Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Through the Chair, would the Senator yield for a question, retaining the floor?

Mr. ENZI. I want to thank the Senator for the recitation of ``Green Eggs and Ham.'' That is as good as I have heard. I loved the different voices in it. One of my favorites was ``Hand, Hand, Finger, Thumb'' by Dr. Seuss. And another one was ``Hop on Pop.'' I think all of those could have related to the messages here. They might even be simple enough that we could get the message across. I appreciate all the passion and preparation the Senator has put into explaining this and his careful way with words. We are on a continuing resolution, and I don't know that people out there understand what continuing resolution is. It means that we failed to do our job on time--that we should have had 12 appropriations bills, one at a time, and been able to go through them with some care. I think maybe the Senator would agree that perhaps if we had done that, when we got to Health and Human Services we might have had the issue on the individual items of defunding ObamaCare. Had we had those individual ones, I think some of those would have passed and it wouldn't have had to have been an all-or-nothing as we have now. Would the Senator agree that doing it this way, particularly if we have no debate and no amendments, would be the wrong way, and that all we are doing is delaying some more decisions a little further down the road that again should have been covered by appropriations in a very timely manner? Isn't that the same problem we had with sequester, where we went through two-thirds of the year when there was supposed to be a 2.3-percent sequester, so we only had 4 months left and those agencies had to pack it into the 4 months, and that made it 5.3 percent and that hurt worse? Of course, the President's note to everybody to ``make it hurt'' was not particularly helpful either. But aren't we faced again with that when we are doing a 2-month delay on a CR, so that we have to go through this exercise again probably when we would like to be home at Christmas personally reading those stories to kids? I would like to be reading to my grandkids. We have been kind of put in a box here that the American public doesn't like, I don't like, but it wasn't our doing. If those bills would have been brought up one at a time, we could have debated each of them and gotten into some details on them. It has been a long time since we got into details on trillions of dollars of spending. Health care is a part of that, and health care deserves some individual attention. That is what the Senator and I and a number of people are trying to give it, some individual attention. But we are being denied that right. We are not being allowed to go into it in detail so we can show exactly which parts we would defund, which parts we would dismantle and replace with something better. I spent a lot of time on this bill because I was here when it was going through the committee process. In fact, I had a 10-step plan on my Web site that would have done more than this bill and it would have been paid for. But that isn't a part of the bill. When they say the Republicans don't have solutions, they are not willing to look at any of the solutions even if they would wind up in a better situation. This was passed with a partisan government. It is a health care that is failing and we are not getting a chance to change it. Of course, I am one of those who would have liked to have repealed it and started over again and gotten it right. I know of another substitute bill that Senator Coburn and Senator Burr did, and that would have been a better replacement too. It would have covered more of the things the President, in a joint session of Congress when he covered it--I was on a committee that was working on it particularly, and I sat there and took extensive notes. The next day in our meeting I said, There are 14 things that he said in that speech we did not cover and I think we should have covered them. Instead, we wound up with the bill we have because there were 60 Democrats and that is all it took to pass the bill. They had to make a few deals in order to get the 60 to stick together, and it is surprising they did stick together. I will end on that question. I have one other I would like to ask too. But I think our failure to do appropriations leads us to this point, and also gets us to a point where we can't go into the details of the bill. We have to take an all-or-nothing approach. That is not legislating. That is deal-making. I think we have an alternate approach and I would like the Senator to comment on it.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask permission to ask another question through the Chair, with the Senator being allowed to keep the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, would the Senator agree that there are a number of things in this bill that have been changed because we have recognized that those things would not work? We have changed--not we, the President has changed a number of these things. I am having trouble finding in the law where those changes come from. There is not a lot of waiver authority in the bill, but every time a difficulty is found with the bill, then there appears to be a waiver so that particular part of the bill no longer exists. I have never seen that done before on legislation. How do they take a piece of the law that is in the bill, that does not have a waiver right, and go ahead and exempt us under that particular part of the law? One particular part of that I am particularly sensitive on because I worked on it very diligently. As the bill came through committee, that piece was the one where Congress should be under the law that we passed, Congress and the staff. That got remodeled, as you will recall, a little bit so that the committee staffs did not have to come under it because the committee staffs were actually going to finish up the bill. But we had intended for all of our staffs to be under that bill. Would the Senator agree that one of the amendments that we have not been able to vote on--it would have only taken 30 minutes to do a 15- minute vote. That is kind of standard around here; it takes us a little longer to do a 15-minute vote. Heck, it takes us 20 minutes to do a 10- minute vote and that has to follow on the heels of a 30-minute 15- minute vote. We could have had that vote, but we were not allowed to. What that amendment is, as you will recall, what it would have done is put Congress back under the bill. It would have subjected Congress to suffering the same exact thing the American public is going to start experiencing on Tuesday as they go into the exchange or at the very latest by the 1st of January when they are required to do that. If their company is no longer providing them with insurance, the company will pay a little penalty but they get to come under the exchange. But they do not get to bring the company's tax-free donation to their health care along with them. But that is the way we had envisioned it working for Congress too. They would not get a special dispensation. So we brought up this amendment which would require that not only would Congress come under it, but since the President is the one who exempted this and did not have the right to exempt this from it, we thought perhaps he and the Vice President and the political appointees maybe ought to come under that same bill. I mean, why wouldn't the President want to come under it? After all, it is called ObamaCare. It is named after him. Apparently there is a tremendous desire not to do that, to explain that the Federal Government is different. That is exactly what the American people are upset about, that we are different. We should not be different. That is one of the things that could have been taken care of if we had taken this all through regular order. I appreciate efforts of the Senator to be able to do something. I ask if the Senator believes we ought to be exempted under any parts of this law or if these exemptions would be legal for the President to do if it is not written in the law? As a lawyer, my colleague probably has better insight into that than I do--and a constitutionalist. That is why I ask the question. Does the President have the right to do that?