Floor Statements

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.

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. 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.

Yes.

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. President, I would say to the distinguished majority leader that we on this side believe that when we bring an energy bill to the floor to talk about energy, we ought to talk about energy. Now, he may suggest there were certain things incorporated in the bill that some of his Members wanted, maybe even perhaps some of our Members wanted, but we have a lot of Members on this side who have been shut out, who haven't had an opportunity to offer amendments now for the past year. We can come to the floor every day and talk about the fact that since July of last year there have only been votes on 9 Republican amendments and 7 Democratic amendments, out of 1,500 that have been filed. This is insanity.

We would love to get a vote on the Keystone Pipeline, but we also think there are a lot of other energy issues that are important to this country, and if we bring an energy bill to the floor of the Senate, the historical practice in this institution has been that it is open to amendments. All Members get an opportunity to offer amendments. There are issues in addition to the Keystone Pipeline that are critically important to jobs and to the economy and to the energy security in this country. So the way the leader has suggested that this ought to work isn't simply about an argument on procedure. This is about whether the Senate is going to function in a way where the views of the millions of people we represent--those of us here would love to offer amendments on these bills and are being prevented from doing it.

So I would simply say to the leader that this is not simply about the Keystone Pipeline. This is about the broader debate on energy--what it means for jobs, what it means for our economy. We are in a place now where we are not even getting votes in committee. Appropriations bills are being pulled back at the committee level because Democratic Members don't want to vote on amendments that Republican Members might offer. That is not the way this place is supposed to work.

So I appreciate the majority leader's understandable frustration, but it is a frustration that is grounded in the way he is running this institution, not in anything our side is doing.

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.

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

Mr. President, yesterday the White House held its Summit on Working Families. On the summit's Web site, the White House notes: ``Too many working Americans--both men and women--are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to make ends meet and respond to the competing demands of work and family.'' That, unfortunately, is the truth.

But what the White House does not acknowledge is how much its policies have done to create that situation. Working families have not fared well under the Obama administration. Household income has fallen by $3,500 on the President's watch. Meanwhile, prices for nearly everything have risen. Food prices have gone up. Tuition costs are soaring. Airline fares are rising. The cost of recreational activities, such as going to the movies, has risen. And energy prices are placing a huge burden on American families.

Gas prices have nearly doubled since the President took office. Low- income families in my State of South Dakota pay an average of 24 percent of their income on energy costs alone. And things are set to get much worse.

This month the President's EPA announced plans to implement a massive energy tax on Americans. Thanks to this tax, energy bills could rise to crippling levels for many families in the next few years. That is not what families need, especially--especially--when they are already paying huge amounts for health care.

ObamaCare was supposed to make things better for American families. The President assured the American people that his health care law would reduce premiums by $2,500. But since ObamaCare passed, not only have premiums not fallen, they have actually risen--gone up--by $2,500.

Millions of Americans were forced off the health plans they were promised they could keep and into exchange plans that frequently cost more money and offer less. Too many American families now have exchange plans with massive deductibles--some as high as $12,000 or more.

What middle-class family can afford to pay $12,000 a year for medical care--$12,000 on top of their premiums? That is like having an additional mortgage payment every single month. It is no wonder 54 percent of Americans do not think the President ``is able to lead the country and get the job done,'' according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

So what can you do if you are a working family living paycheck to paycheck and struggling with the high cost of everything from health care to gasoline? Well, over the past few years the answer has been not much because opportunities are few and far between in the Obama economy. Instead of promoting policies to create jobs, too often the President has proposed policies that kill jobs.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has reported that ObamaCare will cause 2.5 million full-time workers to leave the workforce. Mr. President, 2.6 million Americans earning less than $30,000 are in danger of having their hours and wages cut thanks to ObamaCare's 30-hour workweek rule. Mr. President, 63 percent of those workers are women.

The President and his party have also pushed hard for a minimum wage hike the Congressional Budget Office said would destroy up to 1 million jobs. Low-income Americans would be hit the hardest by that.

Then there is the President's national energy tax. In addition to raising energy bills for all Americans, the President's energy tax would result in the loss of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs. The rule would gut the coal industry, putting tens of thousands of workers out of work there.

It is difficult to reconcile the President's ostensible commitment to families with a policy that would put thousands and thousands of parents out of a job.

The Keystone XL Pipeline would allow the President to put thousands of Americans to work. With a stroke of his pen, the President could sign off on this project and the 42,000-plus jobs it would support. Instead, he has ignored American workers and union leaders and chosen to pander to the wishes of his extremist environmental base.

The American people need jobs--steady, good-paying, long-term jobs with opportunities for advancement. Democrats and the President are not giving that to them. Instead of spending time on real job-creation measures, the majority leader has chosen to waste the Senate's time on gimmicky, politically motivated legislation.

