Floor Statements

Mr. President, this week, the President of the United States, President Obama, has made yet another pivot back to the economy and to jobs, issues the American people have not had the luxury of pivoting away from.

While the President is yet again attempting to refocus on jobs and the economy, giving speeches is not a real solution to our Nations problems. In fact, yesterday President Obama said in his speech that Washington is taking its eye off the ball. Mr. President, you are Washington. You have been President now for 4\1/2\ years. These are your policies, policies that are hurting our economy and costing Americans jobs.

As for taking your eye off the ball, the President appears to be swinging with his eyes closed, with his eyes closed to the impact that his policies are having on the economy in this country. We do not have to look very far to see the impact of those policies. The ObamaCare legislation is having a crushing impact on jobs in this country--a crushing impact on the economy.

As we look at the unemployment rate, it is still over 7\1/2\ percent. It has been there now for 54 months. That is the worst job record of any President since the Great Depression.

The President's signature law, ObamaCare, continues to hamstring the job market. In June alone, the last month for which we have data, 322,000 Americans were forced into part-time employment status. Those are people who otherwise would have been willing to work full-time but because of these policies that are encouraging more employers to push their employees into part-time status, we have 322,000 individuals in this country who want to work full-time that are now having to work part-time.

ObamaCare and other policies put forward by this administration have been probably the best thing that has happened to part-time jobs. Unfortunately, for most Americans, they want to be working full-time. A recent chamber of commerce survey shows that nearly 75 percent of small businesses are firing workers or cutting hours. As implementation of the ObamaCare law continues, the number of small business owners who take those steps, unfortunately, is only going to increase.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article:

Rod Carstensen, owner of 11 Del Taco restaurants around

Denver began in April converting his mostly full-time

workforce into one comprising mostly part-time help to

minimize his health care costs. . . . He is plowing ahead

despite the ObamaCare administration's reprieve, he said,

because we need to get there anyway, and it will take until

January 1 of 2015 to make this transition.

He is referring, of course, to the employer mandate which the President has chosen to delay for this next year when it was supposed to take effect, until January 1 of 2015. Most employers, unfortunately, are not taking great consolation in the fact that this is being delayed by 1 year. They know at some point they are going to have to comply with it.

So they are taking those steps already, which is adding and fueling the data--the numbers I just mentioned with regard to people being forced into part-time jobs. Americans are facing decreased hours which means decreased wages. Additionally, families are facing higher insurance premiums, which further erodes their disposable income and opportunities to invest in a new home or a better education for their children.

A growing number of Americans are realizing ObamaCare is the wrong prescription for families who are at the mercy of an already struggling economy. The administration has been forced to concede that the employer mandate, which is a key component of the ObamaCare legislation, is broken and unworkable, which is why they have delayed it.

We are starting to see Democrats, who have historically been supportive of the law, suddenly jumping from the ObamaCare sinking ship. On Monday, a headline in the Washington Post read, ``Moderate Democrats are quitting on ObamaCare.''

The article disclosed that fewer than 50 percent of moderate to conservative Democrats now support ObamaCare, which is down more than 25 percentage points since 2010 when it passed. Congressional Democrats are also becoming increasingly skittish about ObamaCare. The House vote last Wednesday on the employer mandate delay passed 264 to 161--35 Democrats joined 229 Republicans in support for that bill.

Additionally, there were 22 House Democrats who voted to delay the law's individual mandate. Even a Democratic Senator has introduced legislation for a 2-year--not a 1-year but a 2-year employer mandate delay. In a recent letter to the Democratic leadership, three large unions expressed grave concerns with the law, led by the Teamsters Union, the organization that Jimmy Hoffa leads.

Once some of the biggest supporters of ObamaCare penned a letter-- three major unions penned a letter basically saying that the health care law will ``shatter'' health benefits and cause ``nightmare scenarios.'' Shatter health benefits, create nightmare scenarios, that is what the unions are saying. The unions also slammed the law for defining a full-time employee as one who works less than 30 hours.

The unions went on to say in their letter that the law ``will destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the middle class.''

It is very clear that even those who were vocal, those who vigorously defended and supported the ObamaCare

legislation, recognize this is not working and are making it abundantly clear in the statements that they are now making.

Just yesterday, as I mentioned, the President delivered a speech aiming to yet again pivot, as he says, back to jobs and the economy. He used the speech to kick off another campaign-style tour of speeches in hopes that touting his continued commitment to an economic recovery will overshadow these harsh realities of ObamaCare and other economic woes that plague this country.