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Senator Tim Johnson of South Dakota and I are submitting this resolution today because of the significant role the North American Bison has played in the history of our Nation. This resolution honors that legacy by designating November 2, 2013, as National Bison Day. Since our frontier days, the bison has become a symbol of American strength and determination. The bison has also been integrally linked to the economic and spiritual lives of many Native American tribes over the centuries. The Department of Interior has depicted the bison on its official seal since 1912 and several sports teams across America have chosen the bison as their mascot. At one point in American history, bison were brought in to graze outside the original Smithsonian Institution Building here in Washington, DC. In 1911, when sculptor James Earle Fraser was tasked with designing a new nickel, he wanted to ``do something totally American.'' On the reverse of his design, he chose to depict the American bison, as a symbol of America's western background that was ``100 percent American.'' This coin came to be known as the buffalo nickel and played an important role in modernizing our currency in the early 20th century. I must also add that my home state of Wyoming is one of three states that recognize the bison as its official state mammal and has honored an image of a bison on the Wyoming state flag since it was first adopted in 1917. Today, thousands of American bison freely roam Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. The bison is also important to our state's economic well-being with a growing number of ranchers raising bison for consumers all over the world. This resolution is supported by a wide variety of stakeholders. I want to recognize the National Bison Association that represents the interests of the bison ranchers in nearly every single State. Also behind this effort is the Intertribal Bison Council that supports the cultural role the bison has played in Native American history. Finally, there is the Wildlife Conservation Society that wishes to honor the restoration of bison in North America since the 19th century. I ask my colleagues to help me support and pass this resolution honoring the bison and designating November 2, 2013, as National Bison Day. The bison has and will continue to be a symbol of America, its people and way of life.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President. I rise today in support of H.R. 527, the Helium Stewardship Act, as amended by the Wyden substitute. This bill is very important to protecting the U.S. supply of helium. Helium is used in MRI scanners, superconductors, and has many other very important uses. For example, helium is even used to test mechanical heart valves to make sure they don't leak. Helium also has important security implications. It is used by DoD, NASA, and other agencies. The bill helps those efforts by extending the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to sell helium from the Federal Helium Reserve. The bill also includes important reforms such as provisions ensuring that the Secretary sells helium at market prices, and most importantly, it gets the Federal Government out of the helium business once and for all. The bill would also reduce the Federal debt and deficit by $51 million. The bill has bipartisan support. In June, the Energy Committee voted to report the helium bill by voice vote. The Senate should pass this bill as soon as possible so we have an opportunity to negotiate with the House. I understand that some of my colleagues had some concerns with the bill. I appreciate them giving me the opportunity to speak with them before the vote about those concerns. I also thank my colleagues for agreeing to allow this bill to come to a vote. While I do not support every item in the bill, I believe it is a critical piece of legislation that needs to be passed.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I also would like to welcome the new Senator from Massachusetts to this body. I listened to his speech, and we will have some discussions over some of those items at some time, I am certain. But I also listened to the leader's speech following that, and I am a little bit disappointed in that speech. He mentioned that we were the least productive Senate in history. I think there is a reason for that, and the reason is that we are doing dealmaking now instead of legislating. I came here 16 years ago and have watched for a number of years as we have legislated--and ``legislated'' means getting votes on amendments. Getting votes on amendments happens much quicker than trying to make some kind of deal to limit amendments. Yes, some of the amendments in all those years have not been relevant to the bill we were talking about. Usually, once they have been covered, they are kind of done with and they do not come up on every bill. But the same tactic has been used to stifle amendments to bills, even relevant ones. Both sides are at fault. It is not just one side. Both sides are stopping amendments from being voted on. We need to vote on amendments. Of course, the first one up is one I have been working on. The reason it is being brought up on this bill is that this is the first bill after a recess on which we can put anything. During the recess, there was a huge change in the health care reform bill. That huge change was that the President decided he would exempt Congress from being under the bill, from having to do the same thing the rest of America will do. If you work in a business in America, a private business, and your business does not provide insurance and you have to go on the exchange--now, of course, the Senate and Federal Government provides insurance, but we all agreed we would go on the exchange because the American people had to go on the exchange. When we go on the exchange, we should have to abide by the same rules as anybody else who goes on the exchange. Private business, if they say we are not going to buy insurance, their people have to go on the exchange, and if they go on the exchange, they cannot get a contribution from their employer for their insurance. There is a subsidy for people who earn under, I think it is $42,000 a year as an individual or $92,000 as a family. They can get a Federal subsidy. They cannot get a subsidy from their employer. The President decided, through the Office of Personnel Management, that Senators should be able to move that contribution over to the exchanges. That is different from everybody else. We should have to live under the same laws we passed. That was the contention we made when we put that amendment in the bill. That amendment went in the bill in the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. It went in the bill in the Finance Committee. It was agreed to on the floor of the Senate. We said we ought to be under the same rules as everybody else when it comes to the health exchanges, and we ought to try those health exchanges so we can see what America is going through. We did that. We did it--maybe did it to ourselves--but that is the way government ought to work, with those who pass the law living under the law. All we are asking for is a vote to see if the Senate agrees we ought to live under the law the way the other people will have to live under the law. As far as delaying the bill, it only takes probably 30 minutes for a 15-minute vote. It should only take 15 minutes for a 15-minute vote, but it takes 30 minutes at least, sometimes a couple hours for a 15- minute vote, if it is a close one and they want to negotiate with some of the people voting on it, but we ought to have to vote on it. We ought to put our names on the line as to how we feel about having the American people in a situation where their employer cannot contribute to their health insurance if they go on the exchange and make that same law apply to us. I traveled Wyoming during the recess. We traveled about 6,000 miles by car, and I did a lot of listening sessions. I never heard anybody say, no, I think Congress ought to be able to continue doing what they have been doing before; instead, Congress ought to come under the same law. There is a little addition to this bill that we did not put in the original bill. Maybe that is what is holding it up. That little addition to the bill is saying the President and the Vice President and the President's appointees should come under the same rules as Congress in this instance, going into the exchange. I hope the President, since the bill is kind of named after him, would want to be under the bill just like everybody else. If we are not going to allow contributions from businesses to go to regular people who go onto the exchange, then the same rule ought to apply to us. That is pretty much what the amendment says. It clarifies the law and makes sure the Office of Personnel Management cannot exempt us without authority. It is more than a clarification, it is a complete reversal of what we passed in this body. When we passed it, I think on the floor it was unanimous. That means it was pretty bipartisan. That means we all agreed that maybe we ought to live under the same laws as the rest of the people in America. Let's just have a vote on it. As I say, 30 minutes is about all it would take for a 15-minute vote and we could move on to other issues. That is the way we used to do things around here. It was not unusual for a bill to have 150 amendments. I don't ever remember voting on 150 amendments because there is some duplication in amendments that are turned in. There are also some people who realize, as the debate goes along, that their amendment would not pass and they do not want it to be voted on and lose when they might be able to win with it later. Of course I am in favor of doing relevant amendments on bills. You will find usually any amendment I am signed on to is relevant to the bill. The reason this is an exception is because it came up during the recess and the effect begins on October 1. I do not know what other bills are going to come up before October 1. At the pace we are going, this will not even make it by October 1. Just voting on bills rather than trying to negotiate it down to a 10-vote package--on the immigration bill I think we had 9 votes. It took us 3 weeks. There were about 200 amendments, probably 150 that could have been voted on and in 3 weeks I think we could have been through 150 of them and it would have made it a better bill. That is what legislating is. All of those would not have passed. Maybe very few would have passed. Maybe only 9 would have passed. But people would have had a decision and would have been able to represent what their people back home are telling them, and that is what we are supposed to do here. The reason the Senate has the rules it does is so we can actually represent the people back home. One of the ways we do that is through amendments. Occasionally, there will be surprises that something that is not relevant might wind up on a bill. Usually, if it is not relevant, it gets defeated. There is usually a way to process a whole lot of amendments in a hurry; that is, with a tabling motion, but we are just not getting the vote. We ought to do some voting around here and move on. This is an important bill, and there are some good amendments that have been turned in on which we would also like a vote. We should go through them and then we can be a productive body. Then we could cover a lot of bills that would go through in about 3 days, but we spend days negotiating not having amendments, and when we have that pent-up objection to our amendments not getting on there, it gets more pent up, more angry, more divisive, more partisan as the process goes by. What I have referred to, the way the Senate used to work--just vote on amendments. We will not like all of them. We know some of them will wind up in an ad against us when we run, but that has always been the case and there is no reason to change it now. I hope we vote on amendments and get busy. It is an important bill. I would like to see the bill finished. We need to do a lot of things on energy for this country, particularly to keep energy prices down where people expect them to be. Again, let's vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to extend my sympathy to all those who have suffered a loss yesterday, both here in DC and any other place in the country. A loss, a quick and unexpected loss, is always difficult. Constitution Day I also wish to take a second today to recognize that this is Constitution Day. It is 226 years of our country having this Constitution, which is a world record for a constitution. Hopefully we will continue to live under the Constitution, work and make progress. ObamaCare My main purpose today is to take a few minutes to talk about something that occurred during the recess that is another sad example of business as usual in Washington. The health care law we are all under requires Members of Congress and their congressional staff to obtain health insurance under the new exchanges provided by ObamaCare next year. I voted to include Congress under the health care law in 2009 because I believe very strongly that Congress should have to live under the laws it passes. Let me say that again. I think Congress ought to live under the laws it passes. We passed a law that is going to affect most people in the United States. I can tell you that the administration doesn't appear to share this belief. On August 2, immediately after Congress adjourned, the Office of Personnel Management, under heavy pressure from congressional leaders, announced it would issue regulations saying the government can continue to make the employer contribution to the health plans of congressional Members and staff. No one else in America who will get their health insurance through an exchange may receive a contribution from their employer, but the administration decided it would be OK for Congress. I am not sure where the authority came from to be able to do that or say that. It was difficult at the beginning of the process for us to get that amendment in the HELP Committee, Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, when the bill was coming through there. It was repeated again in the Finance Committee, and it wound up in the final bill. That is a law we passed. It is a law we passed that said we are going to be subject to the same thing the American people are going to be subject to. Now the administration has said, no, it doesn't apply to Congress. Where does it say it doesn't apply to Congress? I was in Wyoming for the last month or so, holding listening sessions and meeting with the people as I drove 6,000 miles across the State. I can tell you people are angry that Congress gets some exemptions from ObamaCare that they don't. They are tired of the deal making that