John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled: ``Obama Team Crafts President's Midterm-Election Pitch.'' I want to read from the article's opening. This is what the article said: The White House is carving out a role for President Barack Obama in this fall's midterm elections, which he will try to pose as a choice between the parties' economic visions. . . . The driving theory in the White House is that this election, like every one since the 2007 recession, is foremost about the economy. Mr. Obama already has been drawing contrasts between his economic program and that of Republicans. That is from a Wall Street Journal article of last week. All I can say is that Republicans welcome this debate. We agree this election will be first and foremost about the economy, and we look forward to discussing the contrast between our economic program and the President's. I am just surprised the President wants to discuss it because even many Democrats realize the Democrats' economic record over the past 5 years isn't going to win them any elections. The Wall Street Journal article quoted Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who said: . . . the key for Democrats is to frame the election as a choice between governing philosophies. ``If it's a referendum on whether you like the way Democrats have governed . . . that's a harder election for us to win.'' So since they can't run on their record, Democrats are going to make the case their philosophy offers the best hope for working Americans. The Journal goes on to quote Joel Benenson, a pollster for the 2008 and 2012 Obama campaign, who says: The fundamental question here that the country faces is: Which party has a philosophy and an approach that puts average, hard-working Americans front and center? . . . We ought to be making that the centerpiece of the campaign. Democrats have had 5\1/2\ years to take an approach that puts average hardworking Americans front and center, but their record has not been pretty. Despite the fact the recession technically ended almost 5 years ago, our economy continues to limp along. In the last quarter, growth averaged a miniscule one-tenth of 1 percent. Meanwhile, unemployment has remained at recession-level highs for the past several years. Last month 806,000 Americans gave up hope of getting work and dropped out of the labor force entirely. Currently, nearly 10 million Americans are unemployed, 3\1/2\ million of them for 6 months or longer. Over the 5\1/2\ years the President has been in office, 6.7 million additional Americans have fallen into poverty. Household income has declined by $3,500. The poverty rate for women has increased to 16.3 percent, income for women has fallen, and 19.4 million Americans have been forced to join the food stamp program. Meanwhile, prices have risen. Gas prices are 99 percent higher per gallon today than they were when the President took office. Health care premiums are more than $3,600 higher. College tuition has soared. Basically, thanks to the failed policies of the President and congressional Democrats, American families today are paying more and making less. It is all very well and good to talk about the concern for the average hardworking American, but what really matters is not what you say but how you govern by what you do. Democrats seem to think their speeches and good intentions and the ``philosophy'' should give them a free pass, even if their policies are making it harder and harder for working families to achieve economic security and stability. They want to coast on the fact that their party has historically been thought of as the party of working men and women, while ignoring the fact that the Democrat party today looks more like the party of billionaires and special interests than the party of hardworking Americans. Take the Keystone Pipeline. Blue collar unions strongly support the pipeline and the more than 42,000 jobs it would support. The Washington Examiner reported yesterday morning the 750,000-member-strong International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is, as the paper notes, the latest of the growing number of traditional blue-collar unions taking an aggressive pro-Keystone position. In a letter to Senate Democrats, the IBEW's president writes: At a time when job creation should be a top priority, the Keystone XL Pipeline project would put Americans back to work and have ripple benefits throughout the economy. . . . From pipe manufactured in Arkansas, to pump motors assembled in Ohio and transformers built in Pennsylvania, workers from all over the United States will benefit from the project. That is from the president of the IBEW. So given the jobs and benefits the pipeline would create, how do you think the President and the party of so-called average hardworking Americans has responded? Has he approved the pipeline and the jobs it would create for American workers throughout the country? No. Despite five separate environmental reviews from his own State Department, testifying to the minimal impact the pipeline would have on the environment, the President has aligned himself instead with far- left environmental special interests like billionaire Tom Steyer, who is pouring money into anti-Keystone campaigns. So much for being the party of working men and women. Democrats may talk about putting hardworking Americans front and center, but over the past few years hardworking Americans have often come in last. Take ObamaCare. It is hard to even know where to start when talking about the negative impacts ObamaCare has had on American workers. There is the 30-hour workweek rule, which has forced businesses to eliminate full-time positions and cut workers' hours below 30 hours per week. There is the employer mandate, which has made it difficult or impossible for many businesses to expand and hire new workers. There is the tax on lifesaving medical devices, such as pacemakers and insulin pumps, which has already cost thousands of jobs in the medical device industry and which will eliminate many more if it isn't repealed. Then, of course, there are the numerous burdens placed on small businesses, the higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs, and the fact that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the law will shrink the full-time workforce by 2\1/2\ million workers and lower wages by more than $1 trillion. Who suffers the most from all those provisions? Average, hardworking Americans, the