Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' The budget before us suggests we modernize the Medicaid program based on the successful and bipartisan model of the Children's Health Insurance Program. The Senate budget strengthens and improves Medicaid and protects the most vulnerable among us who rely on the program. The budget does not cut Medicaid. It slows its rate of growth. The Senate Finance Committee will of course determine the details of any Medicaid reform should legislation on that matter come before this body. And it would require legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment.

Mr. ENZI. I wish to remind everyone that these are supposed to be 10- minute votes. I am asking for a little bit closer timing on this. We have hundreds of them to go yet today, so we need to be more responsive in voting. It is a 10-minute vote. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 940, as Modified

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I understand there is a bipartisan agreement in the works to modify the Kirk amendment No. 545 and, therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on amendment No. 545 occur after the vote on Inhofe amendment No. 649.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, once again I have to ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' This is a tax reform idea that has some merit, but it has to be dealt with in the context of comprehensive tax reform rather than a stand-alone proposal. I know that he and his Finance Committee chairman, Senator Hatch, are working on changing the Tax Code to eliminate some of the overcomplicated, inefficient, and archaic language, so we should address it in the committee of jurisdiction, not in the budget. Even though the amendment is deficit neutral, it is, again, telling a committee what to do and how to do it, and it is even by the person who has the capability to do that. So I would ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided between the managers or their designees prior to each vote and that all votes after the first in this series be 10 minutes in length.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc: Hatch No. 827, Hatch No. 1025, Hatch No. 533, Hatch No. 984, and Hatch No. 535.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to declare that Republicans are committed to fair and equal treatment of pregnant women as well. Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 1978 and passed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Congress may need to enact this specific legislation through committee in order to address this issue. This amendment does confirm the ability of the committee of jurisdiction to draft legislation. We would be happy to accept this on a voice vote.

Mr. ENZI. A rollcall vote has been requested.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge the Republicans to vote aye.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is, and always has been, an agency with excessive independence. The agency actually steals funding from the Federal Reserve before it goes to the Federal Government, which takes away from our general fund. There is no control over any part of that agency. Once it had a Director a year ago, we said there needed to be an inspector general taking a look at this problem. But the inspector general said he has no access to the records, even though he works there. So this is an agency that is out of control. It is time for us to gain control over the agency, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. All of us know there is a great value to pre-school, and the Federal Government already spends as much as $20 billion per year on early childhood programs, including Head Start. This amendment would call for $66 billion over 10 years, so it is just $6.6 billion per year. But we already spend $20 billion, which is almost as much as we spend on kindergarten through 12th grade. How many programs do we need? We have 45 at the moment. One year ago, when we reauthorized the child development block grant, I offered an amendment to reduce the number of programs to five and put them all under one agency. That would save enough money to do this. Elementary and secondary education will be marked up, I think, when we get back. That committee process would be the appropriate place to consider this proposal, not in the budget. I would ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. ENZI. I want to thank Senator Collins for all of her efforts in this area and Senator Sanders for making this a bipartisan amendment, and I would ask to accept this on a voice vote.