During yesterday's speech, the President claimed he is dedicated to the middle class and growing the economy from ``the middle out.'' What do these concerns tell us about the state of the middle class? Hard- working Americans are now fearful about their job security, about their health care coverage, and their ability to make ends meet all because of this catastrophic law.

The President's strongest political allies who represent millions of workers say the President's signature domestic achievement is ``destroying the backbone of the middle class.'' Although the President continues to pivot to and away from these issues, Senate Republicans remain focused on creating jobs and growth in this country. It is time for a real recovery. The American people are ready to get back to work.

For 54 months, we have seen unemployment at or above 7\1/2\ percent. That number does not reflect the people who have given up looking for work. Let's remove the heavy hand of Washington regulations from our job creators. Let's create certainty for employers so they might hire new employees, not cut the hours of those they already have.

Let's spare the middle class from premium increases. I have seen studies all over the place that suggest, for families, for individuals, premiums across this country are going up. According to Kaiser, for families, it is $2,500. In order to achieve the goals of addressing these issues in our economy, we have to start with a permanent delay of ObamaCare for all Americans--not just for the employers, not just the employer mandate but the individual mandates, the other regulations that are 20,000 pages high--7\1/2\ feet tall are the regulations that have been promulgated to implement this law. It continues to grow by the week.

We did not need a 2,700-page bill. We did not need 20,000 pages of regulations to address the problems we have in our health care delivery system and health care coverage system today. But that is what we got. But the President's job-killing tactics do not stop just at health care. The President's proposed climate change regulations alone would cost 500,000 jobs and reduce household income by up to $1,000 per year.

Dodd-Frank has already cost $15.4 billion and 58.3 million hours in paperwork burdens on businesses across the country. Rather than more campaign-style speeches touting the same old flawed ideas, the President should work with Congress to put more Americans back to work.

By working together, we can enact meaningful regulatory reform that will provide relief to employers and to employees alike. We can fix our health care system in a manner that lowers costs while allowing families to keep the doctors they want. We can enact tax reform that will create economic growth, lower the unemployment rate, and reduce our unsustainable budget deficit.

We can expand access to domestic energy resources in a manner that fully realizes the benefits of increased energy production. This cooperation must start with President Obama getting off the campaign trail and getting to work with Congress on these important issues. So instead of pivoting yet again to the economy, in campaign-style speeches, we need a President that is here, that is working to address the economic woes American families are experiencing.

If you want to start by going out and touting things that you are going to do for the economy, start right away by approving the Keystone Pipeline. That is a no-brainer, in most people's estimation. In fact, the President's own administration has analyzed and reviewed and scrutinized and studied this thing now four different times and concluded it would have not an impact on the climate.

It would create immediate jobs, thousands of jobs, construction jobs, and then jobs over a long period of time. It would help lessen the dependence we have on foreign sources of energy by freeing up transportation of energy resources that come from friendly allies in countries such as Canada to get to American consumers in this country.

There are things the President could be doing that actually will create jobs. Come up here and engage in the debate on tax reform. Commit to tax reform that is revenue neutral, that does not raise taxes on people who create jobs in this country but, rather, lowers the rate to unleash economic growth and job creation in this country. Work with us to repeal, permanently delay, the ObamaCare regulations that are crushing jobs and the economy and, as I pointed out earlier, are forcing more and more Americans into part-time jobs, forcing employers to either cut and reduce their workforce or not hire people they otherwise might hire, and raising premiums for hard-working middle- class families.

Mr. President, it is not Washington that does not have its eye on the ball, it is you who does not have your eye on the ball.

We need you to focus like a laser on the economy and recognize that you can't close your eyes to the harmful, economic impact that your policies are having on too many middle-class Americans and small businesses who create jobs in this country to generate the economic growth that is necessary to improve the standard of living and the take-home pay of every American family. This is what we need.

I hope the President will get off the campaign trail, come back, and focus on what really matters to middle-class Americans; that is, jobs, the economy, and a better life for their children and grandchildren.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize Rosholt, SD. Founded in 1913, Rosholt will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year.

Located in Roberts County, Rosholt possesses a strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. Julius Rosholt presented the plan of the town site next to the proposed railroad. The town of Rosholt was built and born on the economy of agriculture beginning with the first lots sold on August 11, 1913. Rosholt has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of Rosholt has much to be proud of and I am confident that Rosholt's success will continue well into the future.