small business owner who can no longer afford to hire new employees, the middle-class family suddenly faced with a $10,000 deductible, the low-income worker whose hours are suddenly slashed from 35 to 25 hours a week, and the out-of-work American who can't find a job because businesses are too reluctant to hire. One would think the supposed party of average, hardworking Americans might sit back and rethink things a little bit after seeing the devastating economic impact of ObamaCare. But the Democrats and the President are pushing again with more job-killing policies. Recently, the Democrats and the President have been pushing for a massive 40-percent minimum-wage hike--a measure the Congressional Budget Office says could eliminate up to 1 million jobs. Even the President's own Federal Reserve Chair recently testified before Congress that a minimum wage hike would negatively affect jobs. Once again, the people most likely to lose their jobs as a result of this policy are those least able to afford it: Namely, low-income workers. Mr. President, Democrats can talk all they want about their commitment to ordinary Americans, but actions speak louder than words. It is going to be hard to convince people to believe, when their actions over the past 5 years have made things harder for working Americans, that they are actually on their side. If Democrats really wanted to provide permanent relief to the millions of Americans who are struggling to get by, they would focus on measures that would create jobs, improve wages, and expand opportunity. Instead of spending their time on far-left liberal policies and priorities, such as government-run health care and extreme environmental regulations, they would be supporting bills that have been offered by some of my colleagues here on our side of the aisle to provide one-time, low-interest loans to out-of-work Americans to enable them to relocate to cities and States with more job opportunities. That is a piece of legislation I have introduced. Or they could support the bill put forth by Senator Lee to improve workplace flexibility for working families; or the bill of Senator Hoeven, to approve the Keystone Pipeline and open up the 42,000- plus jobs it would support; or the bill of Senator Collins to fix the ObamaCare 30-hour workweek provision so we don't have so many part-time employees in this country and put more people to work on a full-time basis; or the numerous Republican proposals that have been offered by our colleagues to check EPA's overreach and to protect the millions of jobs EPA's proposed regulations could destroy; or the Democratic majority could allow an open amendment process to the tax extender bill we are going to be considering here soon to allow for the consideration of permanent tax relief measures for American families and small businesses. Because Americans deserve tax certainty and not more short-term measures, I intend to file amendments to the tax extenders bill this week to make a number of important progrowth provisions permanent, such as the ability for small businesses and farmers to expense more of their business investments. I intend to work with Senator Cantwell and others on an amendment to make permanent the ability of taxpayers to deduct State and local sales taxes against their Federal income tax--a measure that is important for States without income taxes like South Dakota. And I intend to work with my colleagues to make permanent the existing moratorium on State and local taxes on Internet access before that moratorium expires on November 1 of this year. Failure to act is going to mean a tax increase on the many millions of Americans who use the Internet. This week's tax debate also provides the Senate an opportunity to address the job-destroying taxes in ObamaCare. Several of my colleagues, including Senators Hatch, Toomey, and Coats, have been fighting for repeal, or at least delay, of the ObamaCare medical device tax. Repeal of this tax has the support of over 70 Senators, and it is time for a vote on this proposal. However, the ObamaCare taxes don't stop there. This year, millions of young, middle-class families will face a tax penalty for failing to purchase government-approved health care. Many of these individuals and families may not be able to afford ObamaCare and cannot afford to pay the tax either. I will be filing an amendment to the tax extenders bill that would prohibit the IRS from ever collecting this penalty. Considering this administration has already delayed the mandate for employers, it is only fair to waive this penalty for families and individuals as well. Finally, Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment to exempt the long-term unemployed from the ObamaCare employer mandate head count. If you are a business in this country and you hire somebody who has been unemployed for 6 months or longer, then you wouldn't be subject to the ObamaCare employer mandate, which is so devastating to employers across this country. The tax extender package on the floor today will reportedly retain the Hire Our Heroes Act, which is championed in the Senate by Senator Blunt. If that is the case, I am pleased to see the majority has finally realized the employer mandate is hurting the job prospects of veterans who have proudly served this country. We should expand this exemption to the 3\1/2\ million long-term unemployed as well, and that is what my amendment seeks to do. Mr. President, Democrats may claim to be the party of average Americans, but their record over the past 5 years says some things entirely different. Ordinary Americans are suffering as a result of Democratic policies, and they are not getting any relief. It is time for Democrats to stop talking about helping Americans and to start actually helping them. We have an opportunity with this tax extenders bill on the floor this week to do some things that are for jobs and the economy. If we can get a chance to get these amendments in front of the Senate and allow the voices of the American people to be heard and to get votes, we can start moving this country in a different direction--a direction that will lead to better paying jobs for middle-class families, a better standard of living for people in this country, and a brighter and more prosperous future for future generations of Americans. I hope that will be the case. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I honor Dr. Kay Schallenkamp on her many accomplishments and upcoming retirement. Dr. Kay Schallenkamp was born in Salem, SD. Her background includes three degrees in communication disorders; a bachelor's degree from Northern State University, a master's degree from the University of South Dakota, and a doctorate from the University of Colorado. Her career has spanned for over 40 years, and her dedication to education and the well-being of her students is unmatched. Dr. Schallenkamp's career in higher education originated as a professor of communication disorders at Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD, in 1973. She served as department chair from 1982 to 1984, followed by an appointment as dean of graduate studies and research in 1984. Dr. Schallenkamp was named provost of Chadron State College in 1988, and in 1992 she was named provost of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Before making her way back to South Dakota, Dr. Schallenkamp served as the president of Emporia State University in Kansas from 1997 to 2006. Since her arrival at Black Hills State University, BHSU, in 2006, Dr. Schallenkamp has placed the needs of BHSU ahead of her own. Due to her diligent work, BHSU is the State of South Dakota's third-largest university. She has been vital in physical renovations across campus, including a key transformation and addition to the Student Union, the construction of the Life Sciences Laboratory, and updates to the campus residence halls. Preparations are also being made for the addition of a new residence hall and a remodel of Jonas Science Hall in partnership with the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, SD. Dr. Schallenkamp has served as the president for the last 8 years and in that time BHSU has significantly grown. Dr. Schallenkamp is retiring after a long and successful career to spend more time with her family. She and her husband Ken have two daughters: Heather (Shad) in Kansas have two children, Alyssa and Tyler. Jenni (Danny) Simon in North Carolina have two sons, Keenan and Reece. I am honored to recognize Dr. Schallenkamp for her accomplishments and wish her a happy retirement.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I understand that a number of Senators have filed amendments related to energy policy, and I think they ought to be allowed to offer those amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer amendment No. 3013.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. THUNE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is it correct that no Senator is permitted to offer an amendment to this bill while the majority leader's amendments and motions are pending?

Mr. THUNE. Then, Mr. President, in order to offer amendment No. 3013, I move to table the Reid amendment No. 3023, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in a moment I intend to propound a unanimous consent request that it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 3002 to S. 2262, but I will speak for just a moment if I might about it. I think it is unfortunate that we are here in the Senate with Senate Democrats continuing to block Republican amendments that would approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, stop the administration's war on affordable energy, and expand liquid natural gas exports to our allies overseas. My amendment No. 3002 is on the list of commonsense amendments that should be voted on as part of the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill. As with almost all of the President's energy policies, the EPA's anticipated ground level ozone regulations would do serious damage to our economy and to working Americans. In fact, this regulation is expected to be the most expensive in the EPA's history. In 2010 the EPA proposed lowering the permitted ground level ozone levels from 75 parts per billion to 60 to 70 parts per billion. The energy industry estimate suggests that lowering the ground level ozone concentration to 60 parts per billion would cost businesses more than $1 trillion a year between 2020 and 2030--$1 trillion a year. Job losses as a result of this measure would total a staggering $7.3 million by the year 2020, devastating entire industries, especially U.S. manufacturing industries. Even by the EPA's own estimates--this is the EPA's own estimate--this regulation could cost up to $90 billion per year--far outpacing the cost of any EPA regulations we have ever seen before. My own State of South Dakota would lose tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing, natural resources, mining, and construction. In fact, the cost of this regulation is so great that when the EPA first proposed lower levels in 2010, the White House delayed the regulation until after the President's reelection. My amendment No. 3002 would stop the administration's upcoming proposal on ground level ozone which is anticipated to be proposed and put out by December of this year. It is a very straightforward amendment. First, it would require the EPA to consider the cost and feasibility of new ozone regulations. It might surprise many Americans to know that the EPA isn't even allowed to consider costs when setting these new regulations. My amendment would fix that. Additionally, my amendment would force the EPA to focus on the worst areas for smog before dramatically expanding this regulation to the rest of the country. There are 221 counties across 27 States in this country that don't meet the current standard of 75 parts per billion. This chart shows the areas of the country and, as we can see, they are heavily populated, more urban areas of the country. It makes sense to me that we ought to focus on these urban areas before expanding ozone regulations to areas such as western South Dakota where we clearly don't have a smog problem. Under my amendment, 85 percent of these counties would have to achieve full compliance with the existing standard before the EPA could move forward with a lower level that dramatically expands the reach of ozone regulations. So this is what it looks like today. These are the 200 some counties that are not in compliance, and my amendment would require 85 percent of those to be in compliance before we could expand the map to where it would look like this, referring to my chart. This is what the proposal would do. Now, look at how much of the United States is covered by that expanded map. The provision in the Clean Air Act was enacted in the 1970s to address smog in downtown L.A., not background ozone levels in western South Dakota. We should continue to focus on the worst areas for ground level ozone before dramatically expanding those regulations to rural areas of the country. I hope the majority will stop blocking votes on this and other job- creating amendments that are offered by Republican Members. Senator Reid has blocked all but nine rollcall votes on Republican amendments since last July. That is one a month. One Republican amendment, on average, a month has been voted on here in the Senate over the last nine months. By contrast, the House Democrats--the minority in the House--have gotten votes on 125 amendments over the same period--12 times the number of amendments that have been allowed Republicans here in the Senate. A number of my colleagues have been to the floor, and we heard from the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski. Senator Barrasso has an LNG export amendment that I think is very relevant to this debate and very important to this country to both our energy security and national security interests. I am going to continue to ask that the majority provide a chance for Republicans to participate in this debate by allowing a vote on my amendment and the many others that are pertinent to the economy of this country, to creating jobs in this country, to providing energy independence for this country, to providing energy security for this country, and to making sure we don't get crazy regulations that subject areas of western South Dakota to smog regulations that were designed for downtown L.A. That is a fairly straightforward, simple, commonsense suggestion, and it is what my amendment would accomplish. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2262 So I see we have a Democratic Senator on the floor who would, I expect, object to this request. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 3002 to S. 2262.

Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. President. I regret that. I think it is unfortunate. I know there are many others of my colleagues on this side who have amendments they would like to have votes on and to have an opportunity to debate. It is the first time we have debated an energy bill since 2007. It is of fundamental importance to this country on so many levels. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, yesterday USA Today and the Pew Research Center released a new poll that found Americans, by more than a 2-to-1 margin, were dissatisfied with the direction the country is going. Sixty-two percent of Americans rate their personal financial situation as poor or fair. A whopping 65 percent want the next President to pursue policies different from those of the current President. What I would suggest is that the American people are tired--they are tired of seeing their bills go up while their paychecks don't. They are tired of having to work harder just to stay in place--to say nothing of getting ahead. They are tired of economic promises that are often repeated but never fulfilled. Our economy has supposedly been in recovery for years, but it is a recovery that feels a lot like a recession to ordinary hardworking Americans. More than 10 million Americans are unemployed, and more than one-third of them have been out of work for more than 6 months. While unemployment finally declined last month, the decline was driven more by the fact that 806,000 Americans dropped out of the workforce entirely than by any meaningful surge in the number of those who are employed. Had the number of Americans participating in the labor force stayed flat last month, the unemployment rate would have actually gone up, not down. In fact, if the labor force participation rate today were the same as it was when President Obama took office, our Nation would have an unemployment rate of 10.4 percent. So what is happening is more and more people are leaving the labor force. They are completely discouraged. But the labor force participation rate has fallen, and one of the main reasons it has fallen is because so many Americans have grown so discouraged that they have given up looking for work entirely. Our country has experienced recessions before, but we have always bounced back. But our recovery from this recession has been so slow--at times, seemingly nonexistent--that many are wondering if the last 5 years of sluggish growth and recession-level unemployment could be the new normal. And they are right; it could be, if we continue the policies of the last 5 years. The widespread dissatisfaction with the economy reflected in the Pew poll may not be what Democrats want to see, but it is the natural outcome of their policies. They have spent 5 years pursuing policies that have not only been unsuccessful in creating jobs but have all too frequently actually hurt job creation. Take ObamaCare. It is hard to even know where to start when talking about the damage ObamaCare is wreaking on the jobs and the economy. There is the ObamaCare tax on lifesaving medical devices, such as pacemakers and insulin pumps, which has cost thousands of jobs in this industry already and is going to cost thousands more. There is the 30- hour workweek rule, which has forced businesses, State and local governments, and nonprofits to cut the hours of workers in this country. There is the employer mandate, which has caused many businesses to rethink their plans to expand and hire new workers. Then, of course, there is the burden the law places on small businesses. The title of an article that appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal over the weekend summed it up nicely, and the headline went like this: ``Own a small business? Brace for ObamaCare pain.'' This article pointed out something that is often overlooked in discussions of the law--that the people who will suffer the most from the small business health plan cancellations that ObamaCare will cause in Nevada and around the country are those who can least afford it--the kind of people the law was supposed to help. To quote from the article: Some workers are at higher risk than others of losing company-sponsored coverage. Professional, white-collar companies such as law or engineering firms will bite the bullet and renew at higher prices. . . . But moderately skilled or low-skilled people making $8 to $14 an hour working for landscaping businesses, fire prevention firms or fencing companies could lose work-based coverage because the plans cost so much relative to salaries. That