Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The budget resolution's reconciliation instruction to the Finance Committee does not and should not specify the policies or provisions that are being reported out of the Budget Committee resolution. The Finance framework includes international tax reform that will incentivize companies to invest domestically and create jobs in the United States. But this amendment defines ``patriot employers'' with a long list of criteria and pinpoints tax breaks for these companies. ``Patriot employers'' should not be defined by the budget process or by politics but by those that allow our constituents to join and remain in the workforce so as to participate in the American dream. American companies will be able to create additional jobs based on tax relief envisioned by the Finance Committee. As such, we should pass the resolution and reconciliation in a timely manner, and we should oppose this amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Paul No. 1296 and Cardin No. 1375. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote in relation to these amendments in the order listed; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes; finally, that there be 2 minutes, equally divided between the managers or their designees, prior to each vote, and that all votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Budget rules don't accommodate current tax policy. This means at least $460 billion of scored revenue loss can be attributed to the difference between a current law baseline and a current policy baseline. Many of the tax extenders covered by this amount are popular and are supported on a bipartisan basis. This amendment is corrosive to the budget resolution's privilege. It falls outside the scope of what is appropriate for inclusion. Adoption of corrosive amendments could be fatal to the resolution's privilege, and loss of privilege could compromise our ability to pass tax reform and to enforce the budget spending limits. Further, this amendment is also nongermane. The Congressional Budget Act requires that amendments to a budget resolution be germane--a statutory regulation we can't ignore. So I raise a point of order against this amendment under the Budget Act's section 305(b)(2).

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Paul No. 1298, Lee No. 1430, and Paul No. 1277. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote in relation to the Kaine amendment No. 1249 and that following disposition of the Kaine amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the above amendments in the order listed; finally, that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees prior to all further votes tonight and that they be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. ENZI. The next four votes will be on the Kaine amendment No. 1249, the Paul amendment No. 1298, the Lee amendment No. 1430, and the Paul amendment No. 1277.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The congressional budget clearly empowers the Budget Committee chair as scorekeeper. Since becoming chairman in 2015, I am pleased to say that the Budget Committee has always discharged its responsibilities with scores in hand, proving our important work and function without this amendment. In fact, the 28-hour rule is a recent creation, and its repeal shows no deviation from Senate practice. It would require 28 hours on every amendment. It is also important to note that a budget resolution is not a law. Because it is not a law, it cannot supersede or replace any statutory provisions. The Congressional Budget Act is a law and sets forth the rules that the congressional budget must follow. The proposed amendment attempts to make a significant change to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act, which should be accomplished through regular order legislation which the President signs. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The amendment seeks to reduce discretionary appropriations this fiscal year by $43 billion. As Members are aware, the resolution's discretionary figures for this fiscal year are fully consistent with the Budget Control Act spending limits. If they weren't, then the resolution would be subject to a 60-vote point of order. This year's resolution also includes Overseas Contingency Operations funding at $77 billion. This amount is equal to the President's request and is allowable under the Budget Control Act. The members of the Budget Committee worked hard to craft a resolution with levels that would put us on a better fiscal path, with $5.1 trillion in spending reductions over the next 10 years. The resolution already contains ample restraint to both discretionary and mandatory spending. As the Appropriations Committee has reported many of its bills already, this amendment could be detrimental to the appropriations process as it stands today and the allocation this resolution will provide. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up en bloc and reported by number: Udall amendment No. 1553, Lee amendment No. 1428, Paul amendment No. 1404, Lee amendment No. 1429, Fischer amendment No. 1552, Cantwell amendment No. 1301, Enzi amendment No. 1561, and Perdue-Whitehouse amendment No. 1167. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate now vote in relation to these amendments in the order listed.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, we expect to have this series of votes and then move to passage of the resolution. That means there are hopefully approximately eight votes left. Some of them may be voice votes. Mr. President, I yield to the leader.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, reluctantly. I have always fought to make sure the rural communities can keep the lights on. Approximately half of the land in my home State of Wyoming is under Federal control, and counties, therefore, are unable to obtain property tax revenue from a large part of the State. Payment in lieu of taxes isn't a giveaway to these counties. It is compensation for the money they lose because they are unable to tax Federal lands within their borders, even though they are required to provide services on those lands. However, this resolution already has the reserved funds for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes Program. I find this amendment to be duplicative and unnecessary. Furthermore, the vote-arama isn't the correct forum to contemplate making any program permanent and mandatory, even one I have long supported. I look forward to working with my colleague from New Mexico and with other interested Members from Western States on fiscally responsible legislation to provide fairness and equity for America's rural counties and their communities. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back all time and ask for a voice vote.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I request that everybody sit in their seat, and we could do these votes in 7\1/2\ minutes. If everybody wanders off and comes back in, we could be here half the night. There should only be about seven votes left, and some of those could be by voice vote, like the next one.