happens here instead of legislating that could be occurring. They see these kinds of exemptions and they don't think it is fair. I agree. I don't think it is fair either. This is why Senator Vitter and I have introduced a bill that would prohibit Members of Congress from receiving a contribution from the Federal Government toward their health insurance. Of course, it is not only--in our amendment, it is not only Congress but the President, the Vice President, and the people responsible for implementing the health care law who will not be allowed to receive any government subsidy. The President talks about how great the health care bill will be for everyone, but the administration doesn't think it is so great that they should have to live under it. That should change. In addition, the legislation ensures Congress and the administration will have to live under the laws it passes and enforces by clarifying that all of us can only obtain our health insurance next year through an exchange. That is what it says. The bill also states Members do not have the authority to define official staff. That would be a sneaky way of making an exclusion for some of the people we consider to be critical, and can thereby not exempt any of their staff from going into the exchange. Yes, that is difficult. Yes, that is the same thing that is going to happen with the rest of America. The rest of America is going to have these same pangs of wishing their contribution could go with them to the exchange. But they are going to have to go to the exchange and it is not going to follow, and there is no reason we should get an extension. The reason we have this amendment is to show Congress shouldn't be special, that the American people are going to have this great pain and we ought to suffer from it too or change it for everybody. That would be unique. I wish to clarify that our bill does not end the government contribution for all congressional staff. Those who make the least amount of money will still receive a contribution, but many staff who would not qualify for any assistance otherwise will not. There is a provision in the law that anybody who goes on the exchange, and they make less than $43,000 a year as an individual or $92,000 as a family, can get a subsidy under the exchange. It would work the same way for Congress. Legislation is needed to prevent lawmakers and their staff from getting special treatment under the law. Absent this legislative change, Congress and the administration are essentially shielded from the higher cost, the limited access, and the confusion everybody else is going to feel. I continue to oppose the health care law, as I have done since it was passed. When you pass something from one side of the aisle, without taking into consideration the amendments from the other side of the aisle, and when you make special deals in order to keep the one side, you will end up with a law you will own and it will have flaws in it. It is time we quit dealmaking and start legislating on all the issues and considering all of the amendments. This is one example of an amendment that is up--it is the next amendment up--and it should get a vote. It could have had a vote last week and it can have a vote this week, but we need to vote on these things and see how they wind up. I do continue to oppose the health care law, as I have done, and I support full repeal of the law. There are replacements out there. I have worked with replacements. In fact, I had my own 10-step plan before the President even became a Member of the Senate. That 10-step plan would have done more than this bill does and it would have been paid for. I also worked with Senators Burr and Coburn on a substitute when this legislation was going through the process, and that one would have done many of the things the President promised in his joint speech to Congress. He promised there would be certain things in the bill. I took very careful notes at that meeting and found out there were 14 things that didn't appear to be in the bill. So I asked those things be in the bill, and that is when it became a partisan issue. The President said the bill would have tort reform. There is no tort reform in the bill. The President said there would be a doc fix. There is no doc fix in the bill. I guess the thing that amazed me was that people from the American Medical Association stood behind the President when he signed the bill, realizing they didn't get the two things they insisted on and said they would continue to push for and continue to oppose the bill until they were in there, and that was tort reform and the doc fix. Doctors, under the law for Medicare are not going to be paid adequately. If they are not paid adequately, they have a tendency to not see Medicare patients. I am pretty sure all of us know somebody who has tried to get an appointment with the doctor and the doctor asked: Do you get Medicare? If they said yes, he said: I am sorry. I am not taking Medicare patients. So if you can't see a doctor, do you have insurance at all? I don't think so. Medicare has been the lifesaver for seniors in our country for some time, and we haven't begun to see the tip of the iceberg yet on what is going to happen to our seniors. This amendment, which we should get to vote on, is just one piece of an overall effort to make sure the bill will work for everybody in America. I have 17 other amendments that would, hopefully, close loopholes and dismantle pieces we know would not work and make changes. So there are ideas out there that could make this bill work, but this one amendment is just part of an overall effort. It will close the loophole for Congress and it will ensure that everyone is treated equally under the health care law. For better or for worse, we should all be in this together. Again, this isn't just to subject our colleagues to pain; it is to get them to recognize the pain America is about to feel. It is not fair for us to make ourselves pain free. We can't inoculate ourselves or give ourselves some special medication. That is what we are doing in the bill. This amendment clarifies Members don't have the authority to define ``official staff'' and, therefore, they can't exempt any of their staff from going into the exchange. It clarifies that Members of Congress, all of their staff, the President, the Vice President, and all political appointees are no longer eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan and have to go into the exchange. That seems fair to me. The bill is named after the President. Why wouldn't the President want to be under the bill? How could he possibly avoid being under the bill and doing what the rest of Americans will have to do? If it is such a great deal, and since the bill is named for him, one would think he would want to do that. I voted to include Members and staff on ObamaCare before the bill passed, in the HELP Committee, in the Finance Committee, and on this floor. It got tweaked a little after it passed on the floor--and I am a little disturbed about that--but even that doesn't warrant the clarification of this magnitude. People deserve and expect those who are responsible for passing and implementing laws will have to live under the same laws they do. I have cosponsored this legislation with Senator Vitter, and I appreciate all of the initiative he has taken, the difficult and specific task of drafting, and all of the work that has gone into this. This will make a difference. Congress will realize the difference. The American people will blame us if they see the difference and we haven't. I would ask we get to vote on this amendment. I hope we get to vote on it soon and we can then move on to other amendments on an important bill and get things done. That is what the American people expect us to do. They expect us to get some things done. If somebody thinks this is something that would be wrong for us, they should consider it to be wrong for America as well and join us in fixing it one way or the other. Again, I thank Senator Vitter for all his efforts on it, and I do expect we should get a vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I filed an amendment to S. 1392 that will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from a massive regulatory overreach. It has been cosponsored by Senators Barrasso and Flake. My amendment is simple and straightforward. It promotes the right of a 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 the best ways to address it. I hope my colleagues will support my effort. The Environmental Protection Agency's move to partially disapprove the State of Wyoming regional haze plan will create an economic and bureaucratic nightmare that will have a devastating impact on western economies. The proposal by 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 imposes onerous regulations on powerplants, that will, in turn, pass those increased costs in the form of higher energy prices on to consumers. That tells me the EPA's purpose is to ensure no opportunity to impose its chosen agenda on the Nation is wasted. It does not seem to matter to them that their proposed rule flies directly in the face of the States' 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 back seat and grabbed the steering wheel to head this effort in its own previously determined direction. That is not 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 the authority is purely for aesthetic value and not to regulate public health. Most importantly, the EPA should not be using regulations to pick winners and losers in our national energy market. This is a State issue. Congress recognized that States should know how to determine what the best regulatory approach would be to find and implement a solution to the problem. The courts reaffirmed this position by ruling in favor of the State's primacy on regional haze several times. Unfortunately, that is not what happened in this case. The EPA ignored all of the clear precedents and instead handed a top-down approach that ignored the will and expertise of the State of Wyoming. This inexplicable position flies in the face of the strong and commonsense approach of the State of Wyoming to addressing regional haze in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. The EPA's approach would be much more costly, and it would have a tremendous impact on the economy and quality of life not only in Wyoming but in the neighboring States as well. Clearly, we can't allow this to happen. Preliminary estimates by the State of Wyoming show that the best available retrofit technologies and long-term strategies under the proposed rule would cost well over $1 billion--plus millions more every year in additional operational costs that gets passed on to the consumer. I mentioned that Cheyenne needed some additional powerplants. They went out and found the best natural gas technology available and then found it wouldn't meet the new requirements. This is the best worldwide technology, and it won't meet the new requirements they wish to put on it. Again, those costs would be passed on to the consumers in the form of higher energy prices. Every family knows that when the price of energy goes up, it is their economic security, as well as their hopes and dreams for the future, that is 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 doesn't. It admits that. One billion dollars in costs and then millions more each year, and it isn't going to give any better results than what the State plan is? What sense does that make? This 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 with no real benefits. Again, it is $1 billion up front, millions a year, and no real benefits. The plan doesn't even take into account other sources of haze in the State, such as wildfires. We have those every year. They are a problem on Wyoming's plains and mountains. They are a major cause of haze in my home State. It makes no sense for the EPA to draft a plan that fails to take into consideration one of the biggest natural causes of the very problem they are supposed to be solving. This is one that can be solved. The State of Wyoming has spent over a decade producing a plan that is reasonable, productive, cost-effective, and focused on the problem. 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 won't adequately address the issue of regional haze. Again, there will be no noticeable effect--$1 billion up front, millions each year, and no noticeable effect. What sense does that make? 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 very issue. It only makes sense to me that Wyoming's plan, which results from a more than 10-year effort, be given a chance to work. It is not only fair, it is the right thing to do. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, a lot of Americans are worried right now about their health insurance. They know what is coming. Seniors have been turned down by their doctors for Medicare treatment because the doctors are not adequately compensated. If they have not been turned down, they know someone who has been turned down. Medicaid is uncertain and a stigma. On the one hand, advances in medical technology and the capabilities and knowledge of our health care providers mean we are living longer and have more tools at hand than ever before to address diseases and illnesses. However, on the other hand, this increasing life expectancy, coupled with the aging of our population and the steady increases in health care costs, means our health care system is on the verge of becoming completely unsustainable financially. All across the country health insurance rates are skyrocketing. Families are struggling to cope with the higher costs and less choice. Employees are losing coverage and they are losing working hours. Businesses are not hiring. At the center of this uncertainty is the President's health care law. A number of provisions have already gone into effect, but we will not experience the full force of the law until 2014; that is, January. The Democrats' ``go it alone'' health care reform plan in 2009 was the first major piece of legislation to pass Congress without a bipartisan vote. Let me repeat that again. The Democratic ``go it alone'' health care reform plan in 2009 was the first major piece of legislation to pass Congress without a bipartisan vote. When you have a partisan bill you get partisan results. After 20,000 pages of regulations and still a lot more to come, they are a little behind on those, and after over 150 new bureaucratic boards, agencies, and programs, the Federal Government still cannot figure out how to make the law work and has had to delay it, in part. What I have seen to date is enough to convince me that we need a different path. I opposed the health care law initially and I support full repeal of the law. Fixing our health care system does not have to be divisive or partisan. There are clear differences in the approach to fixing health care from all across the political ideological spectrum. However, the least we have to do is to dismantle the worst parts of the law and replace them with reforms that actually work, reforms that lower cost and expand choice, reforms that do not bankrupt the country and every taxpayer. The Federal Government needs to support viable solutions when needed and refrain from handcuffing innovative private designs with the excessive regulations for narrowed political interests. We need more competition, not less. Unless we take concrete steps now, we will soon be unable to switch off the track toward government-run health care. When I first got here, I was warned that there were people who did not care who ran the train of health as long as it wrecked. Then we could have universal single- pay, government-run health care. I am not sure that is not still the goal. One clear example of how convoluted this law is comes from the definition of who an employee is. I used to work in the shoe business, so I understand the difference between full-time work, which was 40 hours a week, and part-time work, which was under 40 hours a week. However, under the health care law, there are now full-time employees and full-time equivalents. What this means is the law requires employers, and particularly small businesses, to determine how many of their part-time employees it takes to equal a full-time employee. They don't come under the full force of the law until they hit 50 employees. There are businesses that understand that, and they are trying to avoid getting to the 50th employee. But there are some catches in this law. First of all, the health care law sets full time at 30 hours, not 40 hours per week but 30 hours. It was news to me. It always was 40 hours. Second, the law requires these employers to take everyone working 29 hours a week or less, combine all of their time for a week, and then divide by the number 30 to establish how many full-time equivalents these part-time workers represent. I don't think a lot of people planned on that. If you are still following along at this point, congratulations. You can see how costly the taxes imposed by this law will be. What if the rule forces you to add all of your employees' hours and divide by 30 hours to determine your full-time employees? What if you have 10 employees who are working 40 hours? That would be 400 hours. If you divided that by 30 and find out that you are paying 10 people, but you actually have 13\1/3\ employees at the full-time requirement, that could put you over the 50 and put you into a whole different category of costs and penalties. If you have 10 employees and you watched it so that there are only 29 hours, that comes to 290 hours. If you divided that by 30, you would find out that even though none of these people are full-time employees, you have 9\2/3\ full-time employees. You can see how they could do a little miscalculation, suddenly be at the 50, and be into a whole new series of penalties. The Obama administration also had to admit recently that the employer mandate, one of the key pieces of the law, isn't ready. One of the most economically crushing and burdensome regulations will not be implemented until past 2014, past the 2014 election in 2015. I don't think that was a mistake on their part. I think it was intentional--to come after the election. There is another little complication that gets thrown in here though. If those employers are not providing the health insurance and not being fined for not providing the health insurance, then the people who work for them have to go on the exchange to get their health insurance. If they go on the exchange to get their health insurance, they can't be subsidized by the businesses they worked for. That is going to be a surprise to a lot of employees too. The delay will force more people to enroll in health care exchanges or face the tax penalty if they don't. A lot of people don't realize if they do go on the exchange, there is also a surcharge on the cost of their health insurance. They are going to be paying a 3.5 percent tax for buying the insurance. Of course, if they don't buy the insurance, then they get a penalty. The delay was also made for the businesses without congressional approval, done administratively. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation informed Senator Hatch this week that this delay will increase the cost of the new insurance program established by law by $12 billion. It is not as if we had an extra $12 billion laying around here. In particular, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the Federal Government will be required to pay an additional $3 billion in subsidies for people on the exchanges. A lot of extra costs were just kicked in there. This delay not only increases the costs on hard-working Americans, but it fails the original intent of health care reform, and that is to provide Americans with high quality, affordable health care. In addition, the law requires the administration to set up health insurance exchanges in a number of States, including Wyoming. We are sparsely populated, low numbers. The numbers wouldn't work out to do our own exchange. One problem is the administration has yet to tell anyone exactly how they are going to do those exchanges or what even a basic plan is. If you are going to have a range of plans that insurance companies can bid on, that you can look up on the computer, doesn't it seem, before you can even start, that you would have to know what the basic plan is? How the President can argue that everyone will love the health care law once it goes into effect is beyond me. This administration can't even tell anyone where they can buy their insurance, what plan options will be available, and, most importantly, what the costs will be. Remember what Nancy Pelosi said before they passed the law? They will have to pass the bill before we get to know what is in it. The administration is shopping its own version of that statement. As the Senate Finance Committee chairman put it recently: this law is a train wreck waiting to happen. That is the Democratic Senate Finance Committee chairman. Of course, on top of all of this, the law relies in part on new taxes and tax subsidies to support the coverage expansion. This means the IRS will be involved in implementation. I have significant concerns with the ability of the IRS, particularly in the wake of the current scandal. The fact that this organization, the IRS-- tainted by such political behavior--is involved in implementing the new health care law has increased my belief that the health care law is not something the country wants or needs. Of course, the IRS employees don't want to come under this law either. I don't know of anybody who really wants to come under it. I will take a close look at proposals to remove the IRS from any implementation activities, but I do think they should be subject to the law too. At the same time, I will continue to work to provide folks with relief from the health care law as a whole. One of the things they have said if you are going on the exchange is, if you are in certain income categories, then you get a subsidy from the government to help you purchase your insurance. We are told now that will be self-reporting and will not be subject to audit. Doesn't that sound like something that could be fraught with a lot of fraud, where you say you just make enough to get into the biggest subsidies? Everybody wouldn't do that, of course, but I think there are some who would. How is the government doing on some of the things that they already put into effect? I saw a little article on high-risk pools. When the bill went in, a lot of the States already had high-risk pools, and we worked with States to make those viable, but the Federal Government said we could do it for less. They put in a high-risk pool. To keep people from jumping from the State ones, which, yes, are more expensive, over into the Federal one, which is less expensive, they said you couldn't make the jump unless you were without insurance for 6 months. People who are in the high-risk pool can't afford to be without insurance for 6 months. There wasn't a big jump to the high-risk pool. But in spite of the fact that there wasn't a jump to the high-risk pool, the Federal high- risk pool went broke. It ran out of money. Here is the disturbing part of that article. They said, well, they would just shift that cost over to the States. The States are already doing it, and they are doing the right thing. Now they are going to be asked to pick up the additional costs. How many parts of ObamaCare are going to get shifted over to the States? The States have had a lot of promises. Can any of those promises be met? Will they be met? A lot of decisions are being based on what the Federal Government promised. Of course, in truth, we are out of money. The new law also tried to address the problem of rising health care costs. I believe the Federal fiscal situation is untenable, and we need to implement significant and far-reaching spending cuts to get our fiscal house in order. We cannot continue on our current path. The President and his administration will argue that the new law will expand access and lower costs. While the law certainly increases access to insurance, it also moved billions of dollars from the Medicare Program to pay for this new insurance program. That is not exactly saving the government money. The projections for lower costs also don't add up for the average American either. Insurance premiums and rates are increasing. Small businesses are unable to continue to provide health insurance for their workers. Businesses in general have delayed hiring or are only hiring people part time--although I hope they listen to the part that I gave about the little part-time catch that is built into the law. All of these decisions are directly driven by the economic impact of the health care law. My Senate Republican colleagues and I are focused on developing proposals that address the worst aspects of the health care law. The law increases premiums and health care costs, forces employers to stop offering insurance to their employees, and slashes benefits for millions of Medicare beneficiaries. I support repealing both the cap on health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, and the prohibition on over-the-counter purchases included in the health care law. Flexible spending accounts help make consumers more aware and engage in their health care spending. Health savings accounts are something that young, healthy staffers of the Senate like to do. They can do the math real easy. They can look at the regular program and see how much that would cost or they could take a look at health savings accounts. The difference in the price, in only 3 years they could cover the whole deductible part as long as they were healthy for 3 years. They would be covered for that part until something major happened--and they were covered for catastrophic--so they found that to be a real bargain. But not anymore. Additionally, a number of other Senators and I have put forward bills to repeal the taxes imposed by the President's health care law. That would be relief from new taxes on prescription drugs, relief from new taxes on medical devices, and relief from new taxes on health insurance plans. I wish to provide relief to employers from new regulations imposed on them by the law. These ideas preserve competition in a private market for health care coverage and lower the cost of care for the consumer. All of these steps are commonsense reforms to the health care law that take us off the path toward a national, Federal health care system. One of the most effective ways Congress can address the rising costs of health care is to focus on the way it is delivered as part of the Nation's current cost-driven and ineffective patient care system. America's broken fee-for-service structure is driving our Nation's health care system further downward. Today's method of payment encourages providers to see as many patients and prescribe as many treatments as possible, but it does nothing to reward providers who keep patients healthy. Maligned incentives created by the fee-for-service system drive up costs and hurt patient care. Tackling this issue is a good start to reining in rising health care costs. The health care law championed by President Obama and the majority party in the Senate did little to address these problems because the vast majority of the legislation involved a massive expansion of the government price controls found in the fee-for-service Medicare and Medicaid Programs. If we wish to address the threat posed by out-of-control entitlement spending, we need to restructure Medicare to better align incentives for providers and beneficiaries. This will not only lower health care costs, it will also improve the quality of care for millions of Americans. It is very important that we protect access to rural health care services too. There is more that can be done to better align Federal programs to meet the needs of rural and frontier States. The criteria that determine eligibility for Federal funds to support rural health care programs are based on factors that make it difficult to prove the needs of the underserved, rural, and frontier areas. For example, one provider for 3,500 people in New York City is entirely different than the 3,500 people living in Fremont, Campbell County or, perhaps more so, Niobrara County. I use Niobrara County quite a bit, for example, because Niobrara County is the size of Delaware and has 2,500 people living in it. It is 90 miles tall, 75 miles wide, and near the bottom of the center is a town called Lusk. This is where almost all of the people live. They do have a hospital there. When they have a doctor or a physician's assistant, the hospital is open. When they do not, they are 104 miles from a trauma center. You can't apply the same rules to that hospital that you apply to New York City hospitals. In addition, we need to think more creatively about how to use technology services, to improve telemedicine capabilities, particularly for the rural areas so that where a person lives has less impact on the level of care they are able to receive. The advancement of more powerful, wireless technologies has substantial potential to remotely link individuals across the country to deliver health care in more accessible settings. Our Nation has made great strides in improving the quality of life for all Americans. We need to remember that every major legislative initiative that has helped transform our country has been forged in the spirit of cooperation. These qualities are essential to the success and longevity of crucial programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. When it comes to health care decisions being made in Washington lately, the only thing the government is doing well is increasing partisanship and legislative gridlock. The President and Democrats need to listen. It is time to admit that this partisan experiment in government-run health care is failing. In order for this to get better, they must acknowledge the problem. Some of the law's authors and biggest supporters admit this law is a mess, and it will only get worse. However, those in the Democratic leadership continue to support flawed health care laws out of pride, politics, or a belief that the government knows best. It makes no sense to stubbornly cling to a law that is so massive, burdensome, bureaucratic, and confusing that it is collapsing under its own weight. By focusing on positive changes, Congress can give the failed law's proponents a way out. The key is finding common ground. More often than not, the country hears about what divides Congress instead of what unifies us. We could come together and focus on commonsense solutions with the kinds of step-by-step reforms that would protect Americans. I believe Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle can agree on 80 percent of an issue 