If Democrats were serious about providing real relief to American families, they would be working with Republicans on the many bills we have proposed to spur job creation and to support American workers-- bills such as Senator Collins' Forty Hours Is Full-Time Act, which would repeal the ObamaCare 30-hour workweek rule, which is resulting in lower wages and fewer hours for American workers; or Senator Fischer's workplace advancement amendment, which would further equip women with the tools and knowledge they need to fight discrimination in the workplace; and Senator Rubio's RAISE Act, which would amend the National Labor Relations Act to allow employers to give merit-based pay increases to individual employees, even if those increases are not part of a collective bargaining agreement; and Senator McConnell's Working Parents Home Office Act, which would fix a flaw in the Tax Code that prevents men and women from claiming a home office deduction if their home office has a baby crib so they can care for their child while they are working.

President Obama has talked about the importance of flextime for parents so they can adjust their work hours for parent-teacher conferences or soccer games. Well, Senator Lee has a bill that would help workers handle the constant challenge of work-life balance by allowing private-sector employers to offer all individuals who work overtime a choice between monetary compensation and comp time. Unfortunately, like so many other Republican bills, the Lee Working Families Flexibility Act is buried in the majority leader's Senate graveyard.

Traditionally thought of as a place where bills go to be debated, the Senate has, instead, become the place where bills go to die. But it is not just bills that go to die here; it is the solutions to improve the lives of millions of Americans. In addition to the many Senate Republican jobs bills that the majority leader has prevented from seeing the light of day, there are dozens--literally dozens--of House- passed jobs bills--several of them bipartisan--that the majority leader refuses to bring up. The Senate historically has

been a place where the voices of all Senators--Republican and Democrat, majority and minority--have been heard. But lately, the Senate seems to have become nothing so much as an arm of the Democrats' campaign committee. Democrats have brought up bills designed to win votes, not solve problems.

The Democratic leadership has worked hard to protect its vulnerable Members from ever having to take challenging votes. They do not want Democrats in tough campaigns to have to choose between the American people and the Democratic Party's far-left political base.

One of Congress's most basic duties is to consider appropriations, yet over the past 2 weeks the majority leader has pulled not one but two appropriations bills from committee consideration because he did not want his Members to have to take votes on ObamaCare or on the President's national energy tax.

That is wrong. We are here to take tough votes. If you do not want to have to take hard votes, do not run for the Senate. There is a lot of stuff that--amendments get offered by our colleagues on the other side that I do not like to vote on either, but that is what we are here for. We are here to debate. We are here to take votes. We are here to offer amendments, to put legislation on the floor.

All of us have different ideas. I may not agree with some of the things that are offered up by my colleagues on the other side, but the fact of the matter is, they have a right, on behalf of the constituents they represent, to bring the issues to the floor that are important to their constituents, and for us to debate them, and for us to vote on them.

In fact, the majority leader has exerted such tight control over the Senate that over the past year he has not only blocked almost all Republican amendments, he has blocked almost all of his party's amendments as well.

Since July of 2013--almost a year ago--the majority leader has allowed votes on just 9 Republican amendments, and just 7 Democratic amendments--out of 1,500 amendments that have been filed on the floor of the Senate.

Think about that. The world's greatest deliberative body--open to amendment, open to debate--1,500 amendments get filed; Republicans get 9 votes. I understand the whole idea, the political motivation of the leader in trying to protect his Members from having to take tough votes. But how are you as a majority Member--how do the Democrats in the Senate go back to their constituents at home and say: It is advantageous for us to be in the majority in Washington, when you have only had votes on seven amendments? Think about that. How do you, with a straight face, go back to your constituents and say: Being in the majority matters in the Senate, when Democrats here are only getting-- in the last year--seven amendments voted on? It is outrageous. One a month--about one amendment a month--is what we are voting on here, roughly.

Senators were elected to speak for the people of their State and to make sure their concerns are represented in the Senate. When Senators cannot add their voices to the process, the American people's concerns are not getting heard.

The American people have had a tough time getting their voices heard over the past few years. Over and over, they have made it clear they need good jobs and more economic opportunity. Instead, they have gotten 5\1/2\ years of higher costs and low job creation, and the jobs that are being created are not the kinds of jobs that were lost--the good- paying jobs that provide opportunities for advancement.

Republicans have proposed numerous bills to expand opportunities for American families and workers. It is time for the Senate to vote on these bills. The American people have spent enough time being ignored. It is high time for the Senate to change the way it is conducting its business.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish recognize Eden, SD. The town of Eden will be celebrating its centennial on June 27-29, 2014. Eden will host centennial events which include a tractor and car show, school reunion, 5K color run, beard contest, fireworks, and a veteran recognition ceremony.