is right, Madam President. It is low-income workers in places like Nevada who stand in the greatest danger of losing their employer- sponsored coverage. That is frequently the story when it comes to the Democrats' so-called job-creating policies. Democrats like to suggest that Republicans are indifferent to workers' plight, and that only Democrats really have a plan to offer help. But in fact the Democrats' plans to help often pose the most danger to low-income workers. There is ObamaCare, of course, as I mentioned, but there is also the minimum wage proposal, which the Congressional Budget Office says will eliminate up to 1 million jobs. Those 1 million jobs that will be eliminated are not doctors' jobs and they are not lawyers' jobs. They are positions held by low-income workers who will be the first to suffer when employers have to cut back on hiring or on hours as a result of the minimum wage hike. Then, of course, there is the Keystone Pipeline, which we are talking a little about today, and which the President has resolutely refused to approve, despite the fact that it would support, according to his own State Department estimates, 42,000 jobs without spending a dime of taxpayer money. The people who will be hurt the worst by the President's decision to cow to the relentless pressure of far-left environmentalists are the workers who would actually build the pipeline and the restaurants and small businesses who would benefit from pipeline workers' business during construction. It is not just Keystone. Almost all of the President's energy policies would do serious damage to our economy and to working Americans. Take the restrictions on ground-level ozone levels the President's EPA is scheduled to release by December of this year. In 2010, the EPA proposed lowering the permitted ozone levels from 75 parts per billion to 60 to 70 parts per billion. Energy industry estimates suggest that lowering the ground-level ozone concentration to 60 parts per billion would cost businesses--get this--more than $1 trillion per year--$1 trillion per year--between 2020 and 2030. Job losses as a result of this measure would total a staggering 7.3 million by 2020, devastating entire industries--most especially U.S. manufacturing. My own State of South Dakota would lose tens of thousands of jobs in manufacturing, natural resources and mining, and construction. Take a look at what this would actually do. These are the areas under these proposals that have been put forward. Today there are probably a couple hundred counties in the country that are not in compliance, in what we call nonattainment areas--mostly urban, heavily populated areas. But if we take a look at what their proposal would do on this map, this map represents those who would be affected if we went to 60 parts per billion as opposed to the 75 parts per billion today. So instead of focusing on those counties in this country that are not currently in attainment and getting them to full attainment first, we are talking about expanding dramatically the impact this would have all across the country. Look at my State of South Dakota, for example. We have areas that wouldn't be in attainment. We don't think of South Dakota as being a place where we have problems with clean air and ozone issues, but this is clearly a regulation which, if put into effect, would cost the economy literally billions and billions of dollars--in one estimate $1 trillion per year between 2020 and 2030. If we look at where this hurts people the most, again, it is the people who are in the lower and middle-income range--people whose budgets are more heavily affected by hikes in their energy bills. Today the President will hold press events to raise the alarm about climate change and push for more job-killing, industry crippling energy policies, but it will be interesting to see if he spares a line or two for the millions of Americans whose jobs will be lost and whose household budgets will be shattered as a result of his proposals. This week the Senate is going to be considering the Shaheen-Portman energy legislation. I plan to introduce three amendments to check EPA overreach and to protect American workers from the devastating effects of the EPA's ground-level ozone and greenhouse gas proposal. The first amendment will require Congress to vote up or down on any EPA regulation that has an annual cost of more than $1 billion. Pretty straightforward. Let the people's representatives vote. If they are going to put regulations out there that are going to cost more than $1 billion, let us have Congress vote on those. The second amendment would prohibit the EPA from finalizing greenhouse gas regulations for new and existing power plants if the Department of Energy and the GAO determine those regulations will raise energy prices or cost jobs. So if the Department of Energy and the GAO determine the regulations will not impact jobs or energy prices, the EPA can go forward and finalize those regulations. It is time to be honest with the American people about the cost of these regulations. Taken together, these two amendments are a strong step toward placing a check on EPA's regulatory train wreck. The final amendment I will offer is specific to the administration's upcoming proposal on ground-level ozone, which as I just mentioned is the most expensive regulation in EPA's history. The cost of this regulation is so great that when the EPA first proposed lower levels in 2010, the White House delayed those regulations until after the President's reelection. My amendment is straightforward. First, it would require the EPA to consider the costs and feasibility of new ozone regulations. Many Americans would be surprised to know the EPA isn't even allowed to consider costs when setting these new regulations. My amendment would fix that. Additionally, my amendment would force the EPA to focus on the worst areas for smog before dramatically expanding this regulation to the rest of the country. As I mentioned on the map here, 221 counties across 27 States don't even meet the current standard of 75 parts per billion. It makes sense to focus on these urban areas before expanding ozone regulations to places such as western South Dakota, where we clearly don't have a smog problem. Under my amendment, 85 percent of these counties would have to achieve full compliance with the existing standard before the EPA can move forward with a lower level which dramatically expands the reach