Rosholt will commemorate the centennial anniversary of its founding with celebrations held from August 13-18 featuring a centennial play, fireworks, 3K run, alumni reunion, and a kiddie parade. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Rosholt on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize New Effington, SD. Founded in 1913, New Effington will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year.

Located in Roberts County, New Effington possesses a strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. New Effington was named after Effie

Staffer Pratt, who was one of the women who secured the homestead. New Effington has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of New Effington has much to be proud of and I am confident that New Effington's success will continue well into the future.

New Effington commemorated the centennial anniversary of its founding with celebrations held from July 5 through July 7 which featured events such as an Alumni Day, Centennial 5K run, parade, and fireworks display. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of New Effington on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Madam President, last week a letter was sent to majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Nancy Pelosi of the House of Representatives, and I wish to read a few quotes from that letter. It says:

When you and the President sought our support for the

Affordable Care Act, you pledged that if we liked the health

plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is

under threat. Right now, unless you--

Directed at the majority leader and the minority leader in the House--

and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Kansas. I am sure he will have to take a call from the Vice President to discuss his remarks on the floor. I appreciate the way in which he talked about all that has been said on the floor in the past by the Vice President, and President Obama, who was then a Senator, and the leaders here in the Senate. We have had lots of statements on the floor and commitments made in the past. The majority leader has committed twice on the Senate floor not to use the nuclear option, with the last time being a few months ago. These were not conditional commitments. They were not commitments with caveats. They were not commitments to not violate the rules of the Senate unless it became convenient for political purposes to violate the rules of the Senate.

As recently as January 27, 2011, the majority leader said, and I quote:

I agree that the proper ways to change Senate rules is

through the procedures established in those rules, and I will

oppose any effort in this Congress or the next to change the

Senate's rules other than through the regular order.

Earlier this year, on January 24, 2013, there was a discussion between the minority leader Senator McConnell and the majority leader Senator Reid. Senator McConnell said:

I will confirm to the majority leader that the Senate would

not consider other resolutions relating to any standing order

or rules of this Congress unless they went through the

regular order process?

He was posing a question to the majority leader.

Majority Leader Reid said:

That is correct. Any other resolutions related to Senate

procedure would be subject to a regular order process,

including consideration by the Rules Committee.

That was January 24, 2013.

What has happened since that point that would change the way the majority leader views this issue? Well, let's see. We confirmed the Secretary of Energy by a vote of 97-0. We confirmed the Secretary of Interior with a vote of 87-11. We confirmed the Secretary of the Treasury with a vote of 71-26. We confirmed the Secretary of State 94- 3. I might add in that case, that vote happened just 7 days after the Senate got his nomination. We confirmed the Secretary of Commerce 97-1. We confirmed the Secretary of Transportation 100-0. We confirmed the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 96-0. We confirmed the Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 91-7. We confirmed the Chair of the Security and Exchange Commission by voice vote. In other words, he was confirmed unanimously. Not to mention the fact we have passed major legislation out of the Senate. We just completed a 3-week debate on a major immigration overhaul, and it passed with a bipartisan vote. We had a major debate on a farm bill, which passed with a bipartisan vote. Other legislation has moved through the Senate in the last few months.

So it begs the question: Why are we now having this discussion? The majority leader said back in January he wasn't going to change the rules, and to change the rules, you have to break the rules. Let's make that very clear. It takes 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. What is being talked about here is basically using a procedural device--a gimmick, if you will--to be able to change the rules to 51 votes. In other words, breaking the rules to change the rules.

There is absolutely no basis and no foundation based on the numbers and the facts I just quoted for the majority to be making the argument that they are here today.

If you go back and look at the statements that have been made by others in the past--and I remember coming here in 2005 as a new Member of the Senate from the House of Representatives. At that point we were debating judicial nominations. The Democrats were holding up several of President Bush's judicial nominations. There was a big debate about whether to exercise the nuclear option; in other words, to confirm some of those with 51 votes.