Located in Marshall County and founded in 1914, Eden was named by its residents based on its beautiful setting. Eden has long been known as a community with deep ties to South Dakota's agriculture economy. Since its beginning 100 years ago, the community of Eden continues to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions.

I offer my congratulations to the citizens of Eden on its centennial and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Lake City, SD. The town of Lake City will be celebrating its centennial on July 4-5, 2014. Lake City will host centennial events which include a community history display, bake-off, line dancing, all-school gathering, various tournaments, and a parade.

Located in Marshall County, Lake City was founded in 1914. Lake City has long been known as the location for the annual Fort Sisseton Historical Festival, as well as being a community with deep ties to South Dakota's agriculture economy. Since its beginning 100 years ago, the community of Lake City continues to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions.

I offer my congratulations to the citizens of Lake City on its centennial and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Johanns), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, today, due to tornados and severe storms in South Dakota, which resulted in significant damage to homes and businesses in my State, I was traveling back to South Dakota to survey the damage and meet with local leaders coordinating response efforts during the scheduled vote. Had I been present for today's vote on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 770, Gustavo Velasquez Aguilar, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Devopment, I would have voted nay.

Madam President, before I begin my prepared remarks, I wish to acknowledge my constituents in South Dakota who are dealing with unprecedented flooding. We have seen historic amounts of rainfall already in the month of June that dwarf anything we can compare to throughout our State's history. Hail and winds are causing widespread damage across the State.

It is not just confined to our State. There are States in the region as well that are experiencing some of these same circumstances and tremendous damage to property. So I wanted to express my thoughts and prayers to the people I represent as well as to those in other States who are dealing with some of these circumstances, and to say thank you and express my appreciation to our first responders who have been very much in demand and on call the last few days.

The Economy

The American people are very tired. They are very weary. They are arguably fed up. The Washington Post headline from last Friday summed it up, ``Obama's image hits record lows in trio of polls.'' Gallup, CNN/ORC, and Bloomberg polls all found that the President's favorable rating had fallen to new lows. It is no wonder. Five years after the recession supposedly ended, most Americans still feel as though they are in the midst of it.

It is not just me saying that. The President's own Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen stated as recently as March, ``The recovery still feels like a recession to many Americans, and it also looks that way in some economic statistics.''

Let's talk about some of those statistics. Unemployment has spent the past 5\1/2\ years at recession level highs. Currently nearly 10 million Americans are unemployed, more than one-third of them for 6 months or longer. The labor force participation rate is at a 36-year low. A USA Today editorial from last week noted that the ``decline in the `labor force participation rate' is one of the most troubling trends of our time.'' Of course, the labor participation rate being the fraction of the available workforce that is actually working or at least looking for work.

What is driving that trend, Americans so discouraged by their failure to find a job that they have literally given up looking altogether? That is what is driving the trend in the labor participation rate.

Even after accounting for baby-boomers retiring and more people going to college--and this is again from the USA Today piece I mentioned earlier--this translates to 6 million people who could be working or looking for work. As the paper points out, the lack of these workers in the workforce means a weaker economy, lower tax revenue, as well as greater governmental expense.

Young people just getting out of college face a bleak job market. The unemployment rate for young adults is a staggering 13.2 percent or more than twice the national average. The director of Outreach for Generation Opportunity, a nonprofit advocacy organization for millennials, recently stated that more than four out of five recent graduates do not have jobs. Currently, 36 percent of young adults are living at home with their parents.

It is no wonder that CNNmoney reports that young adults, aged 18 to 34, are most likely to feel the American dream is unattainable, with 63 percent saying it is not only unattainable, it is impossible.

Everywhere Americans look, prices are rising. The price of everything from milk to the refrigerator to hold it has increased over the past several years. Gas prices have almost doubled since President Obama took office. College costs are soaring.

Then there is ObamaCare, which has meant soaring premiums and huge deductibles for way too many American families. Being in the middle class was once associated with financial security. With a little prudence, middle-class families could be expected to see their kids through college and to retire comfortably. No more.

In the Obama economy, the future is less secure. Household income not only failed to rise over the past 5\1/2\ years, it has actually dropped by $3,500 under the President's watch. Wages have remained flat and economic growth has been tepid at best. Middle-class families are no longer looking forward to a future of economic security. Instead, they are praying they do not get hit with any unexpected bills. They are worrying that they will not be able to send their kids to college, and they are wondering how long they will have to work past retirement to the economic security they need.

In a previous America, low-income families could confidently expect that effort and hard work could bring them into the ranks of the middle class. How many of our parents started out living on a shoestring but ended up sending their kids to college and retiring comfortably?

Today, though, opportunities to reach the middle class are few and far between. Fourteen million more Americans are on food stamps today than when the President took office. Democratic policies such as the ObamaCare 30-hour workweek are hitting low-income Americans the hardest. Many of the better paying jobs lost during the recession are not being replaced. Seventy-eight percent of the jobs lost during the recession were high- or mid-wage jobs, but just 56 percent of the jobs recovered have been high or mid-wage jobs. That means almost half of the new jobs that have been created are low-wage jobs. That is not the kind of climate that enables upward mobility.

The worst part is it does not look as though things are going to get better anytime soon. This week the International Monetary Fund announced it now predicts the United States economic growth rate will not exceed 2 percent this year. That is not anywhere close to the kind of growth we need for a real recovery.

The New York Times reported last week, ``The Federal Reserve, persistently optimistic in its previous forecasts, said in March that it no longer expected a full recovery in the foreseeable future.'' Let me repeat that. The Federal Reserve said it no longer expected a full recovery in the foreseeable future.

Four years ago President Obama and his administration proclaimed the advent of the summer of economic recovery. President Obama claimed the economy is headed in the right direction. Vice President Biden confidently predicted in April of 2010 that sometime in the next couple of months we are going to be creating between 250,000 jobs a month and 500,000 jobs a month. In August of that year, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner published an op-ed in the New York Times entitled, ``Welcome to the Recovery.''

Well, as the American people know, recovery summer never materialized. Four years later the American people are still waiting. According to the Federal Reserve, they are going to have to wait longer. In 2009, the President's economic advisors predicted that unemployment would fall below 6 percent in 2012. Two years later, unemployment is still firmly stuck above 6 percent. The Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco has suggested that 6-percent unemployment should be considered the ``new normal.''

I do not accept that. Republicans do not accept that. We do not accept 6.3 percent unemployment, sluggish economic growth, and struggling middle-class families as the new normal, because it does not have to be that way. We can get our economy going again. But it is going to take something a lot different than the policies of the past 5\1/2\ years. It is going to take the kind of policies that remove families' burdens, instead of increasing them. It is going to take policies that encourage businesses to create jobs, not to cut jobs. Republicans have a lot of ideas about how to get started, ideas such as repealing the ObamaCare medical device tax that has already killed tens of thousands of jobs and will kill thousands more if it is not stopped or restoring the 40-hour workweek so businesses will no longer be forced to cut employees' hours under ObamaCare's mandates or stopping the President's national energy tax which would make it more difficult for American families, particularly low-income families, to afford gas, heating, and electricity or enacting trade promotion authority to open new markets to American farmers, workers, and businesses, and to create new good-paying jobs for American workers.

The list goes on. These are just a few of the ideas Republicans have to get our economy going again.

If Democrats were serious about wanting to help American families, they would be working with Republicans to help us get legislation passed. We don't have to accept the President's economy as the new normal: chronic high unemployment, sluggish growth, massive amounts of debt. That shouldn't be the norm, and we shouldn't be satisfied with it.

Republicans are going to be working every day to ensure it isn't the new normal, and we will continue working until our economy is flourishing again and every American has the opportunity for a good job and a prosperous and secure future. We hope Democrats will work with us toward that end. It means opening this floor of the Senate to legislation that will grow our economy, create jobs, and allow us to openly debate, allow us to offer amendments, something that hasn't happened for the past year.

Since July of last year, there have been only nine Republican amendments voted on on the floor of the Senate--nine--nine amendments in almost a year. The ironic thing about that is the same procedures that are being used to block Republican amendments are also blocking Democratic amendments. So in that same timeframe Democrats have only had seven amendments voted on in the past year.

In the world's greatest deliberative body, the place where we are supposed to have open debate and an open amendment process, Republicans had nine amendments voted on. We could take that as a personal affront, but that is not what it is about. It is about the people whom we represent because they elect us here to come out, represent them, and to make sure their voices are heard in the political processes in the debates we have in Washington on the big issues that are important to them and their families. So when amendments are blocked and this process is shut down on the floor of the Senate, it is the people's voices who don't get heard and don't get represented. That has to change, and it needs to change soon, because the issues are big, and the problems and the challenges that face middle-income families are consequential.

Many of us in this Chamber come here every single day hoping to offer legislation and amendments that we believe will be solutions to getting the economy growing again and to create jobs. Every single day for the last year, at least, we have been shut down.

We can do better by the American people. They deserve better. I hope we will do better, and we can start now.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I wish to recognize Roslyn, SD. The town of Roslyn will be celebrating its centennial on June 19- 21, 2014. Roslyn will be hosting centennial events which include an antique tractor and car show, an alumnus social and a parade.

Located in Day County, Roslyn was founded in 1914 and was named after the first postmaster's hometown in Scotland. Roslyn has long been known for their vinegar museum, where they show 101 uses of vinegar, as well as being a community with deep ties to South Dakota's agriculture economy. Since its beginning 100 years ago, the community of Roslyn has continued to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Roslyn on its centennial and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.