of ozone regulations. I hope the Senate will get the chance to vote on these proposals. I also hope the Senate will get a chance to vote on the Keystone amendment so we can get those 42,000 jobs opened to American workers. It has been a long time since we have had a real energy debate in the Senate. But given our sluggish economy and the danger the President's energy proposals pose to any future growth, I am hoping the majority leader will decide it is time for a debate. The election-year agenda offered by Democrats and the President is just more of the same job-killing, growth-stifling legislation that Democrats have been offering for the past 5 years. Like the legislation the Democrats and the President have offered for the last 5 years, it will do the worst injury to those Americans who can least afford it. Pundits may warn that our current economic malaise is the new normal, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can get the economy going again. We can lift the heavy burden of government regulation and free businesses to grow and create jobs. We can make it easier, not harder, for middle-class workers to find stability and for lower income workers to make it into the middle class. According to the Pew/USA Today poll, 65 percent of Americans want the next President to pursue different policies. It is still a couple more years until the next Presidential election, but there is no reason Congress can't start pursuing different policies today. The American people have been struggling for long enough. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks, the Senator from Wyoming Mr. Barrasso be recognized, followed by the Senator from Arkansas Mr. Pryor. Madam President, I modify the unanimous consent request and ask that Senator Pryor be recognized at the conclusion of my remarks, followed by Senator Barrasso.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Stephanie Gruba, a legislative aide in my Washington, DC, office, for the years of hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota. Stephanie is a native of Milbank, SD, and is a graduate from the University of South Dakota. Upon graduation from USD, Stephanie moved from Vermillion, SD, to Washington, DC, to become a member of my office staff. In her almost 3 years on my staff, Stephanie has served as a staff assistant, legislative correspondent, and as a legislative aide. Stephanie has worked tirelessly for my South Dakota constituents and as a loyal member of ``Team Thune.'' I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Stephanie for her dedicated service in the Senate and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Adam Wek, 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. Adam is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending South Dakota State University, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Adam 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, today I recognize Jennessa Scholl, 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. Jennessa is a graduate of Spearfish High School in Spearfish, SD. Currently, she is also a graduate of Black Hills State University, where she majored in mass communications. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jennessa 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, today I recognize Megan Assman, 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. Megan is a graduate of Winner High School in Winner, SD. Currently, she is attending South Dakota State University, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Megan 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, today I recognize Sarah Johnson, 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. Sarah is a graduate of Custer High School in Custer, SD. Currently, she is attending South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where she is majoring in mining engineering. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sarah 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, today I wish to honor Mr. David Jensen, a native of Lemmon, SD, for being awarded the Office of the Secretary of the Department of Defense Medal for Valor. The Medal for Valor is the highest civilian award for valor, and David received this honor for his actions while deployed in Afghanistan on September 10, 2012. He was recognized for his bravery in an awards ceremony at the Pentagon's Hall of Heroes on April 14, 2014. David served in the 75th Ranger Regiment and the U.S. Army Special Operations Command before he was honorably discharged. He is now a special operations task force advisor at Fort Bragg, NC, working for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization. David has also worked as a contractor for Wexford Group Inc., serving with the U.S. Army Asymmetric Warfare Group. In 2012, David was deployed to Afghanistan as an operational adviser for the Asymmetric Warfare Group alongside Company C, 2nd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division. On September 10, 2012, David and Company C were set to fly out of Bagram Airfield with Afghan National Security Forces to conduct a partnered air assault operation in Parwan Province. During preflight operations, however, one of the CH-47 Chinook helicopters was struck by an enemy rocket, igniting the fuel tanks of the aircraft. Despite the high risk of danger and personal harm, David immediately began evacuating wounded soldiers from the burning aircraft, making several trips before the flames overcame the entire aircraft. After evacuating four wounded soldiers from the wreckage, David promptly began administering medical attention to the injured. A humble man, David has said that he merely reacted, doing what needed to be done. David Jensen is most deserving of the Medal for Valor for his exemplary bravery in the face of danger and putting the concerns of others before his own. His selfless acts saved the lives of his colleagues, and our Nation will always be grateful for his dedicated service. As thankful citizens, we must never take for granted the courage of heroes like David who selflessly answer the call to duty.