I remember at the time being sympathetic to that. I came from the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives we moved things in an orderly fashion. The Rules Committee decided what legislation came to the floor, what amendments were made in order, and how much time was allowed for debate on each amendment. It was a very structured and orderly process. Those of us who got here to the Senate were frustrated at times with the slow pace in the Senate. On some levels it made sense to think: Gee, wouldn't it be great if we could make the Senate function more like the House.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed because the Senate is not designed to function like the House. It was created for a very different purpose and a very different design. What we are talking about here would completely undermine that purpose and that design for this institution. We have observed traditions, rules, in the Senate for decades. What we are talking about, if the majority has its way, is doing something that would break the rules to change the rules and forever change the Senate in a way the majority leader Senator Reid mentioned back in 2009; that doing that would ``ruin'' the country and the Senate would be ``destroyed'' if we went about a rules change along the lines of what is being talked about today. So I hope cooler heads will prevail again. I certainly understand now, as I look back on what happened in 2005, the wisdom of those who had been here a little bit longer and understood a little bit more about the way this institution operates: the importance of having a Senate where you have open debate, where you have the opportunity for amendments--something that in the House oftentimes you do not have the opportunity to do.

It is important, in my view, that Republicans and Democrats come together and recognize if we go back on the traditions, the rules, the precedents in the Senate, we will be forever changing not just the rules, but we will be changing the Senate, and that is certainly not what our Founders had in mind, nor do I think that is what our colleagues on the other side have in mind. They may be well- intentioned, but what they are talking about doing is going to change forever the Senate in a way that would be very perilous to this institution and, more importantly, jeopardize the rights of the American people to have their voice heard in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Last week on July 2, the Tuesday before the Fourth of July Independence Day on Thursday, the administration made an announcement that they were going to delay implementation of a key component of the ObamaCare law. I think that came as a surprise to a lot of people because the expectation has been all along that in January of this next year many of the provisions in that law were going to go into effect.

Tomorrow, a majority of the Senate Republican conference will be sending a letter to President Obama asking for a permanent delay of the employer mandate. I say permanent delay because they talked about delaying it for 1 year. In making the announcement about the delay of the employer mandate, the administration unilaterally acted and failed to work with Congress on what is a very significant decision.

This action finally acknowledges some of the many burdens this law will place on job creators. I believe the rest of this law should be permanently delayed for all Americans in order to avoid significant economic harm to American families.

In response to questions about the administration's decision, the President's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett said, ``We are listening,'' while referring to the concerns of the business community over the onerous employer mandate that will result in fewer jobs and employees working fewer hours.

We have been listening as well. As more employers have attempted to understand the burdensome requirements in the President's health care law, the louder their outrage has become. In particular, small- to medium-sized businesses are simply drowning, drowning in their efforts to understand all of the regulations.

We are also listening to the views of the American people. A recent Gallup poll from this week showed that a majority of Americans still disapprove of the health care law. The survey showed that 55 percent of respondents disapprove of ObamaCare. A Gallup survey last month revealed for every one person who believes they will be better off under ObamaCare, two believe they will be worse off.

Opposition to the health care law is growing and it will continue to grow as more Americans realize the law is built upon broken promises and will result in higher health care costs and more taxes.

Under the individual mandate, the IRS, which is still under multiple investigations for unfairly targeting conservative groups, will play a central role in the implementation of the health care law in our country. Last fall the Congressional Budget Office estimated nearly 6 million Americans, primarily in the middle class, will have to pay a tax under the individual mandate, which was 2 million more than were initially estimated.

When the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented, the average individual mandate tax will be nearly $1,200, which clearly--clearly-- contradicts the President's previous statement that the individual mandate is ``absolutely not a tax increase.''

Further, families are facing significant increases in premiums. The Wall Street Journal recently published an analysis of premiums and concluded under the health care law some Americans will see their premiums double or even triple, which is the opposite of the promise that was made by the President that premiums would go down by $2,500 for American families.

Given the widely held belief by the American people the Affordable Care Act will not fulfill its promises and will result in higher costs for American families, I believe this law should be permanently delayed. This law is unworkable, harmful to the economy and to American families, and action to delay the employer mandate is an acknowledgment of that very fact.

Public opinion about the Affordable Care Act has been consistently low. Perhaps Americans don't like it because it is affecting their jobs. Four in ten small business owners say they have held back in hiring, and one in five owners says they have let employees go due to the health care costs associated with the Affordable Care Act. As implementation of the law continues, the number of small business

owners who take these steps could increase.

Employers are also cutting back on hours in anticipation of the mandate. Even though enforcement of the employer mandate may be delayed, employers still know this is coming down the pike and will continue to make adjustments to their workforce in anticipation of the new mandates.

A new mandate will also be imposed on individual Americans. On January 1, Americans will be forced by their government to buy a product--health insurance--for the first time ever. This mandate will be enforced by tax penalties administered through the Internal Revenue Service. The Obama administration has requested over $400 million in funding and nearly 2,000 bureaucrats for the IRS to implement the individual mandate and 46 other statutory provisions.

