Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. This amendment is a sweeping expansion of Federal employment law without a hearing, without committee debate, without committee amendments, and without any potential for floor amendments. We never legislate like that. This bill does not just have one concept in it; it has many concepts in it. It is 158 pages. That makes it evermore unworkable to do in the Senate. This just is not how we legislate. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training, I am compelled to discuss the implications of such an unprecedented and misguided expansion of current law. Let me begin by saying I share Senator Murray's concern about domestic violence. Domestic violence shatters families and with it the very foundation of our society. My opposition to the amendment is not based on a lack of concern for victims of domestic violence. A good title does not make a good amendment. I am opposing this amendment because it is an unprecedented expansion of workplace laws without any consideration for the committee of jurisdiction. This amendment greatly expands workplace laws without any hearings or Committee consideration. The amendment creates a new set of laws requiring businesses--including small businesses--to provide employees with additional leave and special accommodation. However, the amendment has not been reviewed by the Committee of jurisdiction. It creates new workplace requirements without considering the impact of its implementation or its relation with existing laws. The process is flawed and irresponsible. The amendment creates broad, vague workplace requirements that conflict with existing law and invite litigation. It creates new rights to leave and prohibitions against employment discrimination against domestic violence victims that are inconsistent with current employment laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act (the FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The nondiscrimination provisions extend to ``perceived'' victims of domestic violence who have never been subjected to domestic violence. The Murray amendment defines a victim of domestic or sexual violence to include family members of domestic or sexual violence victims. Under this definition, abusers such as parents who molested their own children would be protected under the Murray Amendment. This amendment creates unprecedented Federal workplace regulation on small business. Congress has recognized the burden of workplace regulation on small businesses with limited resources. The FMLA exempts businesses with fewer than 50 employees from coverage. The Murray amendment would cover all employers with 15 or more employees. The lack of administrative alternatives increases litigation and burdens courts. Unlike existing federal anti-discrimination laws, the Murray amendment allows claimants to bypass the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, and file a private suit directly in court. This undermines the efficacy of the EEOC and this amendment. These are unlimited damages for employment discrimination caused by someone else. Unlike existing Federal laws which cap damages for employment discrimination, the Murray Amendment allows unlimited compensatory damages, and punitive damages of up to 300 percent of actual damages. Why should a victim of domestic violence discrimination be able to recover greater damages than a victim of race or disability discrimination? The amendment imposes an unfunded Federal mandate on State unemployment compensation. The Murray Amendment imposes a Federal Mandate to cover domestic violence under state unemployment compensation programs. This requires states to pay the tab, but gives them no voice in whether or now to do so. Employers in States that fail to comply must pay huge penalties in the form of higher Federal Unemployment tax. Unemployment compensation is--and should remain--a state issue. With vague, broad language that conflicts with current employment law, lawyers--not domestic violence victims--will be the biggest winners under the Murray amendment. The Senator from Washington is the ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training. Many of the provisions in this amendment fall within that subcommittee's jurisdiction. The rest of them fall under the jurisdiction of the Senator from Utah, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, who just spoke from that perspective. The first time we are considering this major expansion of Federal employment law is on the Senate floor on a bill totally unrelated to employment and, I have to add, unamendable. There is an agreement between the two sides there would be two amendments today, and those amendments would not be amendable, nor would there be allowed any intervening action. What we have is what we get. I have to say, no one is going to want to get that. The overly broad and vague provisions of this amendment conflict with and undermine existing employment laws. The committee process is so important because that is where we carefully evaluate in a much less formal situation the impact of pending legislation and its relation with current law. Let me explain a little bit more how that committee process works. Besides the hearing part where we get to bring panels of experts before us and ask them extensive questions so we have a better understanding of what is going on and to give them an opportunity to speak on the provisions that are before us, we also have what we call a committee markup. The committee markup is where most of the work for this Chamber is done. It is a much smaller group; it is a much more informal group. People turn in their amendments ahead of time so that they can be reviewed by all. Even on the day of the markup people can get together and work on amendments to get agreement. It is fairly successful. The amendment process usually results in a bill coming from committee with about 80-percent agreement. The unfortunate thing for this country is that the bill comes to the floor, and what we usually debate is the 20 percent we do not agree on. That is not the case on this particular item. This has not even been discussed in committee, so the 80-percent agreement is not there. The ability to work out issues with some flexibility is not there. I am sure there are provisions in this bill that are written in a way that the author probably wishes were different. I certainly wish they were different. The first bill I ever did in the Wyoming legislature was only a three-sentence bill when I took it to the legislature. In committee, it got two amendments. On the floor, it got three amendments. When it went to the Senate side, it did not get any in committee but it got one on the floor. What I learned through that process was that every step of that made an important difference. It turned out to be a far better bill because all of the opinions of all of the people serving in that body were injected and they could see a lot more different directions than any one member of that body. That is how we work it here. We work it so that the 100 Senators have an opportunity to take something as complicated as this and make changes to it. Then the House looks at the same thing. Again, there are a lot more opinions that get into the bill. The committee process is so important because that is when we carefully evaluate the impact of pending legislation and its relationship to current law. We did not do that here. What we have here is a 158-page proposal which is not related to the underlying bill, and that proposal rewrites employment law without the benefit of hearings or committee consideration. That process is flawed and irresponsible. So, more specifically, what will this amendment do? It creates a new Federal law that mandates employers, including small employers, to give