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I come to the floor to discuss the proposed minimum wage hike and the jobs it will cost Americans. With more than 10 million Americans unemployed, the last thing this body should be doing is considering legislation that would jeopardize jobs. Yet this week we are back in session with another one of the Democrats' election-year gimmicks: a 40-percent minimum wage hike that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would result in a loss of up to 1 million jobs in this country. Minimum wage hikes are a favorite Democratic proposal when economic times are tough and election-year prospects are dim. Hiking wages sounds good, after all, and Democrats figure it is a sure-fire way to appeal to Americans. But the truth is that when the consequences of a minimum wage hike are explained to them, Americans don't want it. Why is that? Because Americans want jobs. A minimum wage hike during such a weak economic recovery wouldn't result in job gains; it would result in job losses. It is simple: When you make something more expensive, people can afford less of it. When you drive up the cost of hiring workers, employers can't afford to hire as many of them, especially when you consider that many of those who employ minimum wage workers are small business owners. Democrats are proposing a 40-percent hike in an economy in which unemployment is already high and job growth is already weak--in other words, a massive minimum wage hike under the worst possible conditions. It should surprise no one that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated this hike could cost up to 1 million jobs. Who would be hurt by most by these lost jobs? Women, for one. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 57 percent of the roughly half a million jobs that would be lost by the end of 2016 thanks to this bill would be jobs that are held by women. Young people would also be hit particularly hard. Our economy's overall unemployment rate is not good, but the unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds is even worse--more than twice the national average. The unemployment rate for African Americans between 16 and 24 is still worse than that--a staggering 23.6 percent, almost four times the national average. Duquesne University economist Antony Davies estimates that the Democrats' proposed minimum wage increase would hike unemployment for those under 25 years old without a high school diploma by 7 to 10 percent. If you are somebody who really needs a job--people under 25 years old without a diploma--the unemployment rate, which is already staggeringly high, could go up by 7 to 10 percent according to a Duquesne University economist. Finally, the Democrats' proposed minimum wage hike would harm the lowest income and lowest skilled workers--in other words, the very people it is supposed to help. When businesses are faced with the reality of higher employment costs from a minimum wage hike, who are they going to let go? Low skilled workers, the same workers who are most likely to be making the minimum wage. In a March 2014 survey of businesses currently employing minimum wage workers, 38 percent reported they would have to let some employees go to cover the cost of the minimum wage hike, while 54 percent reported they would reduce their hiring. In South Dakota small business owners told me the same thing at a recent roundtable I held in my State. Multiple Main Street business owners told me they would stop hiring younger, less experienced workers and/or reduce the hours of their current employees. Others spoke of the devastating impact the cost increases would have on their businesses. One gentleman who employs 30 workers at a Dairy Queen in South Dakota told me that a $3 increase in the minimum wage would cost his business an additional $100,000 per year. That is a huge amount for a small business in a rural area of South Dakota. To deal with these costs, this owner, like so many other small business owners around the country, is going to be forced to hike prices on the products he offers, and that will affect individuals and families in South Dakota and across the country. Middle-class families have already seen their incomes fall by nearly $3,500 on this President's watch. The Congressional Budget Office makes clear that a minimum wage hike will mean their purchasing power will be even further reduced and eroded. The evidence is clear: Minimum wage hikes cost jobs. When informed that they cost jobs, the strong majority of Americans reject these hikes, but unfortunately Democrats have a habit of ignoring both the evidence and the American people. Take ObamaCare. Democrats jammed the bill through Congress on a party-line vote over the objections of the American people and despite plenty of evidence to suggest that ObamaCare wouldn't work. But, committed to their liberal fantasy of successful government-run health care, they ignored all the evidence to the contrary and forced the bill through. The American people are suffering as a result--canceled health care plans, lost doctors and hospitals, higher prices, fewer choices, and reduced access to medications. The list goes on and on. Last week the fifth annual U.S. Bank Small Business Survey reported that businesses now rank health care as their No. 1 concern. More than 60 percent of them, quoting from the survey, ``now say the long-term impact of the Affordable Care Act will be negative on their business.'' Another article over the weekend reported that ``health insurers are preparing to raise rates next year for plans issued under the Affordable Care Act.'' Still another article from The Hill newspaper on Saturday stated that Democrats in competitive elections generally regard ObamaCare as a four-letter word, with many of their campaign Web sites omitting any reference to the law. Democrats know ObamaCare has failed, but instead of trying to replace the law, they are just trying to distract with more bad policies that make it even harder to create jobs in this country. American families are hurting. They need jobs--steady, good-paying jobs. Yet Democrats are ignoring this priority in favor of liberal pet projects that pander to their political base. There is a clear contrast developing in the Senate: Democrats are offering distractions and Republicans are offering proposals that would spur job creation, increase opportunity, and help middle-class families, proposals such as Senator Hoeven's bill to force approval of the Keystone Pipeline and the 42,000 jobs the President's own State Department says it would support. There is Senator Collins' proposal to amend the ObamaCare 30-hour workweek provision that is causing employers to cut hours. We have the proposal from Senators Hatch, Toomey, and Coats to repeal ObamaCare's tax