The blizzard of ObamaCare rules and regulations continues. Regulators have now written over 20,000 pages of ObamaCare-related rules and notices in the Federal Register. And just this last week another 606 pages of new regulations were released that were designed to assist in implementing this massive law. It is no wonder the public outcry from employers was so loudly opposed to the employer mandate.

American families are also struggling to understand how this complex, burdensome law will affect them. It is critical the President and his administration listen to the American people and permanently delay this law.

I would add that if we look at the impact on the economy, not only is this about higher premiums for middle-class families in this country, not only is it about higher taxes that are going to be imposed upon medical device manufacturers, on health insurance plans, pharmaceutical companies--all of which, by the way, will be passed on to individual consumers--it is also about the impact this will have on jobs and the economy. If we look at the numbers that came out last week and what they said about the impact of policies coming out of Washington, DC, and the impact they are having on jobs in this country, the number of people working part time for economic reasons--sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers--increased by 322,000 people to 8.2 million total people in the month of June. These are people who are working part time because their hours have been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

The real unemployment rate, or what we call the U-6 rate, is 14.3 percent for June of 2013, which is an increase of one-half percentage point over the previous month. That is the total percentage of unemployed and underemployed workers, making the real number of unemployed Americans in this country 22.6 million people. These are people who are unemployed, want work but have stopped searching for a job, or are working part time simply because they can't find full-time employment.

I would add that when policies coming out of Washington, exemplified by the ObamaCare mandates, are imposed on the American economy, it makes it harder for job creators and employers in this country to create the jobs necessary to affect these numbers in a positive way, to get Americans back to work, and back to work in a full-time way and back to work in a way where they are actually increasing their take- home pay rather than having it decreased by higher costs for everything they have to spend their income on, including the cost of health insurance coverage.

We have been saying for a long time and there is study after study that comes out that talks about how the health care law is going to cause health insurance premiums to rise, and there have been a lot of people who have gotten up here in the Senate, others in the administration, in an attempt to defend the ObamaCare law who have said: Oh, no, no, no, that is not going to be the case; it is actually going to drive premiums down. We continue to hear that, but more and more evidence comes in, and not just studies being done out there but real-life examples of the impact this law is having on insurance premiums.

In fact, there are some actuarial studies that have estimated premiums in various States around the country and what the impact on premiums would be. For the State of Colorado, in the individual market, the estimate by the actuaries is that the insurance premium rates are going to go up by 19 percent; the State of Indiana by 95 percent in the individual market, by 10 percent in the small group market; the State of Maine, the estimates are the individual market premiums are going to go up by 40 percent, 9 percent in the small group market; the State of Minnesota, in the individual market, a 42-percent increase in premiums and 20 percent in the small group market; the State of Wisconsin, a 30- percent increase in the individual market. In the State of Ohio, last month the Department of Insurance announced the average individual market health insurance premium in 2014 will cost 88 percent more. According to Ohio insurance regulators, the department's initial analysis of the proposed rate shows consumers will have fewer choices and pay much higher premiums for their health insurance starting in the year 2014.

Well, it shouldn't be any big surprise when we look at the requirements in the new health care law. The new health care law says you have to have a certain kind of coverage. You can't continue to offer coverage available to people who might want to have different choices about what types of things they want covered, what they want their copays or their deductibles to be. Basically, the law says if you are going to offer a plan, you have to offer this plan, it is a government-approved plan, and it has to have these sorts of coverages and these sorts of things and these bells and whistles.

The new law also says you can get insurance after you get sick. It is called the guarantee issue. No longer is there any requirement to go out and get insurance to protect yourself and prevent yourself from having to be in that situation when illness strikes. Now, if you get sick, you can go out and buy insurance.

It also requires community rating, which changes the way in which health care costs are distributed across the range of people who are covered by health care premiums in this country, making it more expensive for younger people to get their health insurance coverage. That is why we are seeing these steep increases in the individual market.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for a couple of minutes.

So when we look at all the mandates, the new requirements in the legislation, the new taxes in the legislation, and when we look at all the States trying to deal with and cope with this, and all the small businesses--and small businesses, obviously, weighed in heavily, which is why, as I mentioned earlier, the White House said, look, we are listening, we got the message, and so they waived this, they delayed this at least for 1 year for the small businesses under the employer mandate--all we are simply saying is: Look, there are lots of problems associated with this law. This was a bad law. It is based upon broken promises. It promised lower premiums; we are seeing higher premiums. It includes higher taxes. We are going to see effects all across the economy when it comes to jobs as people cut back and start forcing people into part-time jobs so they are not hit with the employer mandates under this legislation.