Mr. ENZI. Since this is bipartisan, I would hope we would take this by voice vote. And it is the chairman and ranking member of the committees who have to do the work.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that is not going to be possible on this amendment. Again, this is a statement that has to be handled by the committee of jurisdiction and has no real effect. So I would ask that everybody vote ``no'' on this one.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution. It creates a point of order concerning subject matter that is not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget, prohibiting Federal employees or agencies from exercising their freedom of speech by prohibiting using terms from atmospheric scientific literature. While I know many of my colleagues have strong opinions on this topic, it is not appropriate for inclusion in a budget resolution. In fact, this amendment is corrosive. It damages the privilege of the budget. Therefore, when debate time expires I will raise a point of order that this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution and I encourage my colleagues to sustain it. I guess that probably concludes the debate.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, amendment No. 944 is not germane to the budget resolution now before the Senate. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this has been an important week for the Senate as we work to set spending goals for our Nation. Before this year, the Senate has only been able to pass two budgets in the past 6 years. Now that Congress is under new management, we are on track to pass a budget after only 3 months. The reason we are working so hard is to restore the trust of the American people, who want and deserve more effective and efficient government. This week, as part of the Senate's regular order, we have been debating and offering amendments and have actually voted more than a dozen times on how best to set spending limits and make government live within its means, including votes to protect property rights of all Americans and to save Medicare. The spending goals and limits we have set are why passing a budget is so important to our Nation. They let congressional policymakers who actually allocate the dollars get to work by following our spending limits. Without that, they are delayed. We have had that situation for a number of years, in which the fiscal year actually ends and we don't have the spending bills done. That is what happens with government shutdowns. That is what happens with extending its ability to operate without having a budget. That shouldn't happen. So we want to get a budget passed by April 15 so that the spending committees can get busy looking at their areas of jurisdiction, their specific areas of interest, to come up with the best policies possible that have a total spending package that will keep government operating and meeting its objectives as the people expect. But today is the day for which we all have been waiting. Today the Senate will begin voting on many amendments offered this week by way of what is affectionately known as a vote-arama. We will start voting early this afternoon, and we will continue until we are exhausted, until we are done, until people think their amendments have been covered sufficiently. That is the way we do it in the Senate. The Senate debate on this balanced budget demonstrates that Congress is doing its part to deliver a healthy economy for each and every American. The important first steps we have taken this week will help deliver a government that is more accountable, which is absolutely essential for strong job growth and job creation. This budget will help every American who wants to find a good-paying job and a fulfilling career. I am incredibly proud of my colleagues who are working together to deliver real solutions, real results, and real progress for hard- working taxpayers. I find this a little bit stressful. I am an accountant. I have found a way to escape some of that tension. I have been reading the Tax Code, and it is time for us to reform the Tax Code. There are hundreds of pages on minor decisions, on different ways of calculating it, and I am excited that we are going to do that. One of the things both sides of the aisle have talked about is speculation on tax reform. Tax reform needs to be done in a bipartisan way. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member on the Finance Committee have already been working on it. We have subgroups set up to solve different parts of the Tax Code, and I am confident we can do that. There are general instructions in the budget bill that allow some latitude to the Finance Committee in a number of different ways, and I am hoping we can wind up with a simpler Tax Code, one that will not take care of my frustrations in future years, but will ease the frustrations of the American people as to taxes. There has been a lot of speculation on where budget cuts are being made. I know there is a lot of frustration on the other side. Our budget sets limits for the different spending groups. It doesn't get into the details. The people who know the details in those areas are on the committees, and they can make better decisions than we as the Budget Committee can make. I do point out frequently that part of my discovery during this process was that there are 260 programs whose authorizations have expired. That means the specific committees that came up with the idea for these programs haven't looked at them for some time, and that didn't stop us from going ahead and funding them anyway. They have expired, but in some cases we are spending four times as much as what was originally envisioned for that particular program. Does it amount to much money? It amounts to $293 billion a year--$293 billion a year. If the committees do their work, there is a lot of money available for the areas outside of defense. Defense has its authorization done every year, so they are in a different category from all of the rest of the Federal Government programs. So if you are thinking there are a lot of hands tied on what can be done, there is $293 billion out there that is being spent that has expired and ought to be looked at. In businesses, they have to look at their expenses every single year and see where they can cut in order to continue the business. Around here one of those programs hasn't been looked at since 1983. So there is a lot of work for us to do. It is all included in the budget. I hope we can finish the budget tonight and put everybody to work on these extra tasks. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment to call up the following amendments en bloc on behalf of Senator Sullivan: Nos. 504, 505, 506 and 1011.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I object. The vote is set aside for 12 noon. We could have 50 more people coming down and offering additional amendments. They will have an opportunity to offer those amendments.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, again I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Tax reform must be handled by the tax committee. Putting it in the budget does not help move the process forward. There are a number of questions the committee needs to address: What does it mean, corporate compensation in excess of $1 million? Does that include or exclude health care? Does this include baseball players and actors and actresses as well? What are we talking about with limiting compensation? Can you limit compensation for people by a Federal law? If they have earned more than that, what about people who are operating under contract? I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. It will be handled in the tax committee when we consider tax reform.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is no objection on our side.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, at the present time, Social Security has an unfunded liability of $25 trillion over the infinite horizon. There is a problem. It is not to scare seniors, it is to preserve and make the program sustainable. When President Clinton was in office, he and Rick Santorum held a day's seminar on Social Security reform. We broke into Republican- Democratic House and Senate groups the next day. We came up with a blueprint for saving Social Security and to fix it. We recognized it took many different options, just not one option. One option will not solve the problem, and no one party can address the issue alone. We are prohibited by statute from making changes to Social Security in a budget resolution, and that is probably a good thing. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am going to have to recommend a ``no'' vote because of States' rights concerns. There are 48 States and the District of Columbia that prohibit voting while incarcerated for a felony offense. I was fascinated to find that only two States--Maine and Vermont--permit persons in prison to vote. An estimated 5.85 million Americans--one in 40 adults--has currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction. But each State has its own process for restoring the voting rights to ex-offenders now. States are best suited to make the judgment call, as they are closest to their citizens. So I ask for a States' rights vote of ``no.''

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I send a list of amendments to the desk that has been cleared by both managers and both leaders. I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc.