Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I don't think he is finished with his unanimous consent request.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we used to pass ambassadors and all kinds of people en bloc like that. But we have this nuclear option that the majority chose, so it takes a little longer to do the whole process. On that basis, I object.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, this is the procedure the majority set up. And the majority is going to be stuck with their decision to delay people, thinking they could speed them up and take away some of the minority rights. So I object.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, this is a political appointment, not a career appointment. If I objected to a career appointment, I certainly object to a political appointment. So I object.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I appreciate having this opportunity to share with the Senate some of the accomplishments and achievements of one of my constituents, Mary ``Mickey'' Thoman. Mickey will soon--and most deservedly--be inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. It will be another honor for her, a recognition that is fully and richly deserved. Mickey is well known for her knowledge, experience, and dedication to the agriculture industry of Wyoming, a sector of our economy that is so important it is listed on our State seal. No one knows how much we depend on our farmers and ranchers more than Mickey, and that is why she has been such a strong and effective force in the agriculture community of Wyoming for so many years. The record shows that Mickey has been tending to her family's ranching business and keeping everything running as it should for quite some time. In fact, her ranch can now boast of its status as a fifth- generation family ranch. I have no doubt she draws her strength and her energy from the work she does and her heartfelt connection to her ranch and her family. At the wise, experienced, and youthful age of 84, Mickey continues to prove the wisdom of the old adage that the best way to lead is by example. Mickey's is a truly remarkable story. It begins with her marriage to her late husband Bill and their decision to begin ranching together in the Green River Valley after they were married in 1948. It is now more than six decades later. Through the years Mickey has seen some tough times and faced some difficult challenges, but she has always been able to handle each obstacle that tried to block her way because of her great love of her life as a rancher. Mickey is well known throughout the ranching community because of her ties to the industry and to those who farm and ranch for a living. That is why, in an effort to help the next generation of farmers and ranchers, she served as a 4-H leader for many years and helped to found the Green River Valley CattleWomen and Sweetwater County Cowbelles. Today, her ranch raises Hereford cattle, Rambouillet sheep, and thoroughbred quarter horses. Over the years Mickey has passed on her love of ranching and her commitment to the Wyoming values that made her such a success to her children, her grandchildren, and her great-grandchildren. As they continue to put the lessons Mickey has taught them into practice they will always remember that Mickey was the one who taught them how to do so many things on the ranch. When Mickey is inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame she will be in good company. She will be among those who pursued their commitment to serving their community by working to support the growth and strength of our agriculture industry and our state economy. Mickey will fit right in because she has been an outstanding leader in that regard, serving with agriculture organizations and groups on both the State and the national level. They were fortunate she was willing to serve and to bring her knowledge of the industry to their work so that she might help them to make a difference. Over the years the contribution she made of her time and her talents helped to advance the interests of the agriculture community as she served with the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, the Guardians of the Grasslands, the Wyoming Farm Bureau, the American Quarter Horse Association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the American Sheep Industry Association, Wyoming CattleWomen, and the Wyoming Woolgrowers Association. Clearly, Mickey has never been one to sit idle when there was work to be done. Mickey's upcoming induction into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame won't be the first time she has been honored for her commitment to ranching, farming, and our Wyoming way of life. She has also been recognized with the Green River Valley Ranch Woman of the Year award in 2012, the Farm Family Today Award from the Sweetwater County Fair in 2013, a Partnership Appreciation Award from the Wyoming Landscape Conservation Initiative in 2012, and, with her husband Bill, the Sweetwater County Ranch of Couple of the Year Award in 1988 and the Upper Green River Valley Cattlemen's Lifetime Honorary Member Award in 1997. Mickey Thoman has shown she has what it takes to not only survive but to thrive in what can be a truly demanding business. Through it all, she has been a role model for others to learn from and an example not only of the best of Wyoming's traditions and values but proof of their power and strength. In a short while, I will be proud to join with Senator Barrasso as Mickey Thoman is officially inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. It is another honor she has truly earned with her hard work, her leadership, her friendship with so many members of Wyoming's agricultural community, and her active interest and involvement in every aspect of the industry she has been a part of since she and her husband first began to work their ranch more than 60 years ago.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment that I filed with the Highway and Transportation Funding Act. While my amendment did not get a vote, the issue it addresses is very important to my home State so I want to take a minute today to talk about the issue and the need to address a situation that was created when we passed the MAP-21 conference report in 2012. The conference report undid a carefully constructed compromise on the Abandoned Mine Land Program that was put together in 2006. It took apart the work that we had done by limiting the total annual payments of AML funds to $15 million per year. That is a change that only affected the State of Wyoming. We usually don't do legislation that only affects one State when a number of them receive funds. What was worse, the provision was not in the House or Senate highway bill. It was added in the dead of night without consulting anyone from the Wyoming congressional delegation. I was extremely disappointed that the provision was included in the conference report because Senators from other coal-producing States and I spent years working on this issue. When the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was passed in 1977, a tax was levied on each ton of coal that was produced. The purpose of that tax was to reclaim the coal mines that had been abandoned before the enactment of the reclamation laws. Half of that tax was promised to the States where the coal was mined. That was known as the State share. The other half went to the Federal Government to administer the reclamation program and to provide additional funding to the States with the most abandoned coal mines. It was a simple enough concept. Unfortunately, like many things in Washington, while the concept was good, clear, and well-intentioned, its implementation was a nightmare and the program did not work as Congress intended. For years States were shortchanged and the reclamation work was not done or the States did it themselves at their own expense, expecting to get reimbursed. That is the case in Wyoming. At one point the Federal Government owed the States more than $1.2 billion, while more than $3 billion in reclamation programs remained incomplete and unfinished. The issued pitted the East against the West and the debate was always the same. When Members from the East would argue that we should send more money to the States to support reclamation efforts, my colleagues from the West were just as certain that we needed to keep the Federal Government's promise to the States to provide the revenue they were entitled to under the provisions of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. In 2006, a bipartisan coalition of Senators--including me--fixed the broken AML structure. It started with Senator Santorum approaching me with a proposal that had the support of a number of local coal companies, also the United Mine Workers of America, several environmental groups, and other businesses. After listening to the proposal, I laid out a set of principles that had to be included in their proposal if they were going to gain my support. First I wanted to see the return of the money owed to the States, which included $550 million owed to my State. Because Wyoming is a certified State, I also wanted to see the money that came from the Federal Government with no strings attached. The legislation accomplished that goal by guaranteeing that Wyoming was to receive the money owed from the Federal Government over a 7-year period. This is money in a trust fund. Trust funds are kind of interesting to the Federal Government. We put money in the drawer and then we take money out and put bonds in the drawer. Think about that in Social Security. It is another one of our trust funds, and I am one of the protectors. This was a trust fund but there were only bonds in there, so it was difficult for us to get any money. I wanted to guarantee that future moneys would be paid to States such as Wyoming where significant amounts of coal were produced. We are where most of the Federal half of the tax comes from. Third, it was important that more money be directed toward reclamation in the States where it was needed. More money was needed. And fourth, there had to be a provision for orphan miners' health. Sometimes that is kind of overlooked, but Senator Byrd and Senator Rockefeller were very adamant on that. What is an orphan miner? That was a miner who was promised health care and then their mine went out of business. So there is no company to pay in anymore so they can get their health care, and we made a provision to take care of that. The legislation that we put together accomplished all four of those goals. We continued our efforts as a bipartisan group, and in December 2006 we passed the AML reauthorization as part of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006. The coal industry and the United Mine Workers of America supported the bill. Members from certified States less Wyoming supported the compromise, as did members from uncertified States such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia. As a Senator, President Obama voted in favor of the legislation that included this compromise. From all signs it appeared we had finally fixed our problem and helped strengthen our State economies at the same time. Unfortunately, appearances are often deceiving. By limited AML payments in the MAP-21 conference report, Congress once again made clear that taxpayers could not count on a Federal trust fund to meet its obligations to administer the tax dollars it collected each year in a proper and legislatively mandated manner. This has been contested and successfully defended year after year to preserve this money, and it was supported by a supermajority from this body until-- until--it was included in this highway bill and included in the highway bill in the conference report, not when we had an amendment on the floor that we could once again successfully defeat with a supermajority. It came in the middle of the night, and the next day we had an opportunity to vote for the highway bill. The highway bill is probably one of the most crucial bills to any State in the Nation, and if all you get to do is vote yes or no, you are not going to take a look at a little portion of the bill where we steal a trust fund from one State--Wyoming--and that is exactly what happened, and it passed. My amendment to the highway bill this time will address the problem and put things back together the way they were meant to be. Simply put, it will ensure that when a State has been promised it will receive AML funds, it will receive them. Fortunately, I have the intent of Congress and the support of many colleagues on this matter of such great concern to Wyoming and to all the coal-producing States. I want to particularly thank Senators Hatch and Wyden for their commitment to address this issue created by the MAP-21 conference report. This isn't just a problem for Wyoming, because the next time a conference committee goes looking for some money, they can steal it from another AML State. My amendment also encouraged the production of energy right here at home by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. The Congressional Budget Office estimates such an effort will increase gross Federal receipts by $5 billion over 10 years. That is more than we need to make this payment. There are other possibilities for offsets as well, but that is one that is rather meaty, and that is more than enough to pay the funds that were stolen from Wyoming over 10 years and to pay for 2 years' worth of transportation projects, not just a short- term fix on transportation. I know my colleagues will see the importance of this matter for Wyoming and to all the coal-producing States. It is important we take a look at this and protect the validity of trust funds that we set up and not redo them without adequate debate or an actual vote on the trust fund that we are violating. We have done that on a couple of other trust funds as well. One of the ones that we also did was to impose an additional tax on those companies that have private pension funds, because we have a Pension Benefit Guaranty trust fund that is designed so that if a company goes out of business a worker who works for one of those businesses will get at least 60 percent of what they were supposed to get in their retirement. That is why it is called the Pension Benefit Guaranty trust fund. We increased the amount that had to be put in by $80 per employee for each of the companies involved, and that was going to the trust fund to make sure those funds would be available. But we diverted those funds before they got to the trust fund because the actual money could be replaced by bonds in the drawer of the trust fund. That money went to highways, and that is just another example of how we are taking money from 10 years' worth of trust funds and using it for 2-year projects. We have to change that, and my amendment will be one of the ways of making that change. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak about amendments I have filed to the Bring Jobs Home Act. My first amendment, the United States Job Creation and International Tax Reform Act, would truly incentivize American companies to create jobs in the United States, while at the same time leveling the playing field for U.S. companies in the global marketplace. We can do this by reforming the rules for taxing the global operations of American companies and making America a more attractive location to base a business that serves customers around the world. Our current Tax Code does just the opposite, but the base bill we are debating today wouldn't change that. Instead, it would discourage global businesses from locating their headquarters in the United States and make it harder for U.S.-based companies to expand. Instead of messaging that we should bring jobs home, we need to reform our outdated international Tax Code. Let's just do it. Many of the United States' major trading partners have moved to what are called territorial tax systems. Those types of tax systems tax the income generated within their borders and exempt foreign earnings from tax. The United States, on the other hand, taxes the worldwide income of U.S. companies and provides deferral of U.S. tax until the foreign earnings are brought home. Deferring these taxes incentivizes companies to leave their money abroad. Because the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, companies don't bring those earnings back home and instead reinvest outside of the United States. This is having a real impact on jobs. Thirty-six percent of the Fortune Global 500 companies were headquartered in the United States in 2000; in 2009 that number dropped to 28 percent. Clearly, America is losing ground, but the base bill we are considering won't change that. My amendment would help to right the ship by pulling our international tax rules into the 21st century. This bill would give U.S. companies real incentives to create jobs in the United States in order to win globally. I hope as we talk about jobs this week, we will have a chance to consider the amendment. My second amendment, the Small Business Fairness in Health Care Act, would remove the ObamaCare disincentive for small businesses to add jobs. Small businesses are the drivers of the economy in Wyoming and across the Nation, but the bill before us is not focused on removing the burdens that current laws have placed on our Main Street businesses. A recent survey by the National Small Business Association found that because of the President's health care law 34 percent of small businesses report holding off on hiring a new employee and another 12 percent report they had to lay off an employee in the last year. My amendment is a great step to help address those issues. It would remove the ObamaCare mandate that businesses with 50 employees provide health insurance. This would allow small companies with 49 employees to add jobs without the fear of the employer mandate. My amendment would also clarify that 40 hours, not 30 hours, is full-time so that folks who have jobs aren't limited to 29 hours of work per week. These aren't the only ideas we should debate when we talk about creating jobs in the United States. We should be fighting the administration's war on coal, an industry that supported over 700,000 good-paying jobs in 2010. The EPA recently issued new regulations that try to force a backdoor cap and tax proposal on Americans that Congress has already rejected. We need to reject that idea again. Instead of running from coal, America needs to run on coal. We should debate the merits of the Keystone Pipeline and insist that the President approve this project which has been pending for more than 5 years and would create more than 40,000 jobs. The State Department has done five reviews of the project and determined that the pipeline would cause no significant environmental impacts. So let's create those jobs. What are we waiting for?

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are back for another week of work, but the playbook hasn't changed. Once again the majority leader has prevented 98 Senators from offering amendments to improve a bill he chose for us to debate. I would like to speak for a few moments about some of the amendments the Democratic leader prevented us from voting on this week. First, I have been working on amendments with Senators Bennet, Flake, Risch, Sessions, and Thune to allow bows and archery equipment to be transported through the national parks. This bipartisan effort is necessary because some bow hunters need to travel across national parks to get to land where they intend to hunt. It is also important for our archery competitors who currently have to go out of their way to avoid national parks to get to their tournaments. A lot of people don't realize that Yellowstone National Park, which is in the upper left-hand corner of Wyoming, is about the size of Connecticut. To get to Idaho, sometimes you have to go 250 miles out of your way if you can't go through the park. There is a lot of competition between Wyoming and Idaho when it comes to archery and vice versa. The same can happen getting into Montana. This is just a commonsense amendment because it provides parity for bows and firearms. In 2009 Congress passed a law to prevent the right of individuals to bear arms in units of the national park system and the National Wildlife Refuge System. This body considered it a commonsense provision before. Language on this issue was included in the Sportsmen's Act of 2012, S. 3525, but now the Senate won't even get a chance to vote on whether to add this language to the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014. This is the appropriate place for sportsmen's issues to be brought up. Second, I offered an amendment with Senators Lee and Thune to ensure that those traveling with a properly secured knife are not prosecuted under local or State laws which banned certain knives. This amendment is necessary because there is a broad patchwork of State and local laws regulating knife possession. For example, 36 States allow civilian possession of automatic knives to varying degrees. But there are no restrictions at all in 22 States, and in some States possession is a serious crime. This can be incidental, again, just passing through a State. The current situation with knives is similar to the circumstances that existed for gun owners before the passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. That law protects law-abiding gun owners from an inconsistent patchwork of laws, and my amendment provides parity between knife and gun owner. This commonsense amendment uses language similar to that used in the 1986 law. I have also filed an amendment with Senators Barrasso, Crapo, Hatch, Lee, Murkowski, and Risch to require the Department of Interior to suspend for 10 years the listing decision in States with approved or endorsed sage-grouse management plans. Wyoming has an endorsed and an approved plan, and sage-grouse is coming back. A new report on numbers just showed an increase. The amendment allows States to manage and conserve sage-grouse in a manner that protects their jurisdiction over State wildlife and takes into account local stakeholders. I believe it is related to the underlying bill because of the substantial impact a sage-grouse listing would have on sporting and recreation in Western States. Incidentally, even though they say there is a sage-grouse problem, the bag limits for hunting them have not gone down. I have also cosponsored some amendments that would improve this bill. One of these amendments by Senator Barrasso would prevent the EPA from regulating all bodies of water--even ones that are dried up, even ones that are seasonal--no matter how small and regardless of whether the water is on public or on private property. Mark Twain once said: ``[In the West] Whiskey is for drinking; Water is for fighting over.'' So for States such as Wyoming, water is scarce, and we try to save every drop. One-size-fits-all Federal control like the EPA wants to impose won't work, but Senator Barrasso won't get a vote on his amendment. Another amendment by Senator Wicker, which I have cosponsored, would allow folks to carry firearms on Corps of Engineers recreational property. This is another parity amendment. But in this case, we would allow law-abiding gun owners to carry firearms on Corps land just as they can carry firearms on national park and National Wildlife Refuge lands, but Senator Wicker won't get a vote on his amendment. I am also supporting an amendment from Senator Tester to make cabin user fees more affordable and predictable, allowing families to keep their cabins on Forest Service land on which some have been for generations. Wyoming cabin owners shouldn't have to worry about the Forest Service trying to drive them off with ever-increasing fees-- sometimes a 300-percent increase in a single year. Incidentally, the Federal Government pays taxes in lieu of private ownership of the land. Those don't go up by 300 percent. It seems to me that if the value of the land went up by 300 percent, the Federal Government's payment in lieu of taxes would go up by the same amount. It doesn't happen. Wyoming cabin owners shouldn't have to worry about the Forest Service trying to drive them off with ever-increasing fees. This amendment provides a consistent, fiscally responsible formula for how the fees are calculated so families can spend more time enjoying the outdoors instead of worrying about the uncertainty of next year's fees, but Senator Tester won't get a vote on his amendment. These aren't the only good amendments to this bill. There have been 80 amendments filed on this bill--about a third filed by the majority party. Many of the amendments are bipartisan, but it sounds as if only the one chosen by the majority leader is going to get a vote. I am sad to say no one should be surprised by this because it has become par for the course. In 2005 and 2006 the Senate voted on almost 700 amendments on the Senate floor. In 2011 and 2012 it was about half that, around 350 amendments. In the past year the majority leader has allowed only 11 Senate Republican amendments. Let me repeat that. In the past year the majority leader has allowed votes on only 11 Senate Republican amendments. Over that same period of time the House has voted on 169 Democratic amendments. How can the House, which has more constraint than the Senate, have that many more votes for the minority party--169 to our 11? The majority party in the Senate isn't faring any better. I am told the majority leader has only allowed his own party to have seven amendments voted on since July of last year. In fact, my friends on the other side of the aisle haven't gotten a vote on one of their amendments in over 100 days--and they are in control. To prevent us from offering amendments, the majority leader has used a tactic called filling the amendment tree. In the last 8 years he has used this tactic 90 times. By comparison, the last six majority leaders combined only filled the tree 40 times in over 16 years. So the last 8 years, 90 times; the previous 16 years, 40 times. Almost half of the Senate has been here less than 6 years. Forty-five of the 100 Senators are in their first term, so they may think this is the way the Senate does business. I say to those Senators, there is a better way. We need to be able to vote on amendments. We need the bills to go to committee. We need to have bills come to the floor. We need amendments both places. All 100 Members of the Senate should have an opportunity to improve the bills we consider because each of us looks at every proposal from a different point of view and different experience. When all the decisions are made by the majority leader, the vast majority of Americans get shortchanged. This won't change unless those who are here exercise our rights. It is time for the 99 Senators who are being denied the opportunity to represent their constituents to stand up to the leader and insist on amendments. We should all demand that we be allowed to do our jobs. That will show up in votes, and it has shown up in votes. When our side doesn't get amendments, we don't let the bill pass. We have that capability, and the minority needs that capability in order to get control of situations such as this. We need to be able to vote on amendments. It has been the process of this body for the history of the United States, with unlimited debate in the Senate. Occasionally, when the debate has gone on for 2 or 3 days or 2 or 3 weeks, there has been the exercise we see here but not at the start of a bill so that no amendments can be voted on. It doesn't take very long to vote if you get to vote. But what we are going through is a process of negotiations to see if the majority leader can pick the votes for the minority party. That is not right. That hasn't happened, and we don't intend to let it happen. It is time that we have our amendments, particularly amendments that are relevant to the bill. This is the sportsmen's bill. I am talking about the right to take archery equipment through a national park. We can do that with guns, but we can't do that with bows? Some of those parks are pretty big, and you have to go 250 miles out of the way to get around them. That shouldn't be imposed on sportsmen. They ought to have the right to do that, and we are going to be denied that vote and all of the others that I mentioned this morning. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a resolution today to designate Saturday, July 26, 2014 as National Day of the American Cowboy. My late colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, began the tradition of honoring the men and women known as cowboys 10 years ago when he introduced the first resolution to designate the fourth Saturday of July as National Day of the American Cowboy. I am proud to carry on Senator Thomas's tradition. The national day celebrates the history of cowboys in America and recognizes the important work today's cowboys are doing in the United States. The cowboy spirit is about honesty, integrity, courage, and patriotism, and cowboys are models of strong character, sound family values, and good common sense. Cowboys were some of the first men and women to settle in the American West, and they continue to make important contributions to our economy, Western culture, and my home State of Wyoming today. This year's resolution designates July 26, 2014, as the National Day of the American Cowboy. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the important role cowboys play in our country.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to applaud the Supreme Court's unanimous decision that the President's January 4, 2012 appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. As you know, I was the Ranking Member on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in 2012, and when these appointments were made I expressed my concern with the administration's contempt for small businesses and the Senate's confirmation and vetting process. I was also proud to cosign an amicus brief led by our Republican leader against these pro-forma session appointments. The Appointments Clause of our Constitution provides that ``the President shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.'' Today the Supreme Court validated the Senate's important advice and consent role in the confirmation process. These unconstitutional appointments are just one example of the executive branch overreach that Americans face every day under this administration. In his State of the Union address, President Obama said that since he is unable to rely on Congress to rubber stamp his agenda, he intends to use executive orders to avoid the legislative process altogether. This is certainly not a new practice for him: President Obama has issued more executive orders and economically significant rules and regulations than President George W. Bush, Clinton or Reagan. I hope today's Supreme Court decision will serve as the impetus that brings my colleagues together to say enough is enough. One issue we need to stand up to the administration about is its war on coal. Earlier this month the EPA issued new regulations that try to force a backdoor cap and tax proposal on Americans that Congress has rejected. Senators on both sides of the aisle realized a couple of years ago that coal is one of our best sources of energy and that cap and tax was an extremely expensive and bad idea. I urge those Senators to come together again and make the President withdraw his cap and tax regulation. Another issue we need to stand up to the President about is his attempt to control all our water. In March the EPA proposed a new rule that could allow the administration to regulate all bodies of water, no matter how small, and regardless of whether the water is on public or private property. We have already experienced that attempt at control in Wyoming, where the EPA tried to fine an individual up to $75,000 per day for the pond he built on his private property. Mark Twain once said, ``in the West, whiskey is for drinking. Water is for fighting over.'' I urge my Western State colleagues to come together and make the President withdraw his waters of the United States regulation. We do not have to wait for the Supreme Court to act on these examples of executive overreach. The Congressional Review Act provides an expedited procedure for us to consider a resolution of disapproval of the President's rules. Under the CRA, before any final rule can become effective it must be filed with each House of Congress and GAO. Within 60 days after Congress receives an agency's rule, we can introduce a resolution of disapproval to nullify the rule. The CRA also guarantees us a vote because 30 of us can sign a petition to discharge the resolution from Committee, and the motion to proceed to the resolution is not subject to amendment, motion to postpone, or motion to proceed to other business. I hope I have 29 colleagues willing to join me in signing petitions to discharge resolutions of disapproval regarding both of these rules. There are also areas where the administration is not acting when it should, and I hope my colleagues will push the administration to spend its time taking actions that help, not hurt, America. Officials from the IRS, Treasury Department, and White House did not tell Congress when they realized IRS emails had been lost that were relevant to bipartisan committee investigations. The administration knew about those emails for at least 2 months before the Senate Finance Committee was informed. I urge my colleagues to come together and insist on full disclosure from the administration regarding allegations of political targeting by the IRS. A Finance Committee hearing about the lost IRS emails would be an excellent step in getting to the bottom of this issue. The administration has not approved the Keystone Pipeline application that has been pending for more than 5 years. The State Department has done five reviews of the project and determined that the pipeline would cause no significant environmental impacts. The pipeline would create about 42,000 jobs. Our Energy Committee has passed legislation to build the pipeline. A bipartisan group of at least 55 Senators say they want to build the pipeline. I urge that group to come together and insist the President let the pipeline go forward. These are not the only areas where the President has acted when he should not have, and has not acted when he should have. But they are important to Wyoming and America, and I urge my colleagues to stand up to the executive branch now rather than waiting for the Supreme Court on another issue.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent that, following my speech, Senator Brown from Ohio be allowed to speak next.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to speak in favor of the reauthorization of Workforce Investment Act. I first thank Senator Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa for their hard work on this bill. We can see from that list of Senators alone that this has been a truly bipartisan effort to reauthorize this Workforce Investment Act. Of course, we have heard through the course of this discussion how on the House side Kline, Miller, Foxx, and Hinojosa worked on it, which is bipartisan on that side of the building. And the two have been working together, which is bicameral. That doesn't happen a lot around here, but on bills that make it through to the President's signature it does happen, and it has happened on this one. I thank the many Senators who have had suggestions for this bill. A lot of those suggestions have wound up in here. Some of them had amendments that we will have to continue to work on in the future, and they were very gracious in revising some of those so that they would fit what we are doing and still get the bill done. I know Tim Scott could have taken a lot more credit for what he did in the House and when it came over here, but he has been extremely cooperative in using his knowledge of the bill to further the bill. Senator Portman is another critical Senator in working on it, and as we can tell by the passionate speech by Senator Coburn, there are things that could be done and will need to be done in the future to make it an even better bill. But it is something that all of government ought to be doing--not just the workforce. This is a day of elation for me. We have been working to improve this program for over 11 years. For 11 years this could have made a big difference in our country's jobs. The Workforce Investment Act has been due for reauthorization for 11 years. Who says the Senate works fast? Who says the Senate works slow? Hopefully, the Senate works and gets it right. I am hopeful that now is the time we are able to get this important piece of legislation renewed and provide some much-needed help to American workers and businesses through the new profile it provides. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act will transform the sometimes bureaucratic Federal job training system into a streamlined program that can help many more people learn the skills they need to get meaningful jobs. The reauthorization will eliminate 15 programs identified as ineffective or duplicative--we don't do that very often-- and 21 Federal mandates on State and local workforce boards. That is what we need to be doing throughout government. This bill would apply common performance measures for all programs with the focus on employment outcomes and employer satisfaction with the trained workers. This will provide stronger accountability for taxpayer dollars. These are all changes that are long overdue. This piece of legislation also gives authority back to the State governments and equips them with tools to help small businesses. This bill provides Governors and State workforce directors what they told us they needed in hearing after hearing. They wanted flexibility to use the money where it was most needed. There were stovepipes where we required them to do certain things with the money even if they didn't have customers that needed that part of the stovepipe, which meant that some of the money went begging. So by actually eliminating some of the stovepipes, making the money more effective in this program, it increases the value of the money that is there. With this reauthorization States will better be able to meet the regional economic demand and provide training for jobs in which quality workers are in short supply. We can help people get back to work by offering training for the skills and services needed in their community. State and local officials are in the best position to determine the labor and job training needs of communities across the Nation. The workforce and opportunity act will help improve our current stagnated economy and foster economic development for private sector job creation. If it works as it should, hundreds of thousands of people will be able to move into available jobs that are vacant because folks don't have the right skills. I remember the New York Times sent reporters out to see if there were any jobs available in the New York area. They came back and reported there were thousands of jobs, there just weren't people trained to be able to do those jobs. That is what this bill is designed to do. Local businesses will finally be able to find workers who live in their communities who have a particular skill set that they need for their business. The job training program that is included in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is what would get our economy going again. Job training programs are especially important to small-population States such as Wyoming where skilled workers are in high demand and the supply is short. We recently broke ground on the Wind River Job Corps Center in Riverton, WY. The seven-building center will house 300 students and be the first of its kind in Wyoming. When the center opens in the next year or so, my constituents will be able to get the job training they need to succeed in their careers. This project would not have been possible without the determination of the people of Wyoming, the cooperation of the communities around there to provide facilities, the land that was necessary, and legislation like the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. I particularly want to thank Senator Harkin for his recognition as part of the Appropriations Committee that Wyoming and New Hampshire were the two States that didn't have job corps centers and the help he gave us in being sure there was money set aside to be able to do that job corps center. I also appreciate the emphasis on the youth bill that is in there where young people can work during the summer to actually learn a trade while they improve their community. On a broader scale, America is facing an economic climate that threatens our ability as a nation to compete in the global marketplace. This bill sends a clear message that we are serious about helping our American workers and employers remain competitive and that we are serious about closing the skills gap that is putting America's long- term competitiveness in jeopardy. I have been on the floor recently discussing articles that declared that our current Congress could be the worst ever and that negotiating political agreements is a lost art. More often than not this year Senators have had no opportunity to weigh in and dissenting opinions are rarely considered. But the HELP Committee has broken through the logjam and produced a bipartisan bill with a bicameral effort that is going to get through the Senate without cloture, without filling the amendment tree, or any of the other procedural tricks. That is a testament to the hard work of Senators Harkin, Alexander, Murray, Isakson, and their staffs and others who have worked on this bill. Their efforts are an example all of us should keep in mind in thinking about how we can and should operate. Almost half of today's sitting Senators have been here less than 6 years, so they haven't seen many times when the Senate has worked as it should, as it could, as it did. I urge them to keep this Workforce Investment Act bill in mind. The HELP Committee had the first opportunity to shape the legislation. Members were able to iron out unintended consequences and input there. That is how committees work. Then Senators Harkin, Alexander, Murray, and Isakson gave all 100 Members of the Senate the opportunity to improve the legislation. It is important to note this isn't the first time the HELP Committee has followed this process. A few months ago we passed the community development block grant for child education after it went through committee and after amendments were offered. I am glad the full Senate is finally considering reauthorization of this important piece of legislation. I urge my fellow Senators to pass this bicameral, bipartisan agreement based on commonsense policies that will stimulate growth and the economy. The education and job training programs provided by this Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act are too important to working families, businesses, local communities, and our Nation's economy to delay it. I yield the floor for the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I rise to talk about the new regulations President Obama proposed this week that are obviously aimed at the coal industry, but let's be frank, these regulations go far beyond the President's campaign to put coal out of business. These regulations target energy to make it less affordable and less abundant. Once again we are seeing how consumers, students, and low-income families are getting priced out of the economy because of government policy. The more the government dictates and promotes a one-size-fits-all solution, the more it hits folks in their pocketbooks. I don't think I have ever met a single person who said they were anti-environment. I cannot think of a single person who likes dirty water or polluted skies, but if we listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we would assume Republicans have made it their life's work to kill the planet. It makes for great sound bites and it can help rally their base; it does not, however, contribute much to the discussion at hand or make much of a difference. Actions have consequences and these proposed regulations will have a real, tangible, measurable impact on the economy at a time when job creation should be our focus. The truth is coal powers America. Almost 70 percent of all energy produced in this country came from the ground and most of it was coal. Even electric cars are powered by coal, but sadly you won't see that on a bumper sticker. That is what I call an inconvenient truth. If we were to shut down our coal facilities for even a single day, I think even my colleagues from the other side of the aisle would quickly be calling for these plants to be turned back on. In my State coal is one of our largest employers. It provides high- paying jobs to our residents, as it does to folks all across the country. The revenue from energy production even provides scholarships for our students to get an education. For our State coal is not just an energy source, it is a livelihood. The President may want us to run from coal, but I think we should be running toward it. George Washington Carver developed over 100 products from peanuts. Think what we could do with coal if we spent more time and resources developing our most abundant resource instead of trying to destroy it. American ingenuity would lead to our next energy revolution. But that is not happening. Instead, a project that the University of Wyoming and the private sector were working on to produce cleaner energy from coal was canceled because of the President's efforts to kill coal. There is no future in selling the products that would be developed to enhance coal. We have to trust American ingenuity. No one likes to sit in the dark, and I imagine most folks like being able to run their air-conditioner in the summer. States that rely on coal for their power see an average of 30 percent lower electricity costs than States that use other fuels. An increase of that size would be noticed by almost everyone regardless of political affiliation. We could learn a thing or two from Germany. They are going back to coal after experimenting with alternative sources. They realized that coal is readily available and will help them bring down energy prices. Incidentally, coal is the only energy source you can stockpile for emergencies. The plain fact is that this President is proposing a cap-and-tax proposal that already failed in Congress. My colleagues then realized that it is an extremely expensive idea, and the increased costs would be passed along to consumers, who must pay to use more expensive energy sources. But the fact that Congress rejected this proposal seems to have encouraged the administration to yet again sidestep Congress and implement another costly backdoor regulation. Even some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they are angry about this tax imposed on the people without approval from their representatives in Congress. I have heard comments about how courageous the President is for finally going after coal. It is not as if the President ever hid his disdain for energy that comes from the ground. He has been targeting it with redtape his entire Presidency. These ideas are purely political and will have a heavy impact on the economy with little or no measurable impact on the environment. The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent editorial that ``based on the EPA's own carbon accounting, shutting down every single coal-fired power plant tomorrow and replacing them with zero-carbon sources would reduce the Earth's temperature by about one-twentieth of a degree Fahrenheit in a hundred years.'' Let me repeat that. The Wall Street Journal pointed out in a recent editorial that ``based on the EPA's own carbon accounting, shutting down every single coal-fired power plant tomorrow and replacing them with zero-carbon sources would reduce the Earth's temperature by about one-twentieth of a degree Fahrenheit in a hundred years.'' When government tries to pick winners and losers in any part of the market, everyone loses. Just look at how great our health care system is doing. If we as a body allow the President to get his way on this regulation, we will be looking at billions in annual economic losses. Hundreds of thousands of people will lose their jobs. We will burden our businesses with billions of dollars in costs, all of which will be passed on to the consumers in the form of double-digit energy price increases. If you are elderly, a low-income or even middle-class family or living on a fixed income, are you willing to pay this energy tax that won't make a dent in CO2 emissions? I can't imagine you would be. These new regulations will only succeed in making the pocketbooks lighter and the country darker. When we have affordable and abundant energy, America stays competitive with the rest of the world. Low-cost energy could help create more than 1 million jobs over the next decade, and it could lure more investment into American manufacturing. The cost of energy is a big factor in manufacturing. We all say we need to put people back to work. Driving up costs to consumers and businesses doesn't seem to benefit anyone. I hope my colleagues from the other side of the aisle will join me today and say enough is enough. The President is proposing to leave a permanent stain on our economy. We should not be putting people out of work or driving up energy prices. I hope every American will call on their representatives to oppose this President's proposal. It is our constituents who keep us accountable. The Republican leader has already introduced legislation to stop this reckless move by the EPA, and I am proud to join him in that effort. Our bill is simple. It requires that the President prove that this rule will not cause job losses, that it will not increase energy rates, and that it will not hurt our country's economic output. We know the President's regulations will put America at an economic disadvantage, but I worry we won't get a vote on this commonsense bill--or even done as an amendment--and that is a real shame because I think a majority of this body would support the bill and oppose the President's proposal. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for floor privileges for the day for Daniel Head of my staff.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his comments about a problem--and how extensive it is--we are seeing across the United States. I don't think there is a Senator who is not looking into that and ensuring that something is done. I looked at the resources that have been allocated, and noticed that we increased the resources 60 percent in the last 5 years. I think there is a severe management problem, and after reading some of the emails I have received, I am very concerned about that. I want to talk about a different subject today. A recent headline from a Capitol Hill newspaper declared that our current Congress could be the ``worst ever.'' Another said negotiating political agreements is a ``lost art.'' The whole country knows something is wrong with our government. The problem is that Senators are being prevented from doing their job. Common sense is ignored because bills are being made in a political vacuum. This results in more lengthy, complex, incomprehensible laws that defy logic. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that Congress would first have to pass a bill in order to find out what was in it. That is a problem. Legislation is often hundreds, if not thousands, of pages long. One bill could contain provisions affecting everything from health care to housing and increase the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars. I recently introduced a bill with Senator John Barrasso, also from Wyoming, that would take a page from Wyoming's State legislature handbook. In order to stop Congress from passing bills with countless, unrelated measures, S. Res. 351 would require any legislation considered by the Senate to be limited to a single issue. One topic per bill will help get things done. It means more understandable and manageable bills. This is not a flashy concept, but I have found people of both parties are receptive to it. It makes sense to them. Change is hard and those who control the Senate now like the system we have. Most Members of Congress have no opportunity to weigh in, and neither does the public--directly or indirectly. This is a very tidy arrangement for those who are in power now, especially in the Senate. Nothing is approved unless the majority leader allows it to come out. Dissenting opinions are rarely considered. The majority leader uses procedural tactics to prohibit amendments to improve bills in order to control the legislation and to prevent his party from taking politically difficult votes. He has done this more than any other majority leader--perhaps more than all the previous leaders. Political motivations and consolidation of power should not be used to deny Senators from either party the right to represent their people. Last week the majority leader used procedural tactics to prevent us from voting on tax amendments important to Wyoming, such as the permanent State and local sales tax deduction amendment offered by my friend on the other side of the aisle, the Senator from Washington. We were also prevented from voting on amendments that would be important to all of us, such as preventing waste of taxpayers' dollars by stopping the IRS from giving bonuses to employees who have not paid their taxes. Amendments were filed by Members from across the country. By my count, more than 60 amendments to the tax package were filed by Senators from the other side of the aisle. Nobody is being represented by amendments. At some point we need to actually vote on the issues that are important to our constituents, and Members on both sides of the aisle who support these amendments need to insist on that. Last week Politico's Huddle claimed ``Senate GOP Filibusters $85B Tax Extenders,'' but there is no opportunity to filibuster when the debate is cut off before it ever begins. That is what the majority leader did by filing cloture on the tax extenders package. Cloture is a political tactic designed to bring debate to a close after a supermajority of the Senate is satisfied that a matter has received adequate consideration. In recent years this majority leader has often filed a cloture motion immediately--before there is an opportunity to debate or introduce amendments, not after adequate consideration. The number of same-day cloture filings has more than doubled compared to when Republicans last controlled the Senate. We are not even being given a chance to debate, much less offer amendments, and that is why I have joined Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, in cosponsoring his Stop Cloture Abuse Resolution. It would amend the Senate rules to prohibit filing cloture until there has been at least 24 hours of debate. Another telling statistic is the number of amendments the current majority has blocked from being considered in the Senate. As this chart shows, in 2005 and 2006, the Senate voted on almost 700 amendments on the Senate floor. Since the Senate has been controlled by the current majority, the number has dwindled. In 2011 and 2012, there were about 350 amendments, and since July of last year, the majority leader has allowed votes on only 9 Senate Republican amendments. The House--where debate is very limited and controlled by the majority--had 132 votes on Democrat minority amendments. Let's see. The minority in the Senate--the cooling saucer for the country where there is supposed to be open debate--had nine amendments. The House--always controlled by the majority in a very strict way with a rules committee--had 132 Democratic minority votes on amendments. The leader has used the tactic of filling the amendment tree to prevent amendments from being introduced, and because of that tactic, the amendment to prevent wasting taxpayers' dollars by stopping the IRS from giving bonuses to employees who have not paid their taxes doesn't get to come up. That is just one example of many that has happened. In the last 8 years, he has used this tactic 86 times, and of course, we are still counting. By contrast, the last six majority leaders combined only filled the tree 40 times. What is filling the tree? It is a political tactic of setting up a few amendments that cannot be taken down, that have to be voted on before the bill can be done, and filing cloture even prevents those from getting done. The chart shows that there have been 86, and still counting, and the six previous leaders only filed cloture 40 times. Filling the amendment tree has become a routine way to prevent any Senator--majority or minority--from exercising their right to offer an amendment because once the tree is filled, no Senator can offer an amendment. Almost half of the Senate has been here less than 6 years. Yes, 45 of the 100 Senators are in their first term. They don't realize that there is a better way. They have not seen how it could work, how it did work, and how it should work. I know how this can hurt. I once had a bill that would have been the first step of 10 for solving health care in this country, and it was a small business health plan. It would have allowed small businesses across the country to join together through their association to get a big enough block to effectively negotiate with the insurance company or even set up their own selfinsurance pool. The majority leader was willing to bring it up and then filled the tree and filed cloture. I had 2 people that would have made the 60 votes necessary to get that passed, but each had 1 amendment to the bill, and they would have been good amendments. They were not allowed to bring up their amendments, and consequently I wound up being just short to pass a very important bill that would have brought down health care costs for this country and might have encouraged people to do the other nine steps in the plan that Senator Kennedy and I put together and provided more in the way of insurance than what we have now, and it would have been paid for. Committees should have the first opportunity to shape legislation. It is there that Members are able to iron out unintended consequences and craft better legislation before it goes to the floor. There is a lot of flexibility in the committee process. I used to sit down and go through all the amendments. There might be 200 amendments on a bill we were working on, and we would put them into piles according to what we covered. We would look to see who was involved in that particular pile and send that bipartisan group off to come up with a solution to these multiple solutions that had been presented. They were usually able to craft something out of that and bring it back as another amendment that would make the bill better and eliminate unintended consequences and perform a real service for our country. Most of the bills now don't go to committee first. After a bill goes to committee, then it comes to the floor. All 100 Members of the Senate should have an opportunity to improve the legislation. The reason we have so many people in Congress--100 here and 435 at the other end of the building--is to bring together 535 different backgrounds that can suggest improvements to bills. Different Members may know something from their background that others may not have noticed, and that is why we do amendments. Rarely is that happening in today's Senate. More often than not, committees are ignored and massive legislation is the result of a few people behind closed doors deal making for the more than 535 Members of Congress. We need to get away from deal making and start legislating again, and that is apparent, especially in our spending. The job of Congress is to decide how much the Federal Government should spend and on what priorities. That is not being done under the Senate's current management. Deals are made. In fact, last January, the legislation we voted on was a deal between one Member of the House and one Member of the Senate. Do you know how many amendments we got on that? Nobody had an amendment to it. The debate was very limited. There was $1.1 trillion spent on one vote that was put together by two people. That is deal making, not legislating, and that is what is costing this country so much money and what stifles things. A couple of weeks ago we had a bill that was allowed to have amendments, and in 2 days we covered the amendments and passed the bill unanimously because it had been improved significantly. That is what we need to get back to. More time is spent on negotiating not to have amendments than it would take to vote on 75 amendments on a bill. Yes, a lot of them would fail, and that is typical, but at least a Senator could feel that his constituents have been heard but he just didn't have the votes for it. At least they have been heard, and that is what we are missing right now. We are not getting to cover the amendments, and they can be covered relatively quickly. So deals are made and then spending bills are all packaged into one massive ``take it or leave it'' bill and the deficit has increased. In 2013, the Senate didn't pass a single appropriations bill. We were supposed to do 12 of them right after April 15. We didn't do any of them. We only considered 1 of the 12 bills on the Senate floor, and that bill was shut down because the first amendment the majority leader didn't like, so he pulled it off of the floor and he never brought it up again, nor did he bring up any other spending bill. Is it any wonder that since January 2009 the total Federal debt stood at $10.6 trillion and now it is over $17 trillion? We don't budget; we don't appropriate; we just deal-make. It has never risen so high so fast in our country's history. Similar to legislation on one topic per bill, we should look at each spending bill individually. The committees should be able to look closely at each branch and each agency. That is how it used to work before the power shift, but we can make some changes now to encourage more spending scrutiny. We could switch to a biennial appropriations process. That means once every 2 years for each agency. I have introduced S. 625, the Biennial Appropriations Act, and I am cosponsoring Senator Johnny Isakson's version of the legislation. My bill would require the President to submit a 2-year budget resolution at the beginning of each Congress. Congress would then adopt a budget resolution. Following adoption of a budget resolution, Congress would focus on appropriations bills. Each Congress would debate the Defense appropriations bill; however, the other appropriations bills would be split into two groups. The more controversial bills would be debated in the first year after an election and the easy ones would be done the year before an election. Of course the bill would mandate at least one joint oversight hearing with the authorization committee and the Appropriations Committee in the off-appropriations year for those particular bills. When you are spending a trillion dollars, it is so much money that nobody can look at the details. I don't even remember the last time we looked at something as small as a billion dollars, let alone a million dollars, and a million is a lot of money out where I live. We have to get back to where we can have some scrutiny on the appropriations, not a one-time deal. Congress has 535 elected representatives. When each of us looks at every proposal, lots of viewpoints and experience get put into the decisions we make for our country, but if all decisions are made by the majority leader, the vast majority of Americans get shortchanged. Shortcuts are taken, committees are skipped. Legislation is long, cumbersome, and it is not easily read and understood. If you skip all the process to do that, then spending will reach all-time highs and we will get less for our money. That has to change. These are some ideas on how we can solve those problems. This won't change unless those who are here exercise our rights. That may not happen until those outside Washington demand that these and other ideas get considered. Demand your Senators be allowed to represent you. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to offer an amendment to S. 2262 that would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from a massive regulatory outreach. I understand under current procedure we are not allowed to do that, but I will explain it so when I can bring this amendment up, people will already know about it and join me in voting for it. It is similar to an amendment I offered last September to the energy efficiency bill. Unfortunately, the Senate majority leader blocked amendments from being considered. I am hoping that doesn't happen this time. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It promotes the right of each State to deal with its own problems. It returns the regulation of regional haze to where it properly belongs: in the hands of State officials who are more familiar with the problem and know the best way to address it. I hope my colleagues will support my effort. The Environmental Protection Agency's move to partially disapprove of the State of Wyoming's regional haze will create an economic and bureaucratic nightmare that will have a devastating impact on western economies. The decision by the EPA ignores more than a decade's worth of work on this subject by officials in my home State and seems to be more designed to regulate coal out of existence than to regulate haze. The haze we most need to regulate, in fact, seems to be the one that is clouding the vision of the EPA as it promotes a plan that would impose onerous regulations on powerplants that will, in turn, pass those increased costs in the form of higher energy prices on to consumers. These are the middle-class folks we keep talking about. It will also increase the cost for manufacturers, and that will drive them overseas, so that will eliminate jobs. So we are talking about a lot of impact. That tells me the EPA's purpose is to ensure that no opportunity to impose its chosen agenda on the Nation is wasted. It doesn't seem to matter to them that their proposed rule flies directly in the face of the State's traditional and legal role in addressing air quality issues. When Congress passed the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act to regulate regional haze, it very clearly gave the States the lead authority. Now the EPA has tossed them in the backseat and grabbed the steering wheel to head this effort in its own previously determined direction. That isn't the kind of teamwork and cooperation Congress intended. The goal of regulating regional haze is to improve visibility in our national parks and wilderness areas. The stated legislative purpose for that authority is purely for aesthetic value and not to regulate public health. Most importantly, the EPA shouldn't be using regulations to pick winners and losers in our national energy market. The cost for this rule is in the billions, and the bureaucratic evaluation says it will still have little or no actual effect. Why would we force the spending of billions for little or no actual effect? This is a State issue, and Congress recognized that States would know how to determine what the best regulatory approach would be to find and implement a solution to the problem. The courts then reaffirmed this position by ruling in favor of the States' primacy on regional haze several times. The EPA ignored all of that clear precedent and, instead, handed a top-down approach that ignored the will and expertise of the State of Wyoming and other States. This inexplicable position flies in the face of Wyoming's strong and commonsense approach to addressing regional haze in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. I invite everybody to come to Wyoming. We have the clear skies. People can see more miles there than people can see here. Of course, a lot of it out here is humidity, I think. But we do not have the regional haze they are talking about. The EPA's approach will be much more costly and have a tremendous impact on the economy and the quality of life not only in Wyoming but in neighboring States as well. Clearly, we cannot allow this to happen. Every family knows when the price of energy goes up, it is their economic security--costing more--as well as their hopes and dreams for the future that are threatened and all too often destroyed. The EPA's determination to take such an approach would be understandable if it would create better results than the State plan. It does not. That is another reason why it makes no sense for the EPA to overstep its authority under the Clean Air Act to force Wyoming to comply with an all-too-costly plan that in the end will provide the people of Wyoming and America with no real benefits. The plan does not even take into account other sources of haze in Wyoming such as wildfires. Wildfires are a problem on Wyoming's plains and mountains every year. It is a major cause of haze in the West. It makes no sense for the EPA to draft a plan that fails to take into consideration the biggest natural cause of the very problem they are supposed to be solving. The Forest Service could do a lot of prevention if forest plans did not get delayed. The State of Wyoming has spent over a decade producing an air quality plan that is reasonable, productive, cost-effective, and focused on the problem at hand. The EPA has taken an unnecessary and unreasonable approach that violates the legislatively granted job of State regulators to address this issue. We cannot afford to increase the cost of energy to families, schools, and vital public services by implementing an EPA plan that will not adequately address the issue of regional haze. I know my colleagues will see the importance of this matter and support my amendment that will stop the EPA in its tracks and end its interference with Wyoming's efforts to address this issue. It only makes sense to me that Wyoming's plan be given a chance to work. It is more than a 10-year effort, and it will make a difference, and not at the cost that will be imposed. It is only fair, and it is the right thing to do. I ask for the support of my colleagues. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Alexander for the leadership he has shown on this bill. We had a much more extensive bill designed, and I worked on it for all of the years he mentioned, which is all the years I have been here, 17 years. We made some progress every single time it came up, but there were misconceptions with it. Senator Alexander suggested the solution that is the true solution for this bill. He changed it to a very brief States rights bill, not a Federal bill. This doesn't have any requirements for any State, but it has an ability for States to make up their own mind. So I rise today with my colleagues from Illinois, Tennessee, and North Dakota to recognize the anniversary of this significant event. One year ago today, with a show of strong bipartisan support, the Senate took an important step forward to level the playing field for all retailers that collect sales taxes. But it is not really about the retailers; it is about the people who work in those stores. We are talking about middle America. They can't afford to have the employees unless they make the sales, and if they just do the sales pitch and then it is ordered online, there is no revenue the employee brought in, and if there is a prolonged period when there is no revenue, the business doesn't need the employee. This bill is about supporting the jobs we have in our towns. It is about the people who are our neighbors who work in the stores and the people who have the stores that participate in all of the community events. As the Senator from North Dakota said--and she is probably the only one who has worked on this bill longer than I have because she was involved in it in State government when she was in North Dakota. I appreciate her expertise on this bill. Without some of the explanations she was able to give on the history of this bill, we wouldn't have been able to get it done. Of course, Senator Durbin and I have been speaking for what seems like years now trying to explain how this bill works, taking into consideration any concerns people had and trying to overcome those concerns. I couldn't guess how many hundreds of meetings there have been over trying to get this bill right and to get it fair, all so the States still have the revenue they need to operate without imposing perhaps a personal income tax. In the case of Virginia, I think they are not going to raise the gas tax if this bill passes. So this is a States rights bill. It takes money to the States, and it is money that is really owed right now. I did a little checking. Wyoming started collecting their sales tax in 1935, and it has been virtually unchanged since that time. There is a provision in the sales tax law that requires a form, so that if someone buys something from out of State and didn't pay sales and use tax on it, they are supposed to fill out this form before the end of the month and send the sales and use tax with the form to the State government to pay it. One of the surprises I discovered is there is about $1\1/2\ million a year collected in Wyoming that way--people obeying the law. But that is pretty tough to keep track of and especially if one doesn't make out- of-State purchases every day. So the State, of course, imposed on local retailers the requirement that they collect sales tax, and then people don't have to fill out that form. They don't have to send it in before the end of the month. So they made it a lot easier by making the retailers collect the money. Unfortunately, they weren't able to make all of the retailers collect the money. Because of a court case, they aren't able to do it out of State, and that is very important because it is a huge loss of revenue. I think Wyoming actually loses about $23 million a year because of purchases over the Internet where no sales tax is paid. On May 6, 2013, this Chamber passed the Marketplace Fairness Act, and we passed it with 69 votes. Some of the votes we had were as high as 76 votes. That is very significant around here. Sixty-nine is an incredible number for the Senate to produce on any bill. It came from a majority of both sides of the aisle, which is important. I wish to remind my colleagues that this bill is about fairness. It is about leveling the playing field between brick-and-mortar and online companies, and it is about collecting that tax that is already due. It is not about raising taxes. It isn't about taxing the Internet, and it isn't about taxing Internet access. I think we are all opposed to that. But we are in favor of the States, if they wish, to be able to collect the taxes they have imposed on the people who live in their State. So it is a States rights bill. In a nutshell, the Marketplace Fairness Act is a straightforward, 11- page bill that brings clarity to a vexing area of sales tax collection inequity. Online sales often go without collection of the sales tax from the point of purchase, while the Main Street stores and the other brick-and-mortar stores in town typically face established collection procedures--no choice, regular reports. Wyoming shouldn't subsidize online retailers that operate and sell to people in our State. Neither should Illinois or North Dakota or Tennessee or any other State that has sales tax laws. But right now, online retailers can offer lower prices than the local businesses that hire the local people who pay the property taxes and that participate in the community events; the most important thing being those local jobs, simply because they do not have to charge the same sales tax out of State that all our local merchants do. Sales taxes are important. They pay for the roads we drive on. They pay for the schools our kids go to. In Wyoming, with the particularly small towns, they rely on sales tax for the fire protection and the police protection. When people ask me about the sales tax bill, I ask them what county they are from and, if it is a small town, I say: Check with your fire department and see if, without sales tax, they would be able to function. When people understand it is part of their fire protection and part of their law enforcement protection, they are much more interested in it and understand why the sales tax needs to be collected. I don't want to see a situation where other taxes will have to be raised to cover basic local services because the online retailers are not collecting the sales taxes that are owed on the products they sell. I remember going into a camera store--I try to get into some stores on the weekend and find out what kinds of decisions they have to make, particularly decisions that have to do with the Federal Government. I was in the camera store and the fellow was explaining he had just lost a sale. The sales tax rate in that town is 6 percent. A man came in to buy a camera, and the camera was $2,000. But this owner of the store-- the only employee of the store--took the time to help him with all of the different gadgets and how to operate it, and showed him what he needed and how to do it. Then the customer took a picture of the bar code and ordered it online because he saved $120. Technically, he still owed $120 to his State. Whether he filled out one of those forms and got it in by the end of the month, I doubt it, but that is the law. If a State meets the simplification requirements outlined in the bill, it may choose to require collection of sales taxes that are already due at the point of purchase, including sales conducted through e-commerce. Congress is not forcing States to do anything because the Federal Government should not have the role or authority in telling a State how to manage its finances. This bill specifically says that it is up to the States to enforce the law, and it is 100 percent optional. If the States do act, they are collecting taxes that are already due by the consumers. I have been working on this sales tax fairness or marketplace fairness issue--or any of the number of names we have had on it through the years as we gained more and more support and as people came to understand more and more of what was involved--since 1997. As a former small business owner, it is important to ensure parity for all retailers by modernizing rules for sales tax collection in a way that respects technology advances and the existing practices of large and small and more traditional businesses, and this bill accomplishes that. It uniquely balances the interests of all businesses and respects the existing laws and rights of states. The Senator from North Dakota mentioned there is a $1 million exclusion. This is to help out small businesses, new start-up businesses. If you have a start-up business or a small business, until you have sold $1 million online or through a catalog in a given year, you don't have to comply with this. But once you hit that $1 million mark, you can consider yourself a success. We know that is a very small percentage of the Nation, but an important part of the total sales of the Nation. I think that is why one year ago, 68 of our Senators joined me in supporting that Marketplace Fairness Act. This evening, my lead cosponsors and I are again taking a stand in favor of good public policy for our Nation's retailers while highlighting the need to fix some long-standing sales tax system complexities. By balancing this collection inequity, the Marketplace Fairness Act would help States ensure the viability of the sales tax as a major revenue source for State budgets. We found in Wyoming that it often constitutes 40 percent of a municipality's revenue. It also would close opportunities that encourage tax avoidance. Beyond the walls of Congress, the Marketplace Fairness Act has received broad support. Trade associations, Governors, mayors, legislators, and numerous businesses have expressed support for the legislation. But there is work still to be done. Our colleagues in the House need to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act. I know some Members in the other Chamber are working on this issue. A companion Marketplace Fairness Act has been introduced. A hearing has been held, and new Members are engaged in the issue. I appreciate those efforts, and I hope our colleagues in the House will pick up the baton and complete the effort to guarantee sales tax fairness. This is the year to finish the work. Our States and businesses and employees in those businesses cannot wait longer. Enacting the Marketplace Fairness Act is the right thing to do. In conclusion, I wish to thank everyone associated with this bill for their hard work and efforts in getting us to this point: our countless supporters across the country, the 68 Senators who joined me to vote for a bill a year ago, the 29 cosponsors of the bill for their support, and especially my colleagues who joined me tonight for their unwavering support of this bill. I can't thank Senator Alexander, Senator Heitkamp, and Senator Durbin enough for their efforts. I am going to yield the floor and turn it over to Senator Durbin who has been a real champion and one of the best explainers of the parts of this bill that I have ever run into. I really appreciate his efforts and his help. We wouldn't be this far were it not for his efforts.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Illinois for his excellent explanation. I have been joining him and watching him do that for several years. It would be nice to get this finished. There are a few things we may not have mentioned that are sometimes raised when people ask me about marketplace fairness. One of them is from small towns. They say: We have to go on the Internet because there is not enough selection in our town and we can get things we cannot buy in town and some of the things we can get at a lower price by going out of town. I always ask them, when they are figuring that lower price, are they figuring it without sales tax or with sales tax, because it is not truly a lower price if what you are doing is just cheating your local merchant out of the right to collect the sales tax--which he does not get paid for anyway--and submitting it, when the out-of-State retailer does not have to do that. As to the revenue that companies are voluntarily collecting now--and there are a number of them that recognize it is difficult for everybody to keep track of their purchases, so they voluntarily collect it--the question I have had is, Does that money they voluntarily collect go back to the States? Yes, it absolutely does, and it will work that way under the bill as well. It is not money that you are just sending to wherever you ordered it from. You are sending it to where it was ordered from, and then they are sending it back to States. That is what these programs the Senator from Illinois mentioned do. They keep track of what State all the purchases were from. Here is how difficult that is. When you call in your order or you do it online, at some point you have to put in an address with a ZIP Code. That ZIP Code is all the program needs in order to be able to assess your tax. That is how those programs are designed. So if you have to give an address, you have to give the ZIP Code. If you have to give the ZIP Code, they already know what the tax is going to be. So there is no difficulty for any size retailer to be able to figure out what the tax is they are supposed to be doing. Another argument I hear is the online place provides free shipping. I want you to know your local retailer provides free shipping and immediate pickup. Somebody had to pay the shipping on it. It got to the store, and you can pick it up right there, instantly. You do not have to wait 2 or 3 days or pay a special rate to get it overnight. You can get it right then. One of the things that is discouraging for retailers is, if you waited on somebody and they got the barcode and they ordered it online and it came in and it was not exactly what they wanted, then they come to you and say: Well, this is the brand you are selling. Won't you take it back? Let's see, they did not make anything on it, they used a whole bunch of time, and now they want you to put it in your inventory. That is very discouraging. So think about those local clerks. They are your friends and neighbors who are being hired locally who really depend on a job. If everything gets ordered online, they will not have a job. Your friends will have to move, and you will not have as much selection as you have right now in your local store. Again, I wish to thank all those who voted for it, all those who have worked on it, and all those who are considering voting for it the next time they get it because I know we have picked up some momentum since we did it last time. There are people who have heard from their communities now who say: Well, I did not vote right last time, but I will get it right next time. I am looking forward to that, and I am looking for the House to finish it and send it to the President. Thanks again, I say to Senator Durbin, for his tremendous effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Thank you, Madam President. I rise to offer rebuttal to the claims my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are making about their proposals to enact an unprecedented increase in the Federal minimum wage. I come at this issue as a former small business owner and an employee who once worked for the minimum wage. I started as a stock boy. Another time I was a window washer. I learned some important things while I was doing that: I learned work ethic, I learned to show up on time, I learned to do the job well, and learned other skills so I could advance. Eventually I got the schooling, skills and the work ethic to own my own business. My colleagues gloss over the fact that minimum wage is for entry- level employees. Unskilled workers, young people, and those new to the workforce are those who typically earn the minimum wage because it is their first job or opportunity to gain career skills. This is evidenced by the fact that a majority of minimum wage earners are between the ages of 16 and 24. These are the jobs where the workers learn to be dependable, how to work with other employees, and how to obtain that work ethic. A lot of them don't know how to run a cash register. They don't know how to make change. They don't know how to greet a customer. They don't know how to interrupt their texting in order to wait on the customer. This is why two-thirds of the employees who start at the minimum wage are earning more than the minimum wage within 1 year. They learn how to do those things. They pick up skills. Somebody was talking to me about how people who are getting the minimum wage are in dead-end jobs such as fast food. I happened to be standing next to a guy who was working at Burger King. He said: Wait a minute. I started 6 months ago. I started at minimum wage. I learned the job. I am dependable. I show up. I know what the other work is. I am a supervisor now. In 6 months, I am a supervisor. I am making a lot more than the minimum wage, and in another year I might have my own store. That might have some validity because I have a friend in Cheyenne who owns a McDonald's, and he points out to me the other people in Wyoming who now own a McDonald's who used to work for him who all started at a minimum wage. You have to start somewhere. A lot of people think when they graduate from college they are supposed to move into an executive position. Chances are they will get a job and they will start at the bottom of the company. If they do their work well, learn the skills and become dependable, they will work their way up and they will make more money. Even more troubling are the claims my colleagues are making to justify this particular increase. Increasing the Federal minimum wage by nearly 40 percent represents an arbitrary and unprecedented increase which is largely unsupported by economic analysis. Both in the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee and on the Senate floor advocates for this bill have declared that an increase to $10.10 an hour would restore the minimum wage to the purchasing power it had in 1968. They make this claim because they use the Consumer Price Index to justify their point of view. What they are doing is starting an inflation cycle. Look at this. If somebody is making $7 and they get moved to $10, the person who is working for $9 has to go to $12 and the person at $11 has to go to $14 and so on up. You cannot put on a new guy with no skills at a wage higher than they were before unless everybody gets a pay raise. That is wonderful. It goes all the way up the ladder. It just doesn't stop at the $14 level. In fact, it even affects seniors. The seniors' cost of living is based on wages, not on what it costs a senior to buy something. So everybody in America is going to get a raise, and that is wonderful, except--and here is the catch--in order to pay for those raises the money has to come from somewhere. So if you like the dollar deal at your fast-food place, get ready for a dollar and a half at your fast-food place. Yes, right, it is only a 40-percent increase, but a buck and a half sounds better than $1.40, so they are going to raise it to the next level where they can pick up the customers, where it will sound good. Yes, you get a 30-percent increase, but the cost of what you buy goes up 30 percent. Did you get ahead? I don't think so. The only one that gains in that is the Federal Government. You have moved into a higher tax bracket. That is how we raise taxes in America. We cause an inflation cycle. We give people more money and we make them pay more taxes and all they get to buy is whatever they bought before. So that purchasing power of 1968 will go up to the purchasing power of 2009 and beyond because the prices will have to go up. My colleagues are quick to deny the CBO estimates that we have all seen which suggest their proposed plan would result in a loss of low- wage jobs. The minimum wage does not have to go up for minimum wage employees to get a raise. The proposal before the Senate throws cold water on job creation and adds to the burden businesses are already facing under the President's failed health care program. Instead, the Senate should be considering proposals which promote job growth. The Workforce Investment Act has been out there for 8 years. It would train millions of people to jobs that are available in their community right now. It would give them skills beyond the minimum wage. Let's consider tax reform, growing U.S. exports, approving the Keystone XL Pipeline, as several of my colleagues and I recently highlighted. But let me also speak on a personal level about the minimum wage. I have noted many times that I was a small business owner. My wife and I operated our own shoe stores in Wyoming and Montana. I know that all small business owners have families, their own and the families who work with them. One cannot credibly claim to be helping workers while at the same time hurting the businesses that employ them, especially under the guise of helping working families. At our shoe store we hired people who didn't have basic skills. Some of them had never run a cash register. They never sold anything. They weren't sure how you dressed in the business community. We put them through courses. Each course resulted in a pay raise. For several people after several months they were actually able to earn what they were paid. Yes, it costs money to train people, especially those who have little or no skills, and those are the ones whom we need to help. By increasing the minimum wage Congress would shut the employment door on the very individuals they are trying to help. Small business is the driver of our economy. They take these unskilled workers and they train them. The simple fact is that an increase of minimum wage is of no benefit to a worker without a job or a job seeker without a prospect of getting a job. I want to cover that tax problem again--the inflation issue. Minimum wage increases also start an inflation cycle. When some people get a wage increase, then everyone has to get a wage increase to recognize those who know more, do more, are more reliable, and have more skills. To pay everyone more, prices have to go up. When this happens, people will make more, but they have to spend more so they actually don't get ahead. The only one who benefits is the Federal Government because they get a tax increase. At some point someone actually has to produce more to get more, and that can be done with new skills or a new idea with training. The problem we face is one of minimum skills, not minimum wages. The effect may be low wages, but the cause is low skills. We need to address those workers who have few, if any, of the skills they need to compete for a better job and command higher wages. We need to start thinking in terms of skills, the kind of skills that will help students support themselves and their families in the future, that will empower our current workforce to pursue higher-paying jobs and those without a job to become selfsustaining. I sincerely hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle reconsider their plans to continue to push this effort. There are a number of bills this Senate can consider that would promote job creation over an arbitrary increase in the Federal minimum wage. Our focus should be on small businesses and creating a business environment that is friendly for growth, builds and gives people jobs that pay more than the minimum wage. Higher prices, higher taxes, and fewer jobs is not what Wyoming and the rest of the country needs in these fragile times. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to again express my great disappointment about a matter of importance to our Nation--the administration's decision to put off a decision to start building the Keystone Pipeline so they can do a little more study and review--again. It is getting to be like watching a rerun of the same show--over and over and over again. How many times have we been through this? I have lost count. Time after time momentum seems to build to finally approve this project so we can reap the benefits that will come from the pipeline--namely, the jobs that will be available to people who need them and the boost to our Nation's energy supplies that will help to bring some certainty to our energy policy. Well, we can forget about those benefits in the near term. The administration has once again spoken with certainty that they aren't certain about what they want to do--they just know they don't want to do it now. If one is supportive of the pipeline one can still hope it may happen someday. If one is opposed to it, one can be assured that ``someday'' won't happen anytime soon. I think there is more of a political reason than a practical reason for this delay. After all, there have already been 5 years of studies that have reaffirmed the benefits of building the pipeline now. That isn't all. The State Department reviewed the proposal and found that it was the safest way to transport the oil. Most pipelines require a presidential permit that is issued after an 18-to 24-month review process. We did that. In fact, the first leg of the Keystone XL pipeline took 21 months to obtain approval. Most times that would be a cause for optimism. Not this time. We are 5 years down the road and we are still awaiting the start of construction. Instead of spending this week on misguided legislation that will actually discourage new hiring and harm the job prospects of long-term unemployed individuals, we should be doing everything we can to encourage the creation of new jobs and the growth of new business opportunities. According to the State Department, the Keystone XL has the potential to create 42,000 jobs with good wages that will help to get the economy going again, strengthen our energy supplies, and put those 42,000 individuals further along the road of living the American dream and supporting their families. What is not to like about that? Plus, it will accomplish all that without raising taxes or increasing our crushing national debt. In fact, this would increase revenues--jobs increase revenues, sales increase revenues. More people driving to work also creates more money for highways. Getting this massive private sector job creator moving into high gear is a win-win for all Americans. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened yet and the White House has decided to step in again and once again delay the project for political reasons. Instead of supporting a job creator, the administration is putting up a job barrier. We deserve better. We deserve an administration that is willing to work overtime to lead us out of this dismal time of long-term unemployment--a slump that shows no signs of ending soon. That isn't the only reason why we need to take action on this immediately. Haven't we all spoken time and time again about the need to do something to reduce our dependence on sources of energy from unstable countries? This pipeline will help us to do that. The administration's own Department of Energy stated in a June 2011 memo that Keystone XL would lower gas prices in all the markets in the United States. Flipping the XL switch from ``standby'' to ``on'' should have been done years ago. It is a no-brainer that calls for action--not more thought, reflection, meditation, consideration, review, and planning--and who knows what else. The record is clear. We have been told time and time again that a decision on the pipeline was ``in the pipeline'' and would be coming our way shortly. In March of last year the President told us that the final decision as to whether or not he would approve the pipeline would reach us by year's end. We never heard from him. Before that, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a promise that we would have a decision on the status of the pipeline by the end of 2011. We never heard from her, either. That is unacceptable for so many different reasons. We need the jobs. We need the energy. We need the certainty that comes from knowing whether this project will be completed or not. The resources this pipeline is intended to carry will be developed whether the administration approves it or not. Doesn't it make sense by having the United States of America receive the benefit of all that energy instead of our competitors? We have an alternative before us. The senior Senator from North Dakota has a new bill that I am cosponsoring that would recognize the final supplemental environmental impact statement and give approval to the Keystone XL Pipeline. It will put the Senate on record and recognize the need for the pipeline and all the benefits it will provide. It has strong bipartisan support and should move forward with all deliberate speed. There is an old saying that reminds us that he who hesitates is lost. We have been hesitating for years and have nothing to show for it but lost time. We have a chance to change things and put ourselves on the right side of this equation. It is time to do it--now! Let's leave yesterday behind and move forward to tomorrow by taking action instead of putting it off again for another round of thoughtful gazing and reflection while our problems grow more serious and our options start to diminish.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to call up my amendment No. 2812.