up to 30 days of leave to an employee to address domestic or sexual violence. However, this proposal ignores important requirements that Congress applied to leave taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA. Let me highlight a few of the differences between FMLA and the Murray amendment. The Family and Medical Leave Act applies to employers with 50 or more employees. The Murray amendment applies to employers with 15--that is 15, instead of 50--employees. Most small businesses do not have the processes or personnel necessary to begin complying with this new leave requirement. In the past, Congress has recognized the burden of workplace regulations on small businesses. However, this amendment would impose workplace regulations on small businesses never before covered by Federal employment laws. This amendment would undermine the small business exemption Congress included in the Family and Medical Leave Act. The Family and Medical Leave Act imposes a length-of-service requirement for employees to be eligible for leave. The Murray amendment has no service requirement for an employee to be eligible. Under this amendment, a worker is presumably eligible for leave on the first day of work. Under the Family and Medical Leave Act, employers can require a health provider to certify the need for leave. This amendment invites misuse and abuse because there is no third-party verification--no third-party verification--for the leave to be required. So if a person says they were abused, that is good enough to take time off. The Murray amendment does not amend the Family and Medical Leave Act itself; instead, it gives more capability to someone, under this amendment, than they would get under the regular law. It is a backdoor effort to expand Federal leave law at the expense of equity and clarity. This amendment prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual who is ``perceived'' to be a victim--that is interesting wording, ``perceived'' to be a victim--of domestic or sexual violence. Individuals with absolutely no legitimate claims of domestic or sexual violence would have a cause of action under this vague and broad standard. How are employers and courts to determine who a ``perceived'' victim is? Whatever the intent of this legislation, the result will be excessive confusion and, worse yet, excessive litigation. The amendment defines a ``victim of domestic or sexual violence'' to include--and I am sure the Senator from Alabama, who is on this committee that has not had a hearing on it yet, who is on the floor, will make some comments on this--an ``individual whose family or household member has been a victim of domestic or sexual violence.'' Under this definition, family-member abusers--such as parents who molested their own children--would be protected under this poorly drafted legislation. People could get time off for bad behavior. There is a good reason for this process we have of hearings, committee markup, debate on the floor, with amendments, and then the discussion between the two bodies. The problems with the amendment extend beyond poor drafting. This amendment is inconsistent with the remedy and enforcement provisions of existing employment discrimination laws. Under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Congress gave the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the role of investigating and enforcing complaints of employment discrimination. These existing laws require a claimant to first file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before being able to file a private suit in court. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission plays a vital role in employment nondiscrimination laws. The Commission's mediation activities expedite resolution of cases and reduce the backlog of employment cases in our courts. This amendment would allow victims of domestic violence discrimination to bypass the administrative process and file suit in court. Allowing claimants to bypass the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission undermines the efficiency of the agency and the legislation. This amendment disregards the remedy structure of other Federal employment discrimination laws. Existing laws limit available damages. For example, consequential and punitive damages for claims under title VII of the Americans with Disabilities Act are progressive with the size of the employer and capped at $300,000. This amendment provides unlimited compensatory damages and punitive damages up to three times the amount of the actual damages. Why should a victim of domestic violence discrimination be able to circumvent the complaint process that victims of race or disability discrimination must follow? Why should a victim of domestic violence discrimination be able to recover greater damages than victims of race or disability discrimination? There is no justification for this unequal treatment. We must guard against enacting legislation that, in an effort to protect individuals from one type of discrimination, creates inequities for those who have been subjected to another type of discrimination. I find the leave and discrimination provisions of this amendment very troubling. I find the unemployment compensation provisions to be misguided as well. The amendment requires States to provide unemployment compensation benefits to individuals who are separated from employment as a result of domestic violence. That has always been and is a State decision. Under the amendment, that is taken away from the States. States can decide and, in many instances, have decided. Individuals would receive unemployment compensation if they leave employment because of a reasonable fear of domestic violence, a desire to relocate to avoid domestic violence, or to obtain physical or psychological treatment. Eligibility for unemployment compensation is and should continue to be a State--not a Federal--decision. The terms of unemployment compensation are decided on a State-by-State basis. States have the authority to extend unemployment compensation to victims of domestic violence. A number of States have already done so. This amendment imposes a Federal mandate and higher costs on State unemployment compensation programs. The Federal mandate will impose huge penalties on employers in States that fail to comply. It is estimated that the Federal unemployment tax on all employers in the State will be increased from $56 per worker to $434 per worker. How many jobs will that cost? A Federal mandate to cover domestic violence under State unemployment compensation programs requires States to pay the tab. However, we give the States no voice in whether or how to do so. It is unfair and irresponsible for Washington to impose this burden--and, in fact, against the law--on already burdened State unemployment programs and employers. Domestic violence is a serious problem that devastates lives and shatters families. However, we cannot allow a misguided attempt--with no hearings--to address this problem and create new problems that will impose unfair burdens on States and employers, particularly small businesses. When I am back in Wyoming, I like to hold town meetings so I can find out what is on the minds of my constituents. At each town meeting, there is usually someone in attendance who is quite concerned about Government regulations. I am often told to rein big government in, keep the rules and regulations simple and responsive, and make sure they make sense. This amendment takes the opposite approach. It is a classic example of one size fits all that doesn't fit outside the beltway. The amendment ignores the careful consideration Congress has given to existing employment laws with vague and broad language that conflicts with current Federal employment law. Lawyers, not domestic violence victims, will be the big winners in this one. I will close by sharing a letter from a survivor of domestic violence who divorced her first husband in 1978 because of abuse and, in addition, is an employment attorney with 23 years of experience specializing in employment law. I ask unanimous consent to print the letter in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. She writes: Although I very much appreciate the intent of the Murray amendment, I cannot support it. She gives an explanation and lists four very specific reasons: One, the potential for misuse and manipulation; two, the perpetuation of domestic violence; three, adequate time off from work already available; and four, the lack of due process for employers. This is a person who has been there. This is a person who has been abused. She did find a way out. And incidentally, in her credentials, she has devoted most of her life to helping battered women in the Kansas City metro area and has an astounding record of doing that and is very concerned about us going this way. Again, without a hearing, I am concerned, too. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 24, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on strategic forces and capabilities, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 9:00 a.m. on ``Judicial Nominations'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness list Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Paul S. Diamond to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing on ``The Real Estate Appraisal Industry.''

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on Wednesday, March 24, at 11:30 a.m., to consider pending calendar business. Agenda Item 1: To consider the nomination of Sue Ellen Wooldridge, to be Solicitor at the Department of the Interior. Agenda Item 10: S. 1910--A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out an inventory and management program for forests derived from public domain land.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., on Port Security.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 11 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 1529, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Amendments of 2003.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 24, 2004, at 2:00 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Navy and Air Force aviation programs, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2005 and the future years defense program.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 24, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing to examine the environmental impacts on the U.S. natural gas supply. The meeting will be held in SD- 406.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``Profiteering in a Non-Profit Industry: Abusive Practices in Credit Counseling.''

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. The Purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 433, A bill to provide for enhanced collaborative forest stewardship management within the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests in Idaho, and for other purposes; S. 2180, a bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to exchange certain lands in the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests in the State of Colorado; and H.R. 1964, a bill to assist the States of Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania in conserving priority lands and natural resources in the highlands region, and for other purposes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I was going to speak on something else related to the bill, but I feel compelled to speak a little bit about the cloture vote and the smokescreen that is being put up there. We have American manufacturing businesses being penalized by the World Trade Organization, and the bill before us would eliminate that. It would solve the problem and would create jobs in America, not outsourced, and it would allow the companies to have the competitive possibility in other countries. We are not able to pass that bill. So when people talk about jobs, they need to be clear that those who are putting up the smokescreen amendments are not really interested in increasing jobs. They would prefer that none of that happened until after November. I think the American people will see through that and they will see through all of the motions and amendments that will be done between now and November and all of the delays done between now and November. The overtime bill is one of those smokescreens. What we are talking about is a rule that has been written and published for public comment. It is not in place; it is not finalized; it is not finished. It is for comment, and 80,000 people commented on it. What this amendment does is stop them from looking at the public comments. That is not American. We want the public to be able to comment. We want the comments from the public on any rule we are writing. We want the Department to have to take a look at those comments, and then we want to see what they are going to do with the comments. That is when the rule becomes important. I can tell you, any Department that has made substantial changes based on the comments, I have applauded the Department and I have asked them to republish it for more comments, because it is a different rule after it has been changed. I am certain I would be doing that on this one as well. But there is a process. The reason the Department of Labor looked at the rule is because they were told they had to look at the rule. They were doing their job. They wrote a rule, published the rule. Everybody doesn't agree with the rule. I expect any rule that is done, everybody would not agree with it. If they did, it would probably have some pretty big flaws in it or be worthless. So there are going to be some comments and changes. We need to let those happen. We will never have a rule that is clear so that small business can operate, so that they can understand what is going on. That rule was written so long ago that jobs mentioned in there don't even exist anymore. But they still have to evaluate the jobs and see if they match up with that kind of description, to see if it falls under overtime. What it has turned into is a bonanza for lawyers who want to sue. Anytime they think there is one of those little gray areas, they see dollar signs and they go after the business that has those gray areas. You would also get the impression from the overtime discussion that no business pays overtime unless it is clearly required to pay. That is not the fact, either. You would also get the impression that businesses force people to do this overtime all the time. I have a son in the housing business and this is a good time of year to sell houses. They give all kinds of incentives to try to get the houses finished up. There is not only overtime but bonuses, and people still don't want to do overtime. So there has been a lot of rhetoric on this, and I will go through that one point at a time. If we are going to actually get to that debate, I would be happy to do that. But the reason this cloture vote was killed was so it would still stay a part of the debate. Now, why would it not be a part of the debate? Because it is not germane. We are not talking about overtime in this bill. The word ``overtime'' isn't mentioned in the bill at all. It is about penalties that our companies have to pay because of the World Trade Organization decision. We need to solve that problem and make sure America keeps working. Yes, we need to work on these other problems; yes, they ought to be brought up. But we should not do it at the expense of industry in America and then say, oh, you are outsourcing. We are forcing companies to go overseas and build things; we are forcing them to do that because we don't want to make a decision on this bill because we want to bring in peripheral items. Yes, it sounds like just one peripheral item. No, it is not; it is ad infinitum. You can keep drafting these amendments until the final vote. We have to vote on all of them until the final vote. So it is a filibuster by amendment. If you can make an amendment that is as unpleasant as possible, politically, I guess that is good. What I prefer we do is work on the 80 percent of the legislation that we agree on, get it done, and keep America working, which brings me to the main point I wanted to talk about because we keep talking about this loss of American jobs due to increasing globalization. We have talked about the loss of American jobs because of increasing productivity. Yes, the workers in the United States are the best at what they do. I have heard a lot of talk about job loss, but our actions do not match up with our words. I want to point out one very important program we have that helps American workers who want to improve their skills and get a better job, to make a better life for themselves and their families. It is called the Workforce Investment Act. That act has been around. This is a reauthorization of the Workforce Investment Act, bringing it up to date so that it matches the job problems of the country at the present time. This workforce investment legislation will help over 900,000 unemployed workers a year get back to work. We keep talking about workers, but we cannot get this important bill into conference. The other side of the aisle blocks appointing conferees so that Republicans and Democrats--House and Senate--can get it all together so we can come up with an agreement. Should this be a tougher agreement? This bill passed the committee unanimously. It does not happen very often in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. It also passed the Senate unanimously. That means we thought it was good enough that we did not need to put a single amendment on it. We are talking about 900,000 jobs, and we cannot meet to work out the differences with the House when this legislation passes a unified Senate. For generations, the skills and ingenuity of the American workforce have fueled the greatest economy in the world. Today our challenge is to equip our workforce with the skills needed for jobs in the new global economy. Our prosperity rests with our ability to create and fill the high-skilled jobs of the 21st century, filling those 21st century economy demands. There is a growing skills gap in this country that threatens our ability to compete and succeed in a more complex, knowledge-based economy. Many high-skilled jobs in this country remain unfilled because employers cannot find qualified workers. According to the 2003 survey conducted by the Center for Workforce Preparation, which is an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, half of the employers reported difficulty in finding qualified workers. The gap between the demand for high-skilled workers and the supply will only widen in the future unless we do something about it. Looking ahead 2 years, only 30 percent of the employers surveyed believed that the skills of their workforce will keep pace with the demand. The current workforce development system is not effectively equipping American workers with the skills American businesses need. We need to match them up. Only a systematic reform of our Nation's job training system will enable American workers and businesses to compete and succeed in this global economy. Our job training and employment system created under the Workforce Investment Act is intended to prepare our workforce for the good jobs that the evolving economy demands. We need to improve our job training and employment system created under the Workforce Investment Act to better prepare American workers for the good jobs of today and tomorrow. We need to link workforce development with economic development, recognizing that job training and job creation go hand in hand. We need to partner the public workforce system with private sector employers, including, especially, small businesses, and with training providers to prepare American workers for jobs in high-growth industries. We must improve access to job training and employment services in all parts of the country. There is good news. As I have mentioned, we have a bill that does all of that. It is called the Workforce Investment Act Amendments of 2003. It is a bipartisan bill that passed out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee unanimously. Check the record. See how often that happens. It passed unanimously last November. Unanimous is as bipartisan as you can get. It passed the Senate unanimously as well. Again, that is as bipartisan as you can get. Where is that bill now? As I have mentioned--here is the bad news--we cannot appoint a conference committee; that is, a committee made up of Republicans and Democrats from the Senate and we would meet with the House and we would work out the differences. If we can work out the differences in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and if we can work out the differences on the floor of the Senate, we certainly ought to be able to work them out between the Senate and the House. There is no reason not to have a conference committee except, in case you haven't noticed, we are not doing any conference committees. They said: We are not going to conference on anything, unless that side of the aisle gets to write the bill. It has never happened in the history of the United States. It is not going to happen now. If we really want to take care of jobs in this country and make sure jobs stay in this country, we would appoint a conference committee for the Workforce Investment Act and enact this vital legislation. How long do we want to wait to get those 900,000 people trained and into the workforce? Obviously, after the November elections. If we really want to keep high-paying jobs and American factories and American businesses on American shores, particularly in small businesses, we would appoint the conferees to that legislation reauthorizing and improving the Workforce Investment Act. We would modernize that legislation, get it on the road, and get people employed. I think it is a crime that we cannot appoint a conference committee. American workers deserve a conference committee on workforce investment. They should be demanding it, and we should be doing it because it is doable. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I listened for almost 2 hours to the other side ask a bunch of questions. I would like to get my statement completed in 15 minutes so we can move on to the vote. There should have been more fairness on give-and-take at the time. There was not. So I will reserve my time to finish my comments. Another reason the jobs go overseas is regulation. What do we specialize in? Regulation. We pile on regulations that make it extremely difficult for businesses in the United States to do work in the United States. Lastly, one of the reasons we lose jobs overseas is skills. There are jobs out there that are not being filled because American people do not have the skills to take those. The ones who do are already employed in that field. I want to tell about a little company in Powell, WY. This is what I am hoping for the world. This little company in Powell, WY, makes tachometers, highly specialized ones for race cars, and very durable ones for heavy equipment that vibrates. The guy who designed these and originally made them had the parts manufactured in Taiwan and the construction of them, the manufacturing of them, in Taiwan. He said: Now, wait a minute. Maybe I can reduce the error rate putting these things together and make more money if I use American labor and those great people in Powell, WY. He tried that, and he was right. Then what