider how this would tilt the playing field against companies here in America that have not opened operations overseas. A purely domestic company that opens a new factory in my State of South Dakota will not get a Federal tax credit for doing so, but a global company with jobs overseas will get a generous credit under this bill. Consider what a coalition of leading business organizations made up of the Business Roundtable, the Information Technology Industry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce had to say recently in a letter regarding the legislation that is pending before us. Many of the major business organizations in this country said: While intended to promote U.S. job creation, the legislation actually would have the unintended consequence of making it even more difficult for American worldwide companies to compete at home and in world markets, thereby placing at risk jobs of American workers. This is a letter from some of the major business organizations in this country. If we want greater economic growth and more jobs, we need a Tax Code that creates a level playing field, not one that picks winners and losers based on the preferences of Members of Congress. Even if we were to assume that a new tax credit for insourcing would be a good thing, the official estimate of the bill from the Joint Committee on Taxation tells us that this particular tax credit will have essentially no impact on our economy. According to this new estimate, the new insourcing credit will provide a tax credit to U.S. companies of $35 million a year. That is $35 million out of a $17 trillion economy or, put another way, this credit will equal .000002 percent of annual U.S. economic activity. Yes, that is a decimal point followed by five zeroes. This bill isn't a drop in the budget; it is more like a drop in the Pacific Ocean. Yet despite the fact this legislation won't help our economy or create jobs or make America more competitive in the global economy, I voted with most of my colleagues to move forward with this debate because I believe we need to have a robust debate about those measures that will energize our economy. As such, I filed a number of amendments that would have a meaningful, positive impact on our economy--unlike, I might add, the underlying bill. For example, I filed an amendment to make the small business expensing limits, which expired at the end of last year, permanent, something that I hear about consistently from farmers, ranchers, and small businesses in my State of South Dakota. These limits allow small businesses, farmers, and ranchers to deduct up to $500,000 per year in expenses, making it easier for these businesses to grow and to hire new workers. I filed an amendment to make the R&D tax credit permanent. This amendment would also strengthen the credit by raising the credit rate from 14 percent to 20 percent, thus making this credit more competitive with the research incentives offered by many European and Asian nations. I have also filed an amendment to improve the tax treatment of S corporations if they convert into a C corporation, thus making this popular form of business operation more easily accessible. This amendment would also make it easier for S corporations to give appreciated property to charity. I filed an amendment to make permanent the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects most Internet users in America from taxes on their Internet access. This law was first enacted in 1998. For more than 15 years it has helped our economy grow, and it has helped the digital economy flourish by keeping State and local taxes off of Internet access, regardless of consumers' access to the Internet via their home computers or by handheld device. Unfortunately, this law is scheduled to expire in just over 3 months on November 1 if we don't take action to prevent that. Some may claim that my amendments are partisan amendments--that these tax relief measures are simply Republican priorities that can't muster support on the Democrat side of the aisle. The problem with this claim is that all the measures I have just mentioned have found Democratic support already--significant Democratic support. Consider the R&D amendment I just mentioned. It is identical to the bill that passed the House of Representatives with 274 votes in favor, including 62 House Democrats. That is right, roughly one-third of House Democrats have already voted for this exact amendment. The same is true for the small business expensing amendment I mentioned. An identical measure passed the House in June with 272 votes, including 53 House Democrats. Consider the S corporation improvements, which were passed by the House with 263 votes, including 42 House Democrats voting yes. Consider my amendment to make the Internet tax moratorium permanent. My bill, with Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, to make this law permanent has 52 Senate supporters. In fact, this bill has so much support that an identical bill in the House, just last week, passed by a voice vote. This measure, supported by a majority of Senators, sponsored by the Democratic chairman of the Finance Committee, and approved by the House of Representatives by a voice vote isn't even scheduled for a vote in the Senate. What a shame. Consider the medical device tax repeal, which is supported by 79 Senators, including 34 Democratic Senators. Unlike the minuscule economic impact of the bill pending on the Senate floor before us now, repealing the medical device tax would remove an ObamaCare tax increase totaling $24 billion over 10 years on some of the most innovative companies in America. According to a survey by the trade association AdvaMed, the medical device tax is estimated to destroy as many as 165,000 American jobs. So let's be clear. It is not that there aren't reasonable measures to boost our economy that we could be considering. All of the measures I have mentioned have broad bipartisan support. The problem is simply that the Democratic majority refuses to allow their consideration. The Senate majority would prefer we spend our time on inconsequential election-year gimmicks rather than any of the job-creating measures I have just mentioned. In fact, Senate Democrats have chosen to block nearly all Republican amendments rather than risk having to take difficult votes. Consider that the Senate has had rollcall votes on only 12 Republican amendments since last July. House Democrats--the minority in the House of Representatives--in contrast have had 189 amendments voted on during that same period of time. Put another way, House Democrats have been allowed, on average, more than one vote for each legislative day the House has been in session over the past year. In the Senate, Senate Republicans have been allowed just one vote per month. Let me repeat that. The minority in the House is being allowed one vote per legislative day. The minority in the Senate is being allowed one vote per month. The Senate used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative body. That description now sounds like a cruel joke, considering how few amendments we have been allowed to consider. The other measure our economy desperately needs is comprehensive tax reform. If we really care about making America a more attractive place to do business so as to lure new business investment jobs, we need to have a much simpler Tax Code with tax rates that are competitive with our global competitors. Let's consider the facts. When President Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 into law, the United States had a corporate tax rate that was more than 5 percentage points below our major economic competitors. The U.S. corporate tax rate has basically stayed the same since 1986. Yet today our tax rate is the highest in the developed world and is more than 14 percentage points higher than the average of developed economies. Why? Look at what has happened. Unlike the United States, other nations decided they needed to lower their tax rates to spur economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, today we are reaping the negative consequences of inaction as we see more and more investment and economic activities moving to those nations that have created a more favorable business environment. If we want to keep the best, highest-paying jobs at home, we don't need new tax credits targeted at a narrow set of companies. We need a complete overhaul of our tax system with new, competitive tax rates and a modernized system for taxing the global revenues of American companies. Yes, it is going to be a difficult lift, but it is far from impossible. Consider the United Kingdom, which as recently as 2010 had a 28 percent tax rate and an outdated system for taxing global income. The UK enacted tax reform that will result in a 20-percent tax rate by next year and has already resulted in a modernized system for taxing the income earned by global U.K. companies. Over the past 5 years, Japan--another major economic competitor of the United States--has done something similar. Japan cut its corporate tax rate by 5 percentage points and has moved to a more competitive system for taxing global income. If the UK, Japan, and other nations can modernize their Tax Code for competition in the 21st century global marketplace, certainly we in the United States can do it as well. In closing, I hope the Senate Democrats will change course and allow for an open and robust amendment process to allow a wide variety of job-creating measures to be considered. Our economy, still mired in the sluggish Obama economy, could certainly use it. But, if not, I look forward to a future Congress where the Senate can get back to real debate and real solutions. I hope that once the campaigning is done, once the election-year slogans have been retired, we can get back to real, substantive legislating. American families and workers deserve permanent tax and regulatory relief. They deserve a better economy than they have today, and they deserve a Senate that once again functions as the world's greatest deliberative body and puts their interests first, and their futures, their quality of life, and their standard of living where they should be. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, here we are--another day in the Senate-- facing another political gimmick. That is the way things seem to work in the Democratic Senate, and that is what is happening again this week. Yesterday Democrats introduced their latest designed-to-fail bill, the Bring Jobs Home Act. It is a bill they know is not going to pass. The reason I say the bill is designed to fail is because it has already failed. It has been voted on here before in the previous Congress, but that is not stopping the Democrats. The Bring Jobs Home Act would supposedly encourage American companies to bring jobs back home to the United States and to discourage companies from sending jobs overseas. But the bill completely ignores the real problem and the reason American companies are sending jobs overseas: America's broken Tax Code and our sky-high tax rate on business. America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world and many companies simply can't afford to pay it and stay profitable. If Democrats were truly serious about solving the problem of American jobs going overseas, they would be sitting down with Republicans to hammer out reform of our Tax Code. We should be substantially lowering overall tax rates to allow American businesses to keep jobs here at home while remaining competitive in the global marketplace. Instead of serious reform, however, Democrats have chosen to take up a bill that would do nothing to address the real problem we are dealing with. Democrats are not bringing up this bill in the hopes of actually fixing problems. They are bringing it up in hopes of winning a few votes in the November election. This is not a secret. When Democrats first brought this bill up 2 years ago ahead of the 2012 election, Reuters described it as an example of Members of Congress ``offering up measures they know will not pass but can be used to fire up their respective supporters in the run-up to November's elections.'' That was from 2 years ago, the last time this was brought up. That has been the Democrats' preferred method of operating in the Senate. Back in March the New York Times reported that Democrats planned to spend the spring and summer on messaging votes ``timed to coincide with campaign-style trips by President Obama.'' Again, that is from the New York Times earlier this year. The ``Democrats concede,'' the Times continued, ``that making new laws is not really the point.'' ``Rather, they are trying to force Republicans to vote against them.'' That is also a quote which was in the New York Times story a few months ago. Making new laws is not really the point. What we are talking about here is not fixing problems; it is just creating political opportunities. So 5\1/2\ years of Democratic policies have left American families hurting. Unemployment, which the President's advisers predicted would fall below 6 percent in 2012, is still above 6 percent 2 years later. Almost 10 million Americans are unemployed, and 3.1 million have been unemployed for 6 months or longer. Those numbers would be even worse if so many Americans had not given up on finding work and dropped out of the labor force all together. Our current labor force participation rate is at lows we have not seen since the 1970s during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter. In fact, if the labor participation rate were today what it was when the President took office, the unemployment rate would not be a little over 6 percent, it would be 10.2 percent. That is how many people have entirely quit looking for work. Household income has plummeted by more than $3,300 on the President's watch. At the same time, prices have risen. Food prices have increased. The price of gas has nearly doubled, college costs continue to soar, and family health insurance premiums have skyrocketed by almost $3,000, despite the President's promise they would fall. And what do you get when you combine high prices, fewer opportunities for employment and advancement and reduced income? You get a lot of struggling middle- class families. Instead of spending this year taking up serious legislation to help those families, Democrats--by their own admission--have spent this year on political show votes they hope will win them a few votes in the November election. Last week the Congressional Budget Office issued its yearly long-term budget outlet. The news on that front was grim. The Congressional Budget Office recorded that as early as 2039, under its baseline scenario, the Nation could see public debt reach 106 percent of GDP, which would be a level of debt seen only once before in our Nation's history. By 2039, under an alternative fiscal scenario, the debt-to-GDP ratio could rise to more than 180 percent of GDP. By comparison, Greece's current debt-to-GDP ratio is 175 percent. In other words, our economy could go the way of Greece's in just a few short years if nothing is done. We have to take up significant budget reform and reduce the size of government. We need to look for ways we can make government work more effectively and more efficiently by reforming programs that need to be reformed. Chipping away around the edges is not going to get the job done. It is not going to cut it. Even before the President came into office, our national debt presented a serious and pressing problem. But over the last 5\1/2\ years of the current administration, the problem has gotten exponentially worse. If you look at our total debt--which includes the public and intergovernmental debt--when President Obama came into office, our national debt was $10.6 trillion. Today, just 5\1/2\ years later, our national total debt stands at $17.6 trillion. That is a 66- percent increase on the President's watch. That is horrifying. Yet President Obama and his party continue to act as if our country is not hurdling toward a fiscal crisis. Among the President's many fiscally irresponsible policies, ObamaCare stands out as one of the worst offenders. Former Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin has estimated that the President's health care law will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars in its first 10 years alone and by more than $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Politico reports that the Congressional Budget Office attributes the coming growth of the debt to--among other things--``rising health care costs'' and ``the expansion of subsidies offered through ObamaCare.'' So much for the President's claim that the health care law would be ``the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.'' But that is par for the course for the Affordable Care Act. The President also promised that the law would reduce Americans' health insurance premiums by $2,500. Instead, as I mentioned, they have already risen by almost $3,000, and they are still going up. I have a few headlines from this past week that I will read into the Record. Yesterday's Kaiser Health News reported: ``Florida's Biggest Health Insurer Signals Rate Hikes Ahead.'' The Nebraska Radio Network had an expert who said: ``Nebraskans' premiums may bounce 30 percent under ObamaCare.'' Last Wednesday, the Nashville Business Journal reported, ``Here come higher premiums: Tennessee's insurance providers request rate increases.'' Last Tuesday, the Associated Press reported: ``Delawareans Could Face Higher Rates Under ACA.'' The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported: ``Some insurance carriers looking for double-digit increases for Affordable Care Act policies.'' Those are just a few of the most recent headlines from newspapers around this country last week. I could go on about the health care law's broken promises. I could also talk about the fact that the President promised that Americans would be able to keep their doctors and hospitals, but Americans are now finding the new health plans exclude doctors and hospitals they have literally been using for years or the fact that the health care bill was supposed to give more Americans access to health care but that many Americans are struggling to find doctors who will take their ObamaCare insurance. One doctor reporting on her patient's experience with the ObamaCare plan said: ``We are running into problems with coverage in the same way we were when they were uninsured.'' Let me repeat that. This is from a doctor talking about one of her patient's experiences with the ObamaCare plan: ``We are running into problems with coverage in the same way we were when they were uninsured.'' If that doesn't sum up the law's failure, I don't know what does. Then there was the President's promise that shopping for health care on the exchange would be like buying a TV on Amazon or a plane ticket on Kayak. As Americans quickly found out or are still finding out almost 10 months later, shopping on the exchanges is a lot more like the world's most nightmarish experience with the DMV. ObamaCare is failing Americans, and so is the Obama economy. Instead of focusing on making things better, Democrats are focused on trying to get reelected in November. Republicans have solutions to the challenges facing the American people--solutions such as approving the Keystone Pipeline and the tens of thousands of jobs it would support; repealing the ObamaCare 30-hour workweek provision, which is slashing employees' hours and wages; stopping the job-killing national energy tax which will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and drive up Americans' energy bills; enacting trade promotion authority to open new markets to American farmers, workers, and businesses; repealing the medical device tax which is costing American jobs and increasing the cost of health care; and passing real health care reform--the kind that will lower costs, increase choice, and put Americans back in charge of their health care. If Democrats were serious about helping American families, they would be working with us on these priorities instead of tying up the Senate with partisan legislation, and they would be taking up the 40 House- passed jobs bills currently gathering dust on the majority leader's desk. Every day the Senate spends on designed-to-fail bills, designed-to- fail legislation--bills we know aren't going anywhere--is a day the Senate is not spending on bills to provide real relief to the American people. It is high time for Democrats to stop wasting time on partisan legislation and start working with Republicans on real reform. Middle- class, middle-income families around this country have been squeezed for long enough. The American people have been waiting long enough. There are 40 House-passed jobs bills waiting for action here in the Senate. Instead, we are spending week after week of the Senate's time voting on bills designed to fail and designed to do nothing more than score political points heading into an election. That is wrong on so many levels. Most of all, it is wrong for the American people, and it has to change. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the Congressional Research Service, CRS. The CRS is celebrating its centennial this week. Established as the Legislative Reference Service in 1914, the CRS has been assisting Members of Congress in their legislative work by providing reference information and nonpartisan policy analysis for 100 years. I wish to thank the diligent and professional staff of the CRS that provide an invaluable service to Congress.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes and that it not be counted against the majority's time.