So the law affects jobs and it affects the economy. We have a sluggish economic growth rate that has now been adjusted down to 1.8 percent in the last quarter, and we continue to sort of muddle along. One of the reasons for that is because we here in Washington, DC, continue to pile more and more costs on employers trying to do business. So until we understand that to create jobs and grow the economy we have to make it less difficult and less expensive for employers and job creators to create jobs, we will continue to see this trend in the future.

I would simply say to my colleagues here in the Senate, and to the administration, if we are going to delay implementation of the employer mandate for a year, let's delay the individual mandate as well, and let's not just do it for a year, let's permanently delay this. Let's start over and do this the right way, in a way that actually reduces premiums and health care costs for people in this country, that makes it less expensive and less difficult for small businesses to create jobs and

grow the economy, and to get Americans back to work in good jobs that pay well, that increase the take-home pay so they can provide in a better way for their families.

Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the South Dakota Wheat Growers as it celebrates its 90th anniversary. Over the years, the Wheat Growers has faithfully served member-owners by promoting integrity through business transactions, providing customers with reliable markets, and practicing sustainability through the best applications of science and technology. The Wheat Growers aims to meet the food challenges our world faces by coupling the expertise of farmers in the Dakotas with state-of-the-art technology and facilities to improve production agriculture capabilities.

The Wheat Growers was established in 1923 as a response to widespread farm bankruptcies caused by depressed wheat prices. Through their collaboration and commitment to serving South Dakota farmers, the Wheat Growers endured the Great Depression and has since expanded its grain storage capacity and farming supply services. It continues to develop its industry as it seeks new opportunities for expansion and value- added potential for producers.

Today, the Wheat Growers serves 5,400 member-owners in eastern North and South Dakota, markets 160 million bushels annually, and operates in 37 locations. I would like to thank the Leadership Team, the Board, and delegates of the Wheat Growers who have committed their time and energy to helping member-owners succeed in agricultural production. On behalf of the State of South Dakota, I am honored to have this opportunity to congratulate the South Dakota Wheat Growers for 90 successful years of service in providing a healthy market for producers and consumers. Congratulations to the Wheat Growers as it celebrates its 90th anniversary in Aberdeen, SD, on Friday, June 28th.

Mr. President, I want to speak to the underlying legislation that we are debating in the Senate today. I want to acknowledge that, like many of my colleagues in the Senate, I am a descendant of immigrants. Only one generation separates me from a grandfather who was born in Norway but came to America with his brother in hopes of making a better life. My grandfather and great-uncle, when they came through Ellis Island, their given name was not the name I have today. It was Gjelsvik, and when they got to Ellis Island the immigration officials there asked them to change their name because they thought it would be difficult to spell and pronounce for people in this country. So they picked the name of the farm near where they worked near Bergen, Norway, which was the Thune farm. So Nicolai Gjelsvik became Nick Thune, my grandfather.

When they got here they worked on the railroad, saved up enough money to buy a merchandizing store, which eventually became a hardware store, and there is to this day on the streets of Mitchell, SD, a Thune Hardware. The family is not associated with it anymore, but that is an example, like so many other cases, of people in this Chamber as well as those all across the country who came here in search of the American dream, in search of a better life for their children and grandchildren.

My grandfather raised three sons in the middle of the Great Depression. The middle son, my father Harold, became an accomplished basketball player, went on to star at the University of Minnesota, and when World War II broke out he defended his country in combat. He became a naval aviator, flew off the aircraft carrier Intrepid during World War II. When he returned to South Dakota he started raising his family in the small town of Murdo, which is where I grew up.

This country was built by immigrants like my grandfather, and our future both economically and as a continued example of freedom throughout the world will be maintained by future generations of immigrants who come here with the respect for the rule of law and hopes of starting a better life.

A lot has changed in the world since my grandfather came to the United States. We face new threats from abroad that attempt to use our porous borders to harm this Nation and to destroy our way of life. In addition to these new national security challenges, we depend on a more dynamic system of commerce, trade, transportation, and communication. Our government is also larger and now offers a broad social safety net to a growing and aging population. To maintain our system of government, while encouraging future generations of immigrants to come here, our immigration policy must provide a clear path for those who wish to come legally while enforcing the rule of law. As lawmakers, we have to look at each piece of legislation that comes to the Senate floor based on its own merits and the impacts that it will have on our Nation.

The immigration bill before the Senate has many aspects of it that I can support, but there are elements of this legislation that cause me concern. I appreciate the effort of those who have worked in drafting this bill to find a way to address the 12 million undocumented workers who are currently living in this country. However, if we are going to fix the problem, we need to do so in a way that doesn't result in the Senate having the same discussion again and again in years to come.

The solution to the problem of illegal immigration is not Congress passing new laws every few years that provide for legalization without securing our borders. That sends the wrong message to natural-born citizens and those waiting outside of our country to enter legally.

What legalization before enforcement communicates is if they want to come to America, don't play by the rules; it takes too long. Instead, find a way to sneak in and wait for the next round of amnesty.

Before we get to the point of talking about what a path to legalization might look like, as a country we first need to be at the place where we can, No. 1, confirm our borders are secure; No. 2, know when people have overstayed their visas; and, No. 3, have a system in place where employment is limited to those who have played by the rules.

Once we have these tools in place, then we can look at a path to legalization. The bill before us today is legalization first and enforcement second. That is a promise the American people have heard before.

Last week I spoke several times on an amendment that I had offered to this legislation for a border fence which, at the time, was voted down by a majority in the Senate. I would prefer if we lived in a world where a border fence was not necessary, but, unfortunately, we do not. When I introduced that amendment I was surprised to learn from some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that in their view it was a waste of money and unnecessary. In fact, one of my colleagues even called it a dumb fence. Yet the substitute amendment agreed to this week now calls for 700 miles of fencing along the southern border.

With this new compromise, instead of the fence being a bad idea, now all of a sudden--and I guess it is not unlike some of the evolutions that occur around here--it is a good idea. I appreciate that some of my colleagues appreciate that good fencing is a key component of border security.

I would like to make clear that this 700 miles of fencing is not a trigger that is a precursor to legalization. The amendment agreed to in the Senate is still legalization first and the promise of border security down the road.

What the amendment I offered called for was 350 miles of fence to be completed prior to RPI status being granted. That would have meant border security first, then legalization. Additionally, I had proposed a double-layered fence to prohibit pedestrian traffic, which is different than the single-layered fence in the current legislation.

It would be insincere to claim we want to discourage illegal immigration and yet have a border that anyone can walk across, in some places without even knowing that a border has been crossed. No border fence will ever be 100 percent effective, we know that. But a physical barrier along with increased use of technology will stem the flow of pedestrian traffic. On the few sections of our border where a double- layered fence is already in place, this is verifiably the case.

Another provision being touted as part of the compromise version of this legislation is the inclusion of 20,000 additional Border Patrol agents to secure

our southern border. Prior to this compromise, our colleague from Texas Senator Cornyn was criticized for proposing 10,000 new agents. I would hear people coming down on the floor saying: We can't have that. How are we going to pay for it? We don't have the money to pay for this in the bill.

Now the increase of 20,000--double the number proposed by the Senator from Texas--is being defended and even celebrated by my colleagues who were criticizing the increase only a week ago. I am still not sure how these additional Border Patrol agents will be paid for, nor am I sure how Customs and Border Patrol will be able to double in size in a short period of time.

I want to point out that those who are proposing this--and, again, when this was originally proposed, the underlying bill had about $8.3 billion in it for infrastructure and other things that were called for in the bill. But adding 20,000 Border Patrol agents now, with all the other spending in the bill, has driven the cost of this up from about $8.3 billion, which was going to be paid for in the form of fees, to now about $50 billion in costs. The argument is, that is OK because it is going to be paid for. The CBO has said this is going to generate a surplus over the next 20 years.

How is that surplus? How did they come up with that estimate? Of course, first of all, it is a payroll tax number. They are assuming that people who come here are going to start paying payroll taxes into the Social Security trust fund and into the Medicare trust fund--all probably fair assumptions. The only thing about that is when those payroll taxes come into those trust funds, at some point their assumption is they are going to be paid out in the form of benefits. So they took payroll tax surpluses and counted those as the way in which they would pay for the spending in the bill.

However, if we actually look at what the CBO said, if we take out those Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses, the general fund--or I guess you would say excluding the FICA payroll tax surpluses amount on this--is a $70 billion deficit. If you back out Medicare, it is only a $14 billion on-budget deficit, but it is still a deficit under the bill.

To suggest this is all going to be paid for by savings that are going to occur because of additional payroll taxes misses the point that those are payroll taxes that go into those trust funds on the assumption they are going to pay benefits at some point in the future. These are temporary savings; these are not savings we can count. In fact, when we do the on-budget analysis, we come up, again, with a deficit of $14 billion. If we take out the Medicare surplus, payroll tax surplus, we end up with a $70 billion deficit.

While I appreciate, again, the work of my colleagues to improve the bill, the final product is still legalization first and promises of border security down the road. The drafters of the legislation could point to many specifics that they hope to see in place, but these promises of additional fencing, E-Verify, electronic entry-exit, and more Border Patrol agents could be years away--if they ever happen at all. There are virtually no border security or interior enforcement border security measures in place prior to the initial legalization of 12 million undocumented workers.

I would like to see a border security package that brings real border security prior to legalization. Unfortunately, this bill is not it.

We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. It is important that these laws are respected and enforced in accordance with the Constitution and with respect to our immigrant heritage. We must have an immigration system that rewards those who play by the rules and come to the United States through legal means. In considering changes to our laws, we need to promote and reward lawful behavior rather than providing incentives that would encourage even more illegal immigration.

In 1986 Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act offering amnesty to roughly 3 million people. Today the population of illegal immigrants in the United States is estimated to be around 12 million.

Did the 1986 amnesty legislation solve the problem? No, it did not. Yet today here we are again proposing a very similar package which repeats the same mistakes made in the past. Lawful immigration makes our communities, our economy and our country stronger. Our current immigration system needs to be fixed in a manner that continues America's great heritage as a nation of immigrants. Unfortunately, as this bill currently stands it will not solve the problem. Unless we see changes that emphasize border security and the rule of law before legalization, I will not be able to support this bill. And that is not because I oppose immigration reform. It is because this is not a piece of legislation that will help our country in the long run. This legislation will provide instant legalization, leaving in place many of the same problems which led to the situation, while exacerbating other problems.

I filed an amendment that would take many of the triggers being touted as part of this latest substitute amendment and make them prelegalization. If this amendment were to be accepted, the bill would become enforcement first and legalization later. We may not get to the point in the Senate where that type of change is going to be considered.

As we wind up this debate and move to the finish line in terms of final passage, it sounds as though additional amendments are probably unlikely to be considered, which is unfortunate. We have a lot of colleagues, as was talked about earlier, who have lots of good ideas that would improve and strengthen this bill. We will not have an opportunity to debate or vote on those amendments.

I am hopeful that as this bill moves out of the Senate sometime tomorrow and gets to the House of Representatives it will be strengthened in ways I can support. It is time we keep our promises to the American people by securing our borders as we seek to reform our immigration system. I hope before this is all said and done and this process reaches the final finish line, which would be the President's desk, it has the right types of enforcement that put border security first and addresses what I think are the broken promises that have been made to the American people too many times in the past.

The American people need to be assured once and for all that we are serious about the issue of enforcement and the issue of border security, and that the past promises and assurances which have been given in the past are not all empty rhetoric and hollow talk and mean something. We can do that, but unfortunately this bill fails to get the job done.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I recognize Claire City, SD. Founded in 1913, Claire City will celebrate its 100th anniversary this year.

Located in Roberts County, Claire City possesses a strong sense of community that makes South Dakota an outstanding place to live and work. On August 15, 1913, many people gathered along the treeless prairie to buy lots for $100 to $600 in this new town named after Claire Feeney. Claire City has continued to be a strong reflection of South Dakota's greatest values and traditions. The community of Claire City has much to be proud of and I am confident that Claire City's success will continue well into the future.

Claire City will commemorate the centennial anniversary of its founding with celebrations held from June 28th through June 30th featuring events such as a parade, tractor pull, and an auction of centennial items. I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Claire City on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Brittany Anderson, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Brittany is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, she is attending Wheaton College, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Brittany for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Katie Haugen, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Katie is a graduate of Saint Thomas More High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently, she is attending Black Hills 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 internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Katie for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Cole Kirby, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Cole is a graduate of Sage High School in Newport Coast, CA. Currently, he is attending Georgetown University, where he is majoring in finance. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Cole for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize James Reynolds, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

James is a graduate of Derby High School in Derby, KS. Currently, he is attending Wichita 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 internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to James for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Auburn Ritterbush, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Auburn is a graduate of RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, England. Currently, she is attending Black Hills 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 internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Auburn for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, today I recognize Hamilton Zachariahs, an intern in my Washington, DC office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota.

Hamilton is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of Michigan, where he is majoring in business. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Hamilton for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.