Mr. ENZI. I appreciate the way those on that side have taken their seats and voted. Amendment No. 1428

Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first of all, I want to thank everybody who has gotten us to this point. There is this vote, and I hope there will be one voice vote after it and then final passage. I am urging my colleagues to support this amendment. This amendment offers technical and conforming changes that are needed for the House of Representatives to be able to enforce the budget resolution. This amendment will help maintain fiscal discipline in the House so both Chambers can continue to work and put America on a more sustainable footing. What is also important for my colleagues to know is that these provisions apply to the House only. The Senate enforcement remains unchanged. I hope you will support me on this amendment. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am tempted to debate that, but we will get to do that as we do the provisions of this after it is all voted on. I hope everybody will adopt the substitute by voice, and then vote on adoption of the resolution.

Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am going to contain my remarks to the budget and its process. For several days--in fact, for several weeks--I have been listening to the same rhetoric of what this budget will do. This budget is a special process. It does outline a plan for what we can do over 10 years. That is a long time. I don't know that we ever make it past the first year. In fact, some budgets do not last more than 40 days before we waive the budget, but we need to have a blueprint. This is a blueprint that covers 10 years in spite of some of the rhetoric that this bill will not do any of the things that have been claimed. The reason that it will not do any of the things that have been claimed is that everything in the budget requires action by another committee before it can be done. Maybe they will take what we have in the budget and do that. Usually, they do not. If they were to, we could balance it, in this case, over a 10-year period. That is too long. Interest is going to eat us alive before that time. We are going to have to do something else. I remember, when President Obama came into office, he had an idea. He said that the economy was too sluggish, so he was going to do a stimulus bill. Here, they are complaining about this $1.5 trillion that, perhaps, might be part of the flexibility for doing tax reform. We did more than that in the stimulus, and it did not work and went into the hands of a few people. Some of it never did get used. Some of it went to very few people. It was supposed to go to shovel-ready projects. Some of those projects have not been done yet, so that did not work. We have had a slow economy. In fact, it seemed to have been slowing down, not speeding up, until last November. Last November, people showed a sign of hope, and the economy started going the other way. It is reflected in the stock market and some of the commodity prices because they felt that those could be produced again. We decided that we had to try a different approach, and the different approach was to try to put the money in the hands of hard-working Americans. That is the middle class that some of the people talk about, and it is the poor that some of the people talk about. It is everybody. When we do tax reform, it will affect everybody. In fact, there are even some studies that show that when you do the corporate tax, it increases money for individuals who are working because there will be more competition for people, and that will drive up wages. Some economists have pointed that out. Yet, rather than argue with the Congressional Budget Office about how much the change is going to be, we said: No. Go ahead. Do your static one just as though no change had been made at all. We are willing to bet that there will be a very slight increase that will cover what we are talking about as a possible deficit and that that deficit will not develop if we increase just a very small amount in productivity. Just about every economist asked: How come you are picking such a low number? Well, we try to be conservative and hope that the number goes 4 or 5 or 6 points higher than that. If it does, we will have money to start paying back some of the debt. If it just stays at my estimated, conservative amount, at the end of 10 years, we will have a surplus of $197 billion. We have a chance to put America on a different route, one that will increase jobs, one that will get the money into the hands of the people, realizing that they probably know better what to do for themselves and their families than we do. I do hear a lot when I go home about different government programs that are not working. In my studies, I have found that we not only have programs that are not working but that we have programs that nobody ever takes a look at. We have programs that have a lot of duplication. We have 160 housing programs. There are really only 5 things that those 160 programs do, so shouldn't we have just 5 of them and maybe have them specifically and all under one agency and set some goals and see if they meet those goals? I was visiting with a lady from Africa who happens to be in charge of finance in her country. She said: You know, we have performance contracts in our country, and a performance contract means that everybody, including the towns, does a list of what they are going to get done during the year. Because they are smaller than the United States, once a year they get everybody together who has a performance contract, and everybody reviews his performance contract. If you do not meet your performance contract, there is a little bit of public embarrassment; whereas we do not even check to see if they did anything. We do not even check to see if they have plans. We have to change that, and some of the things in this budget will allow that to happen. I appreciate the way that we finished up in committee. I allowed the other side to see the budget early. Normally, they get to see it after opening statements are done. Imagine that--do the opening statement about what you think is going to be in the budget. Although some of the speakers I have heard around here act like they are still thinking that something might be in the budget that is not, they got to see it 5 days early in exchange for submitting their amendments, which is what every other committee does. Submit the amendments early, and then we can look through them and see how much duplication there is and some that can be accepted from both sides. As a result, we started with over 150 amendments, and we voted on 25. We took five from the other side, making it a bipartisan budget. Nevertheless, after the committee process, we brought it to the floor, and we had an open amendment process today. In fact, as for the way the rules are on this, after we voted on the last amendment--of course, before we voted on final passage--somebody could have said: Wait a minute, I have one more, and he could have gone on all night. Again, we had to think of a civil process today that would result in our being able to finish at what would be considered an extremely early hour. There was a little different tone to the amendments than what I had seen before--I think people will agree with that--which was that they were focused on the actual items in the budget, not on ``gotcha'' amendments. Usually, they say: Well, that person is up, and he has this little soft spot, so if I throw in this amendment, he will be on record, probably, having to vote against it, or he will vote for it, and that can be used against him. Either way, they would be able to use it. I didn't see those amendments this time, and I appreciate that. I appreciate my colleagues for their consideration, their cooperation, and a lot of patience that has gotten us to this point. I thank Leader Mitch McConnell for allowing the Senators to do their jobs, to do them in committee, and to do them here on the Senate floor. This commitment to an open, honest, and transparent legislative process is crucial to helping Congress restore the trust of the American people. I also owe thanks to the outstanding members of the Senate Budget Committee, who fought so hard and so tenaciously to outline a plan that could balance the budget over the next 10 years while providing the tools needed to reform our Tax Code and boost the economy. The Presiding Officer was a part of that committee, and the Senator who just finished presiding was a part of that committee. I appreciate the careful and calculated way they looked at it, provided suggestions, then asked good questions at hearings and helped to come up with that budget. Thanks are due, as well, to the many Members on this side who came and spoke on the budget's behalf, who offered amendments to make it better--well, almost always to make it better--and who worked with each of us and each other to move through the resolution's debate and the vote process together. I would also like to focus for a moment on some of the staff who helped to lead us here. I want to thank the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee. That is Betsy McDonnell, my staff director, who is relatively new to the position, but you would never know that in the way she took ahold with her knowledge and friendship among people, again, on both sides of the aisle. She has been able to work some wonders to where we had the least votes in a vote-arama that, I think, we have ever had. That came from her being able to combine some of them but also in helping them redraft so that they were covering a different area than somebody else might be covering, which eliminated some of the repetition. I want to thank my deputy staff director, Matt Giroux, and Paul Vinovich, Becky Cole, Thomas Fuller, Elizabeth Keys, Joe Brenckle, Jim Neill, Steve Robinson, Greg D'Angelo, Tom Borck, Richard Berger, Jeremy Dalrymple, David Ditch, Susan Eckerly, Alison McGuire, Will Morris, Steve Townsend, Kelsie Wendelberger, and our interns Catherine Konieczny, Jake Whitaker, and Matt Pfeiffer. They are quite a team that has been doing a lot of work, both daytime and night and while the Senate has been out of session. So I would also like to offer a special thank-you to Eric Ueland, who previously served as my staff director. He has been nominated for a post within the administration, and he is still waiting for his vote here, which is being delayed a lot--not just on his but apparently on all of them. Eric has played an important role on this committee and throughout his time in the Senate. Two years ago, Eric was instrumental in helping Congress approve its first balanced 10-year budget since 2001, which represented an important step toward putting our country on not just another course but a better course. He is careful, precise, and dogged in his work. He has a tremendous knowledge of the history of the Senate and particularly the budget process. I especially appreciate his understanding of the complex Senate rules and precedents, along with the Budget Act. I wish him Godspeed in his next position in service to our great Nation. As well, thanks are due to my personal office staff who have to carry a load because I am not there when I am working on the budget stuff, but they keep me well informed so we are progressing on some of the State stuff at the same time. I particularly have to thank my chief of staff, Tara Shaw, who, because a new administration came in and liked the employees I had working for me, hired many of them away and we had to find replacements and she did an outstanding job with that. She has helped to kind of hold me together during this whole process and gives me outstanding advice so that I know not only what I am doing but why I am doing it, and, again, she has a tremendous history of what I have done before, which helps me as a good reminder. She is an outstanding chief of staff. I also want to include my legislative director, Landon Stropko. When you are the budget chairman and you are worried about some of the numbers, you can give the legislative director a heart attack because as budget director you have to vote against some things that have some unusual numbers to it, but it might be something people in Wyoming are interested in. We were able to resolve some of those conflicts. I always support Wyoming, as I mentioned. For anything that happens in the budget process, there is another process that will actually require some votes to finish up anything that is in there, and we will see that everything in there comes out in Wyoming's favor as well as for the rest of the Nation. I am not trying to do anything partial just to our part of the country, although a lot of things I work on have to do with very rural places. We are the least populated State in the Nation, but we are also the biggest State in the Nation so we have a lot of open space to invite people to. I also want to thank Bart Massey, Liz Schwartz, Natalia Riggin, Aniela Butler, Charlie Carroll, Shawna Newsome, Garnett Decosimo, Chris Lydon, Aron Wehr, and Dylan Mitchell. I want to thank my Communications Director, Coy Knobel, our press team, Max D'Onofrio and Rachel Vliem, and the rest of the Wyoming team. I have a bunch of people in Wyoming who primarily work on casework and do an outstanding job doing that. I also want to thank the Budget Committee's bipartisan staff: Kim Proctor, Katie Smith, George Woodall, Grace Bruno, and Kevin Walsh, as well as Celina Inman, who has been on loan to us from the Government Publishing Office. You can tell around here it takes a lot of government printing. We have also been supported by the great work of our leadership, the floor and cloak room staff. I thank them for their continued good work and dedication to this institution and the country as a whole. In particular, I want to thank Sharon Soderstrom, Hazen Marshall, Jane Lee, and Brendan Dunn in the leader's office; Monica Popp, John Chapuis, and Emily Kirlin in the whip's office; and very especially Laura Dove, who really runs this place. She has a history from when her dad was the Parliamentarian, and I am sure there was dinner table talk that has led her to know a lot of the precedents. I have seen when somebody disagreed with her, she was able to just go over and pull out a manual and turn almost instantly to the page and say: Here it is. She does an outstanding job of helping us stay on the right track. I also thank Robert Duncan, Chris Tuck, Megan Mercer, Tony Hanagan, Mike Smith, Katherine Kilroy, and Chloe Barz in the cloakroom. I would really be remiss if I didn't thank the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, and her team, along with our bill and amendment clerks who kept us on the straight and narrow, but I particularly want to point out our Senate Parliamentarian who has to go through the technical details of every sentence of everything we do. When you talk about a filing cabinet of ideas all contained in one place, she does it. She knows precedent. She has been working at it for a long time. To be Parliamentarian, you have to be somebody who really likes detail work and pressure because when somebody comes in, they don't say: Take a look at this, and maybe I will see what you think next week. No, they want to know right now what you think, and fortunately she is able to, with a very great personality, say: Not yet, and then she does her research and comes up with some great explanations--not ones we always agree with--but great explanations for any decision she makes, and we really appreciate that. So you can see that it takes a whole lot of people, and I haven't had a chance to get the list of the people from the other side of the aisle who have been working on, in some cases countering what we are doing and keeping their people informed, but that is the Senate; that is, there are all these people behind the scenes who are helping to make it work and to do it right. That is important. We want to do it right. Now, I think we could work together a lot better if we were able to work in smaller bites. I get a little upset when we do comprehensive stuff around here. I have watched so many times when we take a comprehensive bill and soundly defeat it or maybe narrowly defeat it, but we defeat it. I figured out, when we do something that ought to be in separate bites, that this piece loses 5 votes and this piece loses 10 votes and this piece loses 12 votes, and pretty quickly you don't have a majority anymore, but if you do it in smaller bites, you may lose 5 votes, lose 12 votes, and it isn't a big deal. Getting it done would be the big deal. So if people would settle for working one issue and sticking to that issue and not say: No, I have this amendment that I know nobody will like, but this is such an important bill, if I could get it in there, it will make it through and hardly anybody will know-- that is not legislating, and we shouldn't be operating that way. We should be doing an item at a time, in bite sizes, so the American people can understand it, and we get it done. I think a lot of people have done a great job here, including the pages. It is late, so rather than go on--I made it to after 10 p.m. so you don't have to have class tomorrow morning. With that, I will close. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this week the Senate is debating a fiscal year 2018 budget resolution focused on growing America's economy through tax policies that put more money in the hands of hard-working Americans. Tax reform is long overdue and is needed to jump start our Nation's economic growth. It is crucial that Congress approve this fiscal framework in order to eliminate the dated and stifling tax policies that are holding back not only investment and productivity but American families. It is time for more jobs, fairer taxes, and bigger paychecks. The tax reform framework recently announced by the President and congressional leaders represents the beginning of a process aimed at boosting America's economic growth and putting more money in the pockets of everyday Americans. That tax framework has to be defined by the Finance Committee. This sets up a process so that can be done as easily as possible. It is crucial that we allow U.S. companies--large and small, especially small--to better compete both at home and overseas, which will make the United States more attractive for investment and to do business. This will improve our competitiveness, it will help keep good paying jobs here at home, and it will bring back jobs that have been lost. Lowering taxes on small businesses will also help unleash the ingenuity of America's job creators. We are the most ingenious and most inventive in the world. Unfortunately, as many hard-working families personally understand, our economy has experienced 8 years of stagnant growth. This economic downturn and slow growth has resulted in a lost decade that has cost the Nation millions of jobs. Family income is not rising as fast as it should, which has real consequences for our future. When family incomes fail to grow, it becomes difficult for parents to pay for their children's education and for their own needs. Sluggish family income growth also means less money for retirement or healthcare and makes it harder to save for a downpayment on a house. It is no surprise that incomes are stuck, given America's overall economic stagnation over the past decade. Without wage growth, American families find it difficult to improve their standard of living. We must do better for these hard-working American families, and this budget resolution will help put our Nation on a better fiscal track with a combination of restrained spending, reduced tax burdens, and a growing economy. The budget puts in motion a process to cut taxes for American families and job creators by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. In addition to keeping more money in the pockets of hard-working families, tax reform done right will spur investment and reinvigorate productivity here at home. America's tax system is incredibly complicated. This budget will provide Congress with the opportunity to make more Tax Code simplifications and make it fairer for all Americans. We especially want to make sure families, small businesses, and workers are not penalized for their success. Simplifying the Tax Code is an important part of tax reform efforts. America's current code is made up of more than 4 million words. That is seven times the length of Leo Tolstoy's ``War and Peace,'' and it is more than two times the combined length of the complete works of William Shakespeare and the King James Bible. The National Taxpayers Union recently released some figures that calculate the burden of tax compliance for families and small businesses. The National Taxpayers Union learned that the total annual time burden of tax compliance is more than 6 billion hours. Let me repeat that. The total time burden for tax compliance is more than 6 billion hours. That is a lot of family time. That costs families and small businesses nearly $34 billion a year on tax software and other out-of-pocket expenses, as well as--this is the important part--$229 billion in time and labor to comply with the Tax Code. The Tax Code's combined burden of $263 billion is more than the gross domestic product of 154 nations. To understand just how complex and outdated the U.S. Tax Code has become, it is important to put it in the historical context of how it has grown over the years. In 1913, the 1040 Income Tax Form consisted of three pages, with one page of instructions. More than 100 years later, that same form now consists of 2 pages, with 106 pages of basic instructions and, depending on taxpayer circumstances, 13 separate schedules, each with numerous pages of instructions. In fact, there are more than 70,000 pages of instructions in total. This is why, every tax season, Americans are forced to wade through an ever-changing labyrinth of forms and regulations when they file their returns. Each year, hard-working families navigate a minefield of tax definitions and tax tests in order to fully reap the benefits of tax credits. Is it any wonder that many who are eligible may not even claim these credits because of this complex web of tax forms? For example, there are many definitions of ``child'' in the Tax Code, meaning a family with children may qualify for some child benefits but not others and may fail to receive the full benefits they deserve. To promote fair treatment, our budget is focused on providing the tools needed to simplify the Tax Code. Let me repeat that. These are the tools that are needed to simplify the Tax Code. The Finance Committee still has to plug in details and eliminations and a final version, and that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn. That is another part of the process, but this part of the process is necessary in order to make sure we get to that part of the process. Hard-working families deserve an economy that provides higher wages and more and better jobs. Pro-growth tax reform can boost small businesses, and it can free Americans to make their own decisions about how to spend their hard-earned money. I want to repeat some of those numbers. I am an accountant. Usually, numbers put people to sleep, but I think these are ones people will understand. The National Taxpayers Union did some figuring on the burden of tax compliance by families and small businesses. This National Taxpayers Union learned that the total annual time burden of tax compliance is more than 6 billion hours, which costs families and small businesses nearly $34 billion a year on tax software and other out-of-pocket expenses as well as--and this is the important part--$229 billion in time and labor to comply with the Tax Code. The Tax Code's combined burden of $263 billion is more than the gross domestic product of 154 countries. We need to take action. We need to pass this budget so the process can be simplified and expedited, and we can get to that yet this year so people, when they are filing their taxes next year, can take advantage of what is being done here. I think we will have bipartisan support in making these important changes. The process is set up so there can be that bipartisan support since it goes through the Finance Committee, and we have been promised there will be a markup, which will allow everybody to make amendments to the Tax Code and the tax bill. Then it will come to the floor, where everybody will have a chance to make amendments to the bill. This sets the budget and sets up the opportunity to have some tax reform this year so people can take advantage of it next year. I ask my colleagues to support this budget and work with us on getting tax reform that will make a difference for all hard-working Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to explain why I took us out of the quorum call. If I leave us in a quorum call, all time will be charged to my side. If I take us out of a quorum call, even though no one is here to speak, it will get divided equally. That is fair, and that is what we are trying to do. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up the following amendments en bloc and ask unanimous consent that they be reported by number and that the rollcall votes in relation to the amendments occur in the order listed: Hatch No. 1144, Sanders No. 1119, Nelson No. 1150, Heller No. 1146, Sanders No. 1120, and Collins No. 1151.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.