does he say? He said: Let's see, I am having to manufacture them over there, but they have an error rate. Maybe I could manufacture them here. And he is going to do that. Wyoming--the United States--is going to steal a job from Taiwan. That is the creative capability of the people in this country. That is what we can do if we give the people a chance. On a more basic level, how can we give them the chance? We passed the Workforce Investment Act. We got it out of the Labor Committee, which is usually very contentious, unanimously. We passed it on the floor unanimously. Where is that now? Well, the House has already passed one, too, but we cannot do a conference committee on it. This would be training for 900,000 jobs a year, better jobs, more skilled jobs, the skilled jobs people overseas are getting because we cannot fill them. What is happening to that bill? We are letting it languish because we will not appoint a conference committee. So what are the reasons given for not appointing a conference committee? Well, we don't trust the Republicans to invite us to the conference committee. I want to tell you, I worked with the Senator from Washington State and the Senator from Massachusetts in putting together a bill that passed the committee unanimously. I worked with them to get it through this floor unanimously. You do not do that without some degree of trust. I have to believe they would trust me to do a conference committee and include them in the conference committee, and anything else is bunk. You do not have to do every bill, but I cannot believe we will talk about who cares about jobs the most in this country and not get a conference committee on the Workforce Investment Act that will train 900,000 people a year for better jobs. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes off the amendment. It should not take me longer than that to debunk the rhetoric I have heard on the budget for the last hour or the last hour and 45 minutes. It actually hasn't been on the budget. It has been an attempt to say they care more about jobs than the Republicans do. That is not true. There isn't anything that would bear that out. I have to get this in the Record because I am afraid the college students might read this stuff or may have been listening. If they use some of the information they heard, they could fail economics class. I don't want that to happen. It has been very depressing listening this hour and 45 minutes. This is a 20-minute amendment. That is a long time on a 20-minute amendment. But it is the way this process works. It was 50 hours of time, equally divided, and each side can spend it however they want. We will probably yield ours back, portions of it, to be able to get to some final votes and get this completed. This has been depressing and wrong. The budget document is a few assumptions that we use. Granted, it is based on a pile of documents, probably 20 pounds worth of paper. There are all kinds of ways to work the assumptions, but when it comes down to it, we set up a few targets. The specific committees get to arrange the bull's eye in that target for the priorities. Then, finally, the Appropriations Committee, if we ever get to that point, will be able to shoot the real bullets at the target, spend the real money. This is not spending the money. This is coming up with some assumptions or some real numbers based on assumptions. You can use any assumptions you want, obviously, if you have been listening to the discussion. If you listen to the discussion and what I have said about assumptions, you might think what they are trying to do is rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is not the real operation of the ship. What we are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the deck of the finest cruise ship in the world. I want to be a lot more positive about what the possibility is for this country and the people of this country and what they can do. First, I want to know how we pay for it. Then I will go into the jobs part. We need to know how most of these amendments work, where they tell us how to pay. The way they will pay is a tax increase. They can say this is going to be a tax increase just on the rich. From the discussions I have heard around here, the Democrat definition of ``rich'' is anyone who makes enough money to pay taxes. If you pay taxes, worry about it; you are part of the rich. They will say it is those who make over $1 million. It would not be the first time we did something against those who make more than $1 million. Congress once passed a law--this fascinates me--that said a CEO could not make more than $1 million in cash compensation. How could anybody possibly do that? If the American dream is to make money--I really hope that is not the American dream--but to make enough to provide for their family, to buy a home, and to contribute to their community, until we get this country going down that road, we have problems. Right now the emphasis is on how much you make. We try to limit that severely. We have done it with laws. Now we are saying if you get rich, we will take part of your money, and we will put it into the economy where we think it will do the most good. It does not matter what you think. It does not matter that you have been investing and creating jobs. That does not count. The Government will do it for you. By golly, we have some great programs. These programs will create jobs. Yes, they do create jobs because we hire a bunch of people to run the programs, who tell the successful businessmen how to do it better, and a lot of it goes into regulation. I will talk more about regulation in a bit. In order to do a tax increase, the Finance Committee has to do it. The only thing we have allowed so far are things that deal with the family. What we would be directing them to do is take away any family benefits. Who are these rich? Some of them are the small businessmen. Every dime of revenue that is net revenue for a small businessman becomes part of their bottom line taxes for that particular year. They have to pay taxes on that. When they pay taxes on it, they are pulling out a third. Some would like it to be a half; some would like it to be three- fourths. What do they do with what is left? It does not go in their pocket. If their business is growing, it goes right back into the business. If we did not tax them as much, they would put more back into the business. When they put more back into the business, that grows jobs. Do not tell me you will increase the economy by ripping money away from people who are creating jobs already. Who cares about jobs the most? Who wants outsourcing? None of us want outsourcing. Why does outsourcing happen? Part of it will be because of a lack of confidence we create in the Senate. We have been talking for 2 hours now about the rotten economy and how jobs are being outsourced. We are creating an impression among every businessman out there that if he is not outsourcing his jobs, he is cheating his investors. Did anyone hear a message different than that? That is not right. That is absolutely not right. We do not have to have the jobs go overseas. When we keep talking about a bad economy, we help create a bad economy. I am reminded of the 1960s ad that used to run on television that I think was partly responsible for pulling us out of a recession. It was a story about a guy who had a hot dog stand. People loved his hot dogs. So he added on to his hot dog stand. Pretty quickly he had more hot dog stands. Then his son came home from college and said: Dad, don't you realize we are in the middle of a depression? How can you be expanding? He quit expanding and he laid people off and pretty soon he was out of business. If we keep telling people they should not hire because it is tenuous, save your money, put it in the mattress, we will have a little problem in this country. We expect to be paid the highest wages in the world, and we expect to buy everything for the lowest prices. Where do you think you are going to buy those things from? I hope everyone out there does a quick inventory on what they are wearing and where it was made; what they are driving and where it was made; what they are listening to and where it was made. You have a responsibility, as well. Government does not solve these problems. You solve these problems. You buy what is made in America, the jobs come back to America, and our people get paid more. Make a law. Right, we can make a law that says you cannot send the jobs overseas.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this bill provides $250 million for the Workforce Investment Act training, and it takes it out of 920.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I support the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 95. Let me begin by commending Chairman Nickles for his outstanding leadership as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. He has fairly and respectfully brought both sides of the aisle to the table on an issue that is inherently partisan. He has done so in a manner that encouraged cooperation, if not agreement. Last week, we completed a difficult markup in less than 2 days. We could not have done so without the leadership of both the chairman and the ranking member and the hard work of all of the Republican and Democrat members on the Budget Committee. After more than 20 years on the Senate Budget Committee, this will be Chairman Nickles' last floor debate on the Congressional Budget Resolution. We will miss him as both our chairman and as one of the Senate's most responsible and trusted protectors of the taxpayer dollar. Chairman Nickles has built a reputation for being fiscally conservative not by saying he's a fiscal conservative, but by actually being one. I applaud him and his dedication to fair budgeting and wish him the best of luck in his future endeavors. I would also like to thank the ranking member for the technical knowledge he brings to the table during these debates. Last week, he explained very succinctly how the budget caps and assumptions work. I was pleased to hear my friend from North Dakota talk about the importance of the caps versus the assumptions. Both the Republicans and Democrats have stacks and stacks of assumptions that identify our funding priorities, but these assumptions don't set in stone the specific levels of funding. They just help us set targets. Sometimes those targets are higher, sometimes those targets are more to the left or more to the right, but they never shift downward partly because we pass dozens of amendments every year that wrongly focus on the individual programs, not the overall limits. Despite attempts by my colleagues to turn this into a debate on appropriations, I'd like to remind everybody that we are not taking shots at the targets yet. The appropriators are the first ones who actually get to do that. Today, we're talking about the targets set by the President and the committee-reported budget resolution. Like last year, when the President released his budget in February, I read the entire thing. I read the summaries and studied the tables and analyzed the assumptions; and, I truly believe the President laid the foundation for a good budget. Some people disagree with the underlying assumptions of the President's proposal and the budget plan that it was built upon and some want to turn it upside down. But, these arguments are more political than substantial, and they hinder our progress toward appropriations. I believe the Budget committee rightly built upon the strong foundation laid by the President with respect to the Committee-reported resolution. We reported a resolution that will cut the deficit in half in three years and allow America to continue down the road to economic recovery. Yet, we did not have much luck passing this resolution in the committee in a bipartisan fashion. The vote was 12 in favor and 10 opposed. Why the split? Because we, as Republicans, voted to hold the line on spending and live up to our promise to provide tax relief for all Americans. In contrast, we had more than 30 amendments from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who wanted to increase spending and raise taxes to pay for it. Again, these amendments were more political than substantial, and they delayed our progress tremendously. The proponents of these amendments were trying to tell the Finance Committee how and when to raise taxes, but they cannot do that. Raising taxes is firmly under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee, and they certainly do not need to take our advice on the subject. In most cases, these proposed amendments would have increased discretionary spending and increased the deficit. During a time when deficit spending is higher in nominal terms than ever before, wouldn't it make more sense to decrease spending rather than increase it? We have a huge deficit and yet we still cannot control the spending of our colleagues. The debate on the floor this week is turning out to be similar. Throughout the week, too many amendments have been introduced that would certainly have increased the size of the Federal government and blown the Federal deficit out of the water. Many of these amendments have also proposed to simply shift funds from one program to another based on budget ``assumptions.'' Let me again remind my colleagues that the budget resolution does not set spending levels for individual programs. Unfortunately, I don't think this message is getting through to some people. As such, I have no doubt that many more amendments like those we've seen so far will be offered before the final vote. For example, an amendment that proposes to increase funding under function 450 for Firefighter Assistance Grants by eliminating tax relief for working Americans does not guarantee that funding will actually find its way into those grant accounts. That decision will be made by the appropriators and the Senate during the debate on appropriations. That means much of the rhetoric we've heard throughout the debate is political, not practical. Right now, we can only decide the amount of money, not where it will end up. We are not making the decisions this week as to which individual programs will be funded. We are setting the spending limits for our Appropriations Committees. We are setting the limits that will hold our colleagues in check when it comes to spending. The whole process reminds me of the cartoon that shows two bears in the woods--one has a target on his chest and the friend is saying ``rotten birthmark.'' Thankfully, we are not shooting at the bear today. The Appropriations Committee will do the shooting. Some of that shooting will be monitored down the road. My friend and colleague from Pennsylvania established a spend-o-meter last year that shows exactly how much our colleagues across the aisle want to increase spending on appropriations bills and under authorizing legislation. Most recently, the spend-o-meter proved useful during debate on the omnibus bill when the other side of the aisle proposed amendments that would have increased spending from $341 billion to almost half a trillion dollars in less than 24 hours. My friend and colleague has been using the spend-o-meter to keep track of how the proposed amendments on the budget resolution would impact the deficit, and let me tell you, the results are just as troubling. According to the charts presented by the Senator from North Dakota, he adds $5 billion and $6 billion and only gets $1 billion more spent. When I add $6 and $5 billion, I get $11 billion in budget requests. If we were talking about a business, and we were the owners, we would be looking for areas of waste and unnecessary costs so we could trim costs and reinvest the money. The President did suggest the same kind of cuts based on GPRA in over 60 programs, resulting in $4.9 billion of savings. Not much you say? Show me your cuts. The economy grew while we constrained spending. We balanced it by growth of the economy, not by cutting a dime. Constraining spending and shifting the targets we've been talking about can happen at the same time. Although few in number, some of the amendments offered today, including one I intend to offer, would actually shift the targets to a better position that will help us grow the economy. But, I think it's safe to say that most of the amendments offered by the other side will be outrageous attempts to raise taxes under the guise of increasing appropriations for very popular programs. Again, let's be clear that we will not be passing an appropriations bill today. We will continue working on the budget resolution, which I believe sets forth a good budget. This year we had to make tough choices about our priorities. This budget reflects those priorities. Of the 3.3 percent increase in discretionary funding, 92 percent of it goes to the soldiers and citizens protecting our men and women overseas and at home. This budget gives our men and women serving in the Armed Forces and our diplomatic corps the tools they need to fight for democracy and win the war on terror. This budget, however, isn't just about defense and homeland security. This budget is also about creating a better and brighter future for our kids. The committee-reported resolution supports the President's efforts to provide more funding for education than ever before in the history of the United States. We have heard many arguments and we will continue to hear many arguments today and throughout the week, claiming that this budget resolution is an attempt to sell our education system short. That is simply not true. Under this budget, we assume that the Appropriations Committee will invest billions more in Title I grants under the No Child Left Behind Act, in Part B grants for individuals with disabilities, and Pell grants to students who want to take their education one step further. Writing this budget resolution was not an easy process. It is never easy to cut or freeze spending. But we had to make tough choices this year. We had to freeze spending in most categories and limit percentage growth in all others. We had to clamp down on the tax relief we could provide to working Americans. We had to set spending caps at a responsible level that would allow our Appropriations Committees to pass 13 appropriations bills. To the credit of the Budget Committee, we made these tough choices. We produced a resolution that will allow Congress and America to move forward without overstepping the authority of the Budget Committee. We do not make the decisions on where to spend the money, just on how much is spent, although many amendments would give you the opposite impression. I said this during the committee markup and I'll say it again today-- this budget is about moving forward. We've faced some tough times in recent years. The huge spike in spending during the last year of the Clinton administration set the stage for troubled times in 2001. With the technology bust of the late 1990s and the year 2000, many of our healthiest industries were struck down to the point of barely breathing. But, that was just the beginning. The terrorist attacks of 2001 and the international war against terror have forced us to address the decisions by previous administrations to gradually weaken our Armed Forces. Now, we are paying the price. We are playing a catch-up game--a catch-up game that costs billions, not millions, of dollars. That's why we need to pass a budget this week that will rein in spending while allowing our defense sector and our economy as a whole to continue to recover. The budget resolution before us today makes some general, but critical assumptions. One of the most important assumptions focuses on preventing attempts by our colleagues to raise taxes on our working families. The committee-reported resolution proposes to extend the personal tax relief currently scheduled to expire at the end of 2004. Contrary to the statements made by my colleagues, this tax relief helps middle- and lower-income taxpayers. The $1,000-per-child tax credit, the 10 percent income tax bracket expansion, and the marriage penalty relief are three of the most important tax provisions passed in decades. These provisions put more money back into the hands of our neighbors, families and friends. This week, we have an opportunity to pass a budget that plans for the future, while taking care of our present-day needs. This budget aims to cut the budget deficit in half in just a few short years. I believe we can do it. The tax relief put in place last year has already resulted in growth in almost every sector of our economy. Our gross domestic product increased by more than 4 percent last quarter and robust spending on technology, infrastructure and equipment points to strong continued growth through the next year. This growth will lead to more companies paying into the Federal pot and more money flowing from the private sector to the public sector and back again. That is what this debate should be about--passing a budget that will help, not hurt, America's recovering business sector and job markets. We have heard the scare tactics on Social Security and unemployment and outsourcing, but what we haven't heard a lot about is how to help address the problems. This debate should focus on progress, not politics. I have been working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle on an amendment that would propose a step in the right direction. My amendment would add $250 million to the Nation's job training programs. For generations, the skills and ingenuity of the American workforce have fueled the greatest economy in the world. Today, America faces an emerging challenge that threatens the prosperity of generations to come. Our challenge is to equip our workforce with the skills needed for jobs in the new, global economy. Our prosperity rests with our ability to create and fill the high-skilled jobs that the 21st century economy demands. We have talked about the loss of American jobs because of increasing globalization. We have talked about the loss of American jobs because of increasing productivity. I am here to talk about how we can keep high-paying jobs in America's factories, in America's businesses, and on America's shores. As we consider job creation in this country, we must address the growing skills gap that threatens our ability to compete--and succeed--in a more complex, knowledge-based economy. As the country continues its economic recovery, people are asking: ``where are the jobs?'' It may surprise you to learn that many high- skilled jobs in this country remain unfilled because employers can't find qualified workers. According to a 2003 survey conducted by the Center for Workforce Preparation, an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, half of the employers reported difficulty in finding qualified workers. The problem is greatest for small employers. Nearly 60 percent of employers with 11 to 50 workers report having a hard time finding qualified workers. Small employers--our greatest source of economic growth--can't create jobs if they don't have the skilled workers to fill the jobs. The gap between the demand for high-skilled workers and the supply will only widen in the future. Looking ahead 2 years, only 30 percent of the employers surveyed believe that the skills of their workforce will keep pace with demand. According to the 2003 study by the Center for Workforce Preparation, the manufacturing industry--which has