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week the President was in Denver, CO, where he talked about the economy. He said this: ``By almost every measure, we are better off than when I took office.'' That is quite a statement. ``By almost every measure we are better off than when I took office.'' I know a lot of Americans struggling with high health care bills who might disagree with that because the truth is that very few Americans are better off than they were 5\1/2\ years ago. Household income has plummeted by more than $3,300 since the President took office. Meanwhile, the price of everything, from milk to the refrigerator to store it in, has risen. Gas prices have nearly doubled since the President took office. College costs have soared. Of course, family health insurance premiums have increased by nearly $3,000 per family. Combine reduced income with higher prices and you get a reduced living standard. Under the Obama Presidency, families who were once comfortably in the middle class are now struggling to make ends meet. Other Americans have dropped out of the middle class altogether. There are 3.7 million more women in poverty today than there were when the President took office. Mr. President, you want to talk about the war on women? When the President took office, 33 million Americans were on food stamps. Today more than 46 million Americans receive food stamps. Americans struggling financially have had few opportunities to get ahead because the Obama economy has offered very little in the way of opportunity. The President likes to talk about the jobs the economy has gained recently. But what he does not say is that 5 years after the recession officially ended, our economy is still posting recession-type levels of unemployment. Back in 2009 the President's economic advisers confidently predicted that unemployment would fall below 6 percent in 2012. Well, here we are 2 years later. We are still not below 6 percent unemployment even after a historic expansion of monetary policy and the largest fiscal stimulus since World War II. The only reason the unemployment rate is not higher is because so many Americans have given up looking for a job entirely and dropped out of the workforce. The labor force participation rate currently stands at 62.8 percent--near a 36-year low. To put it another way, if the labor participation rate today were what it was when the President took office, unemployment would not be a little over 6 percent, it would be 10.2 percent. That is how many people have completely dropped out of the labor force and are no longer even looking for a job. Then there are the millions of Americans who are working part time because they cannot find a full-time job. The Labor Department reported that the economy lost more than half a million full-time jobs in June and gained almost 800,000 part-time jobs. That is not a good statistic. It is the rare part-time job that pays all the bills and gives financial stability. Americans need more full-time jobs, not more part- time jobs. They also need the opportunity for higher paying jobs, but that is another opportunity which is in short supply in the Obama economy. Forty-one percent of the jobs lost during the recession were high-wage jobs, but just 30 percent of the jobs recovered have been high-wage jobs. Similarly, 37 percent of the jobs lost in the recession were midwage jobs, while just 26 percent of the jobs gained since the recession have been midwage jobs. Meanwhile, while just 22 percent of the jobs lost during the recession were low-wage jobs, 44 percent of the jobs gained since the recession have been low-wage jobs. We are trading high-wage jobs for low-wage jobs, full-time jobs for part-time jobs. That is the reality that many Americans are experiencing. The Obama recovery, however, has been producing low-wage part-time jobs--not the types of jobs that Americans need for a future of financial security and stability. No policy is threatening Americans' economic future more than ObamaCare. As every American knows, ObamaCare has failed to deliver on its promise of making health care more affordable. The President promised that his health care law would reduce premiums by $2,500. Instead, premiums have risen. Millions of Americans had their insurance plans cancelled and were told that their new plans would cost more--sometimes much, much more. One constituent wrote to tell me that the cheapest plan she could find for her family of four would cost $17,000. Another wrote to tell me that his insurance plan was cancelled due to ObamaCare and the cheapest bronze plan he could find was $987 a month--more than double what he was paying before. On top of that, the plan had a higher deductible and significantly higher cost-sharing requirements than his old plan. I am sure every one of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--has received letters just like this. Our constituents are hurting. What middle class family can afford to pay $17,000 a year in insurance or double its health care premiums from the year before? ObamaCare is placing an immense burden on middle-class families. The huge premium hikes that many Americans are facing are having a real impact on families' budgets. Money eaten by health care costs is money that can't be spent on a daughter's college education or a new car to replace the failing one or on repairs for the roof--and there is seemingly no end to ObamaCare's penalties. In addition to hiking insurance premiums, ObamaCare is also encouraging companies to drop spousal coverage from their health plans. UPS and the University of Virginia, for example, have already dropped spousal coverage because of ObamaCare. Women are particularly affected by this since, as the Wall Street Journal reports, they tend to be the ones being dropped from employer-sponsored health care plans. Then there is ObamaCare's marriage penalty. A woman who qualifies for a tax subsidy to help her purchase insurance could lose that subsidy if she gets married--even if both she and her husband qualified for the subsidy when they were single. ObamaCare isn't just hiking Americans' health care bills, it is also damaging their economic prospects. Thanks to the 30-hour workweek rule, ObamaCare is helping to drive the surge in part-time employment. Businesses that couldn't afford to give health insurance to workers working more than 30 hours have been forced to reduce their employees' hours and, by extension, their wages. Sixty-three percent of those affected by this provision are women. Then there is the employer mandate, which is discouraging wage growth and making it more difficult for employers to grow their businesses and to hire new workers. When employers are forced to pay for benefits they can't afford, they often have no choice but to reduce wages or cancel raises and abandon plans for growing their businesses. Then there are the other ObamaCare provisions that discourage job growth, such as the tax on medical devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps, which has already been responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the medical device industry. The last thing that we need right now in this weak economy is the kind of widespread devastation ObamaCare is causing. Americans are being hit from both sides. ObamaCare is raising their medical bills and it is destroying their job opportunities. If the President were serious about trying to help middle-class Americans, he would be looking at where his health care law went wrong and at least supporting fixes for its most damaging provisions. If Democrats were serious about fixing health care and helping the economy, they would be taking up Senator Collins' Forty Hours is Full Time Act, which would fix the ObamaCare 30-hour workweek rule and put Americans back to work or they would support my bill to eliminate the employer mandate for schools, colleges, and universities, so that these institutions aren't forced to cut wages or to eliminate positions. Democrats thought if Americans found out what was in ObamaCare and what it meant for them, they would come to like it. Well, Americans have found out what is in the President's health care law, what it means for them, and they don't like it. ObamaCare is hurting American families, it is hurting our economy, and it is time to start over and replace this bill with real health care reform, the kind that will lower costs, that will increase choice, and that will put Americans back in charge of their health care.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, Americans might have noticed a trend in ObamaCare headlines over the past two days. There was Sunday's Politico story and it basically had this title: ``Why liberals are abandoning the Obamacare employer mandate.'' There was an Associated Press story entitled ``Senate Democrats Try to Pull Focus From Obamacare.'' Then on Monday, Politico published a story called ``Obamacare's next threat: A September surprise'' about the White House efforts to prepare Democrats to meet September rate hike announcements. All of these stories amount to one thing. Democrats are running scared from ObamaCare. These three articles are just a few of the many pieces to be published about Democrats' efforts to distance themselves from ObamaCare in preparation for the November election. It is not surprising they are worried. ObamaCare is Democrats' and the White House's main legislative achievement, and Americans don't like it. They didn't like it in 2010 when the law was passed, they didn't like it when the law was being implemented, and they don't like it now. A Quinnipiac poll from last week reported that 55 percent of Americans oppose ObamaCare. Similar numbers of Americans opposed it 3 months earlier, and almost 3 months before that. In fact, when we average polling on the health care law from late 2009 until today, we find the health care law has consistently been opposed by the majority of Americans. Opposition to the health care law currently averages nearly 14 percentage points higher than support. That is not a good sign for Democrats. Many Democrats who firmly supported the health care law in 2009 and 2010 believed the law would grow more popular when the American people found out what was in the bill and how it would benefit them. But the health care law has not gotten more popular. Americans found out what was in the bill and they didn't like it. Democrats are realizing that their support for the bill may cost them their seats in November. So now they are running in the opposite direction. According to Monday's Politico article, the White House knows very well that Democrats are finding ObamaCare to be a big problem in their campaigns. So it has redirected the efforts of its ObamaCare war room to prepare for the release of rate hikes that are coming in September. ``The White House and its allies know''--this is a quote from the story--``they've been beaten in every previous round of ObamaCare messaging, never more devastatingly than in 2010.'' The story goes on to say: And they know the results this November could hinge in large part on whether that happens again. So they are trying to avoid--or at least get ahead of--any September surprise. That is from the Politico story. Let me just say to the White House: Good luck with that. There is a reason why the White House and its allies have been, as Politico notes, ``beaten in every previous round of ObamaCare messaging.'' It is because the White House's messaging didn't match up with the reality it promised Americans. The White House can talk all it wants about ObamaCare's supposed benefits, but if Americans aren't experiencing those benefits, no amount of talking is going to work. Most Americans aren't experiencing ObamaCare benefits. They are experiencing ObamaCare pain: higher premiums, higher deductibles, the loss of doctors and hospitals, less control and less freedom. As have most Members of Congress, I have gotten countless letters from constituents telling me about the pain ObamaCare is causing them. Tom from Hurley, SD, wrote to me to tell me his premiums have more than doubled and his deductible has quadrupled since the President's health care law was enacted. Harvey from Mitchell, SD, wrote to tell me that his insurance went up 16 percent effective April 1 of this year. ``Biggest increase ever,'' he said. Jill from Sturgis, SD, wrote to tell me that she went on line to get a health insurance estimate at healthcare.gov and found that the cheapest plan would cost her $366 a month with a $5,000 deductible. ``Are you kidding me?'', she wrote. ``That's $9,392 a year I have to pay in, every year, before it pays anything . . . which is roughly 16 percent of our combined income. I can't afford that and try to save money for retirement at the same time'' she says. Jill is not alone in not being able to afford that. Too many Americans are in similar situations, facing the prospect of huge health care bills and wondering how on Earth they are going to pay them. All the talk in the world from the White House isn't going to make people enthusiastic about ObamaCare if they can't afford their ObamaCare premiums or have lost access to the doctor or the hospital they like. Politico reports that 21 States--21 States--have posted preliminary health insurance premiums for 2015, and that average preliminary premiums went up in all 21 States. Those proposed increases--several in the double digits--are coming on top of the State premium hikes many Americans faced this year. The White House can attempt to defend these increases as much as it wants, but there really isn't any way to spin huge premium hikes when they promised people their premiums not only wouldn't increase but would actually go down. ObamaCare is fundamentally broken. This bill was supposed to reduce health care premiums and lower the cost of care while allowing Americans to keep the doctors they like. Instead, it has done the exact opposite. ObamaCare isn't just driving up health care premiums; it is also devastating our already damaged economy. The ObamaCare 30-hour workweek rule is forcing businesses, large and small, to reduce employees' hours at a time when many Americans are struggling to find full-time work. USA Today reported yesterday that Friday's unemployment report found a sharp rise in the number of part- time workers who prefer full-time jobs. So what we have is people who want to work full-time but full-time jobs are unavailable, so they are taking part-time work. Why? Well, one of the reasons they attribute it to is the ObamaCare requirement that the work week be a 30-hour week as opposed to a 40-hour week. So what is happening is employers are hiring employees for less than 30 hours a week so they won't be stuck with all of the requirements and the mandates that come with ObamaCare. So it is leading to more part-time jobs when people are actually looking for full-time work in our economy. The law's burdensome mandates and regulations are placing a heavy burden on small businesses and making it impossible for many of them to expand and to hire employees. As Politico reported, when it comes to the employer mandate, even liberals are admitting that the rule is unnecessary and burdensome. Politico notes: The shift among liberal policy experts and advocates has been rapid. A stream of studies and statements have deemed the mandate only moderately useful for getting more people covered in ObamaCare. And they too have come to see it as clumsy, a regulatory and financial burden that creates as many problems as it solves. That is from the Politico story talking about many of the liberal policy experts who are now turning their backs on the employer mandate. Then there is the potential for fraud, with the Health and Human Services inspector general's office reporting that the administration is not properly verifying that those receiving subsidies actually qualify for them. And the disastrous Web sites have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. The list goes on and on and on. Whether they admit it or not, everyone knows that ObamaCare is not working. It is time to start over and replace this law with real reforms--reforms that will actually lower costs and improve access to care. Republicans have offered solution after solution to solve the many problems created by ObamaCare--from Senator