on lifesaving medical devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps--a tax that has already negatively affected tens of thousands of jobs in this industry and stands ready to damage many more. Then there is Senator Portman's bill to require executive branch agencies to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of new regulations so that fewer burdensome, job-killing regulations emerge from the administration. There are bills from Senator Lee, Senator McConnell, and Senator Ayotte to give working parents more flexibility in the workplace so that they can make it to more soccer games and more dance recitals while maintaining steady jobs. Senator Rubio has a bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow employers to give raises to deserving employees. Then there is my own to help long-term unemployed workers by providing them with a one-time low-interest loan of up to $10,000 to start a new job or to relocate to a State or metropolitan area with lower unemployment.

Mr. THUNE. Those are the issues on which we should be focused. I hope we will start--and start creating jobs and opportunities for the American people.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Let me just say to my colleague from North Dakota that we would like to have more North Dakota energy in South Dakota, of course, and have the direct benefit of that, but we focus in our State on jobs, and that is what this is all about--jobs, jobs, jobs. The President's own State Department says that this project would support 42,000 jobs--16,100 direct jobs including construction, and another 26,000 jobs that would be from indirect spending. That is not us. That is not the Senator from North Dakota, the Senator from Texas, the Senator from Oklahoma or the Senator from Missouri on this side saying it would create jobs. That is the President's own State Department saying it would create jobs and $2 billion in earnings--a $3.4 billion contribution to the U.S. economy. When you think about the States that are impacted--the State of North Dakota directly and my State of South Dakota would be traversed by the pipeline--we have a lot of local and State governments that would benefit from this. They say in the first year of operations it would generate $55.6 million of tax revenue, $17.9 million in my State of South Dakota. When you talk about what that can do in terms of infrastructure, what it can do in terms of providing revenue to build schools, public services, those sorts of things, it takes the pressure off the local property tax owners, area ranchers, homeowners, and businesses. That is another impact. I would also say to my colleagues on the floor that it would strengthen our energy security. Some 830,000 barrels a day would come through that pipeline. That is half of what we import from the Middle East and about the total of what we import on a daily basis from Venezuela. So if you look at how much we can ship from that pipeline and how much that lessens the dependence we have on areas of the world that are much less favorable to the United States than is our neighbor of Canada, that is a very real consideration in this debate. Finally, I would say to my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota-- and I thank him for his leadership on this issue--that the time to act is now. This has been studied and scrutinized and reviewed more than any project in history--8\1/2\ years, 2,048 days as of Tuesday, today, April 29. Five environmental reviews all concluded the pipeline would not have a significant impact on the environment. Just when you thought the process couldn't be dragged out any longer, this administration once again decided to block construction of this project and delay the national interest determination process. Sean McGarvey, President of North America's Building Trades Union, called this latest move: . . . a cold, hard slap in the face for hard working Americans who are literally waiting for President Obama's approval and the tens of thousands of jobs it will generate. That comes from a labor union leader in this country. The unions want this, businesses in this country want it, and the American people want it by overwhelming margins. The only people who don't want it are some of the President's political supporters who, as the Senator from Alabama has pointed out, are extending hundreds, hundreds of millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, $400 million, as the Senator from Alabama pointed out. That is what is holding this up. It is an offense to the American people to have a project like this that can do so much in terms of job creation and lessening our dependence upon foreign sources of energy and helping millions of Americans who are looking for work and simply being held up by the President of the United States. I hope the Senate Democrats and Republicans would come together to pass legislation that supports this pipeline's being built, whether the President agrees to it or not.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Commander Kathy Felger, a congressional affairs fellow for the U.S. Coast Guard on the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and other Members of the Committee over the past 2 years. A native Hoosier, Commander Felger graduated from the U.S. Coast Guard Academy in 1997. Since that time she has held various positions in the Coast Guard, most of them at sea as a ship driver. She will next serve as commanding officer of Thetis, a Famous class cutter, based out of Key West, FL with the primary missions of law enforcement, search and rescue, homeland security, and national defense. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Commander Felger for all of the fine work she has done and for her continued service to our Nation. I wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request I would like to put forward as well. I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed to S. 2199, that all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to consideration of the bill, and that it be in order for me to offer amendment No. 2964, and then for the majority leader or his designee to offer an amendment, and it be in order for the leaders or their designees to continue to offer amendments in an alternating fashion with the following amendments on the Republican side in order: McConnell amendment No. 2962, Fischer amendment No. 2963, Alexander amendment No. 2965, and Lee amendment No. 2966.