faced some of the most severe job loss--faces the greatest skills gap. Manufacturers predict that by 2005 only 21 percent of their workforce will have the necessary skills. Almost 80 percent of American workers won't be qualified for American manufacturing jobs. Without any action, technology and other advances will outpace the ability of American workers and business to update skills needed to compete in the new economy. But there is good news. There is action we can take to retrain workers to fill the jobs needed in this country, now and in the future. First, we can increase budgetary resources for job training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. Second, and more importantly, we can make sure the Nation's job training system created under the Workforce Investment Act effectively prepares our workforce for good jobs that the evolving economy demands. This amendment will do the first. To do the second, my Colleagues must agree to send legislation reauthorizing and improving the Workforce Investment Act into Conference. I am offering this amendment to increase job-training budget authority because I agree with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan that: ``what will ultimately determine the standard of living of this country is the skill of the people.'' Job training under the Workforce Investment Act will help our workers get back to work or find better jobs. It will improve the lives of our workers and help them achieve the American Dream for themselves and their families. This investment in our Nation's job training and employment system is an important investment in our future. Like any investment of the taxpayers' money, the investment in Federal job training programs must be fiscally responsible and generate results. While I support an increase in resources for job training, it cannot come at the expense of fiscal discipline. Therefore, my amendment is offset fully from account 920. My amendment will increase resources for Fiscal Year 2005 in the job training function. It will responsibly shift the target in this area. Beyond that, we must improve the workforce development system to better meet the needs of American workers and businesses before investing additional resources. We cannot meet the challenges of the 21st century economy by simply throwing more money into the existing workforce development system. We have to improve the Workforce Investment Act to better prepare American workers for the good jobs of today and tomorrow. Again, there is good news. We have a bill that does this. It is a bipartisan bill that passed out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee unanimously. We passed it on the Floor unanimously last November. That's as bipartisan as you can possibly get. Where is the bill now? Here is the bad news. We can't appoint a conference committee, which is the committee made up of Republicans and Democrats who would meet with the House to work out differences between what they passed and what we passed. The Workforce Investment Act can help more than 900,000 dislocated workers a year find the well-paying jobs in this country that are available. That is 900,000 opportunities that can help fill the skills gap and make American workers and businesses more competitive. I have heard a lot of talk about losing American jobs. If we really want to take care of jobs in this country and make sure jobs stay in this country, we would appoint a conference committee for the Workforce Investment Act bill and enact this vital legislation. Last week, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing that addressed the skills of the American workforce. Dr. Diana Oblinger, executive director of Higher Education for Microsoft--an American company that symbolizes innovation and growth--presented some of the best testimony I have ever heard. She said that being able to ``outthink the rest of the world'' may be the most important competitive advantage. In this knowledge-based, global economy, I agree with Dr. Oblinger that the brainpower of our workforce is our greatest resource. This amendment recognizes that the first priority for workers who have lost their job is finding a new job. But this amendment is only a band-aid. It will not fix the Nation's job training programs. If we are going to continue to ``outthink the rest of the world'', we must improve the job-skills and training of our greatest resource now and into the future. With that, I believe this budget is a fiscally responsible measure and I urge my colleagues to work together to pass both my amendment and the resolution by the end of the week. Once again, I thank Chairman Nickles, Ranking Member Conrad, and all of the committee members for their work so far and hope we can move to final adoption of the Congressional Budget Resolution before the April 15 deadline.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on public lands and forests of the committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 10th, at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1354, to resolve certain conveyances and provide for alternative land selections under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act related to Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation, and for other purposes; S. 1575 and H.R. 1092, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to sell certain parcels of federal land in Carson City and Douglas County, NV; S. 1778, to authorize a land conveyance between the United States and the City of Craig, AK, and for other purposes; S. 1819 and H.R. 272, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land to Lander County, NV, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, NV, for continued use as cemeteries; and H.R. 3249, to extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments Committee.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 10 a.m., on steroids.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 10 a.m. on ``Letting the People Decide: The Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Congress to Prohibit Physical Desecration of the flag of the United States,'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: The Honorable Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Panel II: Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, Chairman of the Board, Citizens Flag Alliance, Recipient, Medal of Honor, Summer, WA; John Andretti, NASCAR Nextel Cup Series Driver, Mooresville, NC; Richard D. Parker, Williams Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA; Gary E. May, Associate Professor of Social Work, University of Southern Indiana (1981-1985), Evansville, IN; and Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Navy Veteran, Alexandria, VA.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 2:30 p.m. on ``Judicial Nominations'' in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Peter W. Hall, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit. Panel III: Jane J. Boyle, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas; Marcia G. Cooke, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida; and Walter D. Kelley, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the scope and operation of organizations registered under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, for a joint hearing with the House of Representatives's Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to hear the legislative presentation of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. The hearing will take place in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Review of Current Investigations and Regulatory Actions Regarding the Mutual Fund Industry.''

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 10, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on Nonproliferation and Arms Control Strategy.