Collins' bill to repeal ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek, which I just mentioned earlier, to a provision I came up with that would exempt schools, colleges, and universities from ObamaCare's crippling employer mandate--something that our colleges and universities across the country are feeling and it is impacting their ability to hire employees. Instead of fleeing from ObamaCare or attempting to put a positive spin on its many failures, Democrats should join Republicans to repeal this broken law and replace it with real reforms. Then Democrats would have a real accomplishment to take home to their constituents, and they would not have to worry about having the White House send a team of people in the war room assigned to Democrats here on Capitol Hill who are trying to figure out ways to message the bad news that keeps coming out about higher premiums, higher copays, higher deductibles, fewer doctors, and fewer hospitals. That is the message that Democrats here in Congress are having to deal with when they respond to the constituents they hear from in their districts or their States. And that is why the White House is so focused on changing the subject to anything from ObamaCare. That is the reality, and it is an economic reality that is affecting and impacting way to many American families. Middle-income families in this country are squeezed. Household income has gone down by $3,300 since the President took office. Everything middle-income Americans have to pay for has gone up--from health care to college education to fuel, electricity, food--you name it. So those middle-income families in this country are increasingly feeling squeezed and pinched by this economy, made much, much worse by the passage of a health care law that has driven up the cost of health care--higher premiums, fewer doctors, fewer hospitals, fewer full-time jobs or part-time jobs. Why? Because employers are trying to avoid the heavyhanded mandates and requirements to provide government-approved insurance, and so they are finding more and more part-time employees when the employees--people out there in the workforce--are looking for full-time jobs so they can provide for their families. Good-paying jobs with opportunities for advancement--that is what we ought to be focused on. Unfortunately, everything coming out of Washington, DC, and particularly the policies coming out of this administration--namely, first and foremost, ObamaCare is making it more expensive and more difficult for employers to hire. It is costing middle-income families more to cover their families with health coverage, and it is making everything else in our economy more expensive. That is the reality that most Americans are dealing with. We can do so much better. We should do so much better. If Democrats will acknowledge the error of their ways in the passage of this bad law to start with, we can go back to the drawing board and do this in a way that actually does reduce cost and provide better access to health care for American families. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments from the Senator from Oklahoma who, like the Senator from Wyoming who is on the floor here with us here today, has heard from many of his constituents about the impact ObamaCare is having on them, the real-world economic impact. I have received countless letters from my constituents in South Dakota telling me about the challenges they are facing because of ObamaCare. Those challenges consist of the economic costs associated with the new health care law: higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher copays, the loss of the doctors they like, the burden the law is placing on their businesses if they are an employer, and less control and less freedom, which is something that is important to so many Americans, particularly when it comes to their health care. I want to take a few moments to highlight some of the stories that constituents of mine have shared with me. I know the Senator from Wyoming is here to do the same, to talk about the impact not only in his State of Wyoming but all across the country. One person named Erik from southeast South Dakota wrote to me to tell me his family's health care plan was cancelled thanks to ObamaCare. His old plan was $448 a month, with a $5,000 deductible and a 20-percent copay after that. The cheapest bronze plan he could find was $987 a month, more than double what he was paying before, with a $6,500 deductible and a 40-percent copay. He said, ``This means that I would need to incur about $26,000 in eligible medical expenses each year before insurance is a benefit to me.'' Then there is Megan from McCook County, SD, who contacted me to tell me the cheapest plan she could find for her family of 4 would cost her a staggering $17,000. Seventeen thousand dollars. That is more than some people pay for their mortgage in an entire year. Randy from Hot Springs, SD, contacted me to tell me an exchange plan similar to his old insurance plan is $1,222 a month, almost 2\1/2\ times the cost of his old insurance plan. Sheri, from a small town in Minnehaha County, said: Next year, our insurance is changing, and I will lose my family practice doctor of 22 years--the doctor that delivered all my children and that has cared for our teenage children all of their lives. We'll also lose all of the back-up doctors our family has seen when we couldn't see our regular doctor. . . . I was happy with my insurance, and now I have to lose my doctor. Then there is Denny from Rapid City, SD, who told me the following: My insurance company cancelled my policy. I am currently paying over $800 a month for a family of four. . . . If I sign up for ObamaCare, I would be paying over $2,500 a month. I cannot think of any way this is considered affordable health care! Linda, a small business owner and operator from a small town along the Missouri River, wrote this: We need your help. . . . We have one full-time employee, and we provide health care coverage for him, his wife, and their children. . . . Our monthly premium in 2013 was $2,964.20 or $35,570.40 annually. Our monthly premium--as a result of the ``Affordable Care Act''--for 2014 is $3,524.75 or $42,297 annually. A huge increase from what they were paying before, from 2013 to 2014. She says: I have been told by our agent to expect even more substantial increases in 2015. This is very frightening for us. Lyle from Brookings, SD, said that thanks to ObamaCare, his monthly premium almost doubled and his deductible doubled. He says: I'm a small business owner, and would like to hire an employee next spring. Well, that's not going to happen! We were told that ObamaCare would lower costs and make health care more affordable. Instead, it has driven up costs for these Americans and for many others. What middle-class family can afford to spend $17,000 a year on insurance? How can a small business with one employee afford a $7,000 yearly hike in insurance premiums? The answer is they cannot. As if high health care prices were not enough, ObamaCare is also damaging many Americans' job prospects. There is the 30-hour workweek rule, which is forcing many employers to cut their employees' hours. There is the medical device tax, which has already resulted in thousands and thousands of lost jobs in the industry and will likely result in many more if it isn't repealed. There is the employer mandate, which is discouraging many employers from expanding and hiring new employees. And there are the many rules and regulations that are placing a huge financial and logistical burden on small businesses. ObamaCare isn't working. It was supposed to help Americans. Instead, it is hurting them. It is time to start over and to replace this law with real health care reforms--reforms that will actually lower costs for Americans, give them back their health care choices, and improve access to care. That is what we ought to be doing. But, unfortunately, we have lots of folks here in this Chamber who are trying as desperately as they can to run away from the issue without fixing it. So as we get into these November elections and the run-up to them, a lot of vulnerable Democrats who voted for this are looking for a way out. But in many cases this was their signature achievement. This is the President's signature law. So they own it. They own that vote. Yet they are trying to figure out a way to spin it to the American people so that it will come across in a different way than the reality the American people are experiencing. This is the headline in Politico from yesterday: ObamaCare ``War Room Prepares for Sept. Surprise.'' They know there is more bad news coming out in September of this year when the new insurance rates are announced to kick in. So what is the White House doing? They have six people assigned to congressional Democrats to help do damage control in their States or their districts when this bad news comes out. And it inevitably will because there is no way that all the new mandates and requirements associated with this law don't lead to higher prices--in addition to all the higher taxes that go with it. So the headline is the ``War Room Prepares for Sept. Surprise,'' and it goes on to detail how they are trying their best to spin this in a way that confuses the American people into thinking it is something better than it is. Unfortunately for the spinners, the reality that most Americans are confronting and experiencing is a very different one--and that is the reality I talked about earlier: higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher copays, fewer choices when it comes to doctors and hospitals, fewer full-time jobs and more part-time jobs as employers look for ways to avoid dealing with these mandates and requirements that are imposed under ObamaCare. But it is forcing more and more people onto part-time jobs when they would like to be working full time. That is why last week when the jobs numbers came out and people were hailing the numbers--sure, there was some good news there. But there was an awful lot of bad news, and one of the bad news items was that a good majority were actually part-time and not full-time jobs. Why? One of the reasons is the mandates and requirements under ObamaCare and the institution of a 30-hour workweek, which is forcing employers to hire employees for fewer than 30 hours so they don't get stuck with having to provide government-approved health care, which would dramatically increase what they are paying for health care today. That is the reality that most Americans are confronting. I hope at some point, as these realities continue to sink in with the American people, their elected officials here in Washington will come together and realize this isn't working; it is not working for employers; and it is not working for middle-class families in this country who are increasingly squeezed by these higher costs; and it certainly isn't working for our economy. I know the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, who has been mentioned by the Senator from Oklahoma, is a physician and understands these issues very well and has spoken at great length here on the floor about ObamaCare and its impacts. I know he is going to share some of the stories that he has received from not only the people he represents from the State of Wyoming but from those around the country who are feeling the impacts of this law. So would I yield for the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Kody Kyriss, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Kody is a graduate of Menno High School in Menno, SD. This fall he will be attending law school at the University of South Dakota. He is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kody for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Alexa Moeller, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Alexa is a graduate of Watertown High School in Watertown, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota where she is majoring in political science and criminal justice. She is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alexa for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Andrea ``Andi'' Fouberg, communications director in my Washington, DC office, for over 9 years of hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Andi is a native of Letcher, SD, and is a graduate of South Dakota State University, SDSU. During her time working in the Senate, Andi has worked as deputy State director, deputy communications director, and as communications director. On July 7, 2014 Andi will become the president and chief executive officer at the SDSU Alumni Association. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Andi for nearly a decade of dedicated work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Derek Olson, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Derek is a graduate of Dakota Valley High School in North Sioux City, SD. Recently, Derek graduated from Iowa State University where he majored in political science. He is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Derek for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Kelsey Luckhurst, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Kelsey is a graduate of Clark High School in Clark, SD. Currently, she is attending Northern State University, where she is majoring in political science and history. She is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kelsey for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Emma-Sue Ishol, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Emma is a graduate of St. Andrews Episcopal School in Potomac, MD. Currently, she is attending the Creighton University where she is majoring in accounting. She is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Emma for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Yes.

Mr. THUNE. I say through the Chair to the majority leader, the offer, as I understand it, that was put forward by the majority leader with respect to the energy efficiency bill was that this bill would be passed with no amendments. There would be no debate, no amendments, and then somewhere down the road we might get the vote on the Keystone Pipeline. Well, it strikes me at least, as many of my colleagues on this side have been pointing out now for some time, that the way in which the majority leader is running the floor and calling up legislation, preventing amendments to be offered, to be debated and voted on, denies the rights not only of us as Senators but ignores the voices of the people we represent. So for the majority leader to say we will pass this bill without any amendment--energy is an important issue in many of our States. It is important in my State of South Dakota. It is important to a lot of Members on our side and I would suggest to a lot of Members on the leader's side who would like to have an opportunity to debate some amendments on energy if we are going to have an energy bill on the floor. The leaders came down and said no amendments, no debate, you pass this. We will jam this bill down without amendment, and then sometime we will get to the vote on Keystone. We would love to get a vote on Keystone. The leader can call that up at any time. We have been saying for some time we ought to have a vote on Keystone. There is broad bipartisan support for it in the Senate. There are a lot of Democrats who support the Keystone Pipeline. But what the leader is suggesting again is he is going to put a bill up, fill the amendment tree, and prevent Republicans from offering amendments. We don't think that is the way the Senate ought to operate.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in a moment some of my colleagues will come to the floor and ask to enter into a colloquy and discuss an issue that is important to many of us, especially to those of us who represent States in the West and Midwest. The issue I wish to speak about has to do with something that over the past 5 years the Obama administration has been particularly active in pursuing.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I mentioned previously, my colleagues and I intend to enter into a colloquy on the floor of the Senate to talk about an issue that is important to many of our States. The Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from North Dakota, and the Senator from Kansas are all very much impacted, as are our constituents, by the EPA's pursuing and being particularly active in issuing misguided and ill-conceived proposals that will do little more than overregulate and burden hard-working Americans, businesses, and families. One of the worst of these overreaches is the Obama EPA's proposal to significantly expand its authority to regulate small wetlands, creeks, stock ponds, and ditches under the Clean Water Act. If the EPA's proposal goes through, the Federal Government could expand its regulatory authority from navigable waters such as lakes and rivers to the ditches on your grandfather's property or the dry creek bed behind your house. That is what we are talking about. This could lead to untold compliance costs and bureaucratic wrangling for ordinary families and literally cripple farmers and businesses. The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers proposed Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule seeks to redefine ``waters of the United States'' which would effectively eliminate the Clean Water Act's ``navigable waters'' provision. Congress specifically referenced ``navigable waters'' in the Clean Water Act to guarantee limits to Federal authority. Bodies of water currently deemed ``waters of the United States'' are subject to multiple regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act, including permitting and reporting, enforcement, mitigation, and citizen suits. Despite strong bipartisan opposition in Congress, the EPA and the Corps have relentlessly pursued an expansion of the definition of ``waters of the United States.'' Additionally, the EPA is pressing forward despite two recent Supreme Court cases that expressly rejected the Agency's broad assertions of regulatory authority and made it clear that not all bodies of water are subject to Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. -If the EPA's power grab is left unchecked, few bodies of water will be able to escape the regulatory reach of the Obama EPA. This proposed new definition could apply to a countless number of small wetlands and creeks that are typically regulated at the State level. More specifically, the proposed rule extends the reach of Federal regulatory authority by adding ``interstate wetlands'' and all ``adjacent waters'' to the definition of ``Waters of the United States.'' It also deems all tributaries to be categorically jurisdictional, and for the first time ever ditches--ditches--are defined as jurisdictional tributaries. This is cause for concern. This should be disturbing and troubling to all Americans--subjecting roadside, irrigation, and storm water ditches to regulation under the Clean Water Act, which would have practical consequences not fully evaluated by the EPA. These bodies of water are hardly navigable and are, in many cases, seasonal or sporadic depending on the weather. The proposal also states that the EPA could regulate water on a case-by-case basis--dangerous development for a regulatory agency. The American public is right to be wary of the EPA granting itself such discretion. A case-by-case approach is confusing and will inevitably lead to even more litigation. This proposal exceeds the established authority of the EPA by infringing upon what has long been a State responsibility under the Clean Water Act. All States--my State of South Dakota, Senator Roberts' State of Kansas, Senator Hoeven's State of North Dakota--have an inherent interest in providing for the well-being of their citizens and businesses and ensuring safe and enduring water resources that play a large role in achieving that end. My home State of South Dakota's No. 1 industry is agriculture. We help to feed the world. This cannot be done without clean and dependable sources of water for our farmers and ranchers. This expansion of the EPA's regulatory authority would have significant economic impact for property owners who would likely be hit with new Federal permits, compliance costs, and threats of significant fines. Agriculture is a time-sensitive business, and the burdens this proposal would place on South Dakota farmers would strain the ability of producers to fertilize, to plant, and to irrigate when the seasons and weather conditions dictate. Rather, permits and regulations would bind the ability of producers to get their crops in when they need to and limit what they could do to ensure successful yields. Tourism is also a vital industry in my State of South Dakota. The Black Hills, which are home to Mount Rushmore, draw nearly 3 million visitors each year. The rugged beauty of the Black Hills depends upon the responsible water management of the State and county governments. According to a letter I just received from the Pennington County Board of Commissioners, which includes much of the Black Hills, their ability to manage the water resources in the Black Hills area is greatly threatened by the EPA's proposed rule. Similarly, South Dakota's thriving hunting industry is sustained in part by practical and responsible water management, allowing ducks and pheasants to thrive in prairie potholes and creeks. These are connected to waters already responsibly managed by the State of South Dakota. Another layer of Federal regulation will only add needless costs to protecting these waters. Additionally, cities in my State are already struggling to grow under new taxes and regulations imposed by the Obama administration. The EPA's latest overreach would provide environmental groups with yet another powerful tool to delay and prevent development and interfere with land use activities on property owned by homeowners, small businesses, and municipalities. I have heard from South Dakotans in nearly every industry, and the common consensus is this: This rule is bad for business--certainly in places such as South Dakota and Kansas and North Dakota and Wyoming but, I would argue, all across this country. So I am proud to stand with my colleagues on the floor today in support of legislation that would stop the EPA's proposed Clean Water Act jurisdictional rule and protect farmers, ranchers, and homeowners across the country from the latest regulatory overreach by the Obama administration. Mr. President, the Senator from North Dakota, I think, will carry on with the colloquy between our colleagues from the Midwestern part of the country and speak to the impacts of this ill-proposed rule on the people they represent in their respective States. I yield for the Senator from North Dakota.