100 percent of the time. I want to be clear that this isn't compromise. When you compromise, each side gives up something they believe in, and in the end they get something no one believes in. I am about agreeing on common ground without compromise, without sacrificing each party's principles, by leaving out parts of the issue to look for a solution later. Congress also needs to stop deal-making and start legislating. We need to stop developing comprehensive bills and then marketing them as the only option. To me, comprehensive means incomprehensible. The larger a bill is, the harder it is to agree. And, of course, you can tuck some things in there that people never see. This is especially true when we pass a bill that no one has fully read and then afterwards we find out what is in it. No party has all the good ideas. By working together, the end result should be something that not only works but moves the country forward in a responsible way. We still need health care reform, but it has to be the right way, with strong bipartisan support on individual health care issues. What happened to individual choice on a policy? What happened to liability reform? What about the sale of insurance across State lines or pooling through an association so they have leverage against the insurance companies? What happened to adequate compensation for providers? All of these have been left out. Providing Americans with access to affordable health care at a high quality is something Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree upon. The challenges of the American health care system are not going away. If we improve health care in a practical instead of a political way, we can make its better. Good policy is good politics. Why do I have some hope this is going to happen? Congress is more interested now than they have ever been, and the reason is there was a Republican--yes, there was one Republican provision in the bill that forced Congress to go into the exchanges too. We and our staffs have to live under the law we passed. That is how it should be. But the result is hitting everyone in their offices right now. Every Senator and every Representative is looking at what may happen to their staff on January 1, and their staffs are concerned. It has changed the tenor of some of the hearings we are having. It is pretty hard-hitting on both sides. So with that, I do have hope. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on behalf of Dick Loper, who will be inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame at the 101st Wyoming State Fair in August. Since 1992, Wyoming has recognized individuals each year who have made substantial contributions to agriculture in our State. This year I have the honor of presenting this award to Dick with my colleague, Senator Barrasso. Dick Loper is known across Wyoming for his rangeland consulting, Federal agency cooperation, and community involvement. As a rangeland consultant, Dick has served Wyoming's farmers, ranchers, and agricultural organizations throughout his entire career. He has also worked as a range consultant to the Wyoming State Grazing Board and has been involved in the organization since its creation. Rawlins Rancher and 2011 Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame inductee Niels Hansen commented, Since his time in the Reagan Administration, Dick has made his home in Wyoming working as a range consultant and helping and teaching many ranchers about the benefits of range monitoring and good range stewardship. Dick is best known for his commitment to the health of Wyoming's rangelands. For over 30 years, he has worked with Bureau of Land Management, BLM, permitees and other parties to advance livestock management and oversee the implementation of range improvements. As a member of the Committee on Rangeland Classification, his efforts were crucial in gaining national attention for rangeland health, which led to the establishment of standards of healthy rangelands. These standards now give public land users and managers clear goals for grazing. Dick Loper is also active in a variety of community organizations important to Wyoming agriculture. He served on the Society for Range Management Select Task Force on Unity in Concepts and the Sustainable Rangelands Roundtable. For his service, Dick has been honored with the Guardian of the Grasslands Award. On a personal note, it seems I can't go very long without visiting with Dick Loper in Washington. In addition to seeing him in Wyoming, Dick is regularly in DC for meetings with Federal agencies and other partners. It is always helpful receiving the latest on public lands during his visits. I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize Dick Loper's achievements with Senator Barrasso as a 2013 inductee into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming and its public lands are well served by his lasting and continuing contributions to our State.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak today on the nomination of Richard Cordray to be the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I want to speak against this confirmation. Why is this nomination important? Once the Director is approved by Congress, by the Senate--not all the Congress, just by the Senate--we will no longer have any control over a bureau that collects everyone's financial records in detail and can cancel a loan up to 180 days even if both parties to the loan are happy. Mr. Cordray was recess-appointed. I think it was because the President thought he would not be approved by Congress. What I am about to tell you already is under the direction of this nominee. That recess appointment put him in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It sounds like a good title, but the reason this is of utmost concern to me and has been for the past 3 years is the lack of congressional oversight and blatant privacy intrusions of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB. The Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, has been a hot topic of conversation since its passage in 2010. There are a lot of important discussions about different parts of the bill and some of the consequences we are seeing now, 3 years down the road. These are all important conversations to have, but today I am focusing on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau, as allowed by the Dodd-Frank Act, could direct up to $600 million every year, but it is not subject to the congressional appropriations process--the same congressional appropriations process that approves the budgets of the other agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Instead, the agency is funded from revenues from the Federal Reserve--the Federal Reserve--before the revenues come to the Treasury, funds that are supposed to be remitted to the Treasury for deficit reduction. Some might ask: Isn't there a cap to the funding available to the CFPB? Yes, there is, but here is what it looks like. The cap was 10 percent of the Federal revenues for fiscal year 2010, 11 percent for fiscal year 2012, and it will be 12 percent for fiscal year 2013, with an inflation factor each and every year after that. This means 12 percent of the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System, which was $4.98 billion in 2009. At that time, 10 percent would have been $500 million. These numbers are astonishing, and anyone saying that the Bureau is not funded by taxpayers is trying to pull a sleight-of-hand. The funds may not come directly from the Treasury, but taxpayers are going to have to take up the slack for funds they are no longer receiving from the Federal Reserve. I am not sure how we do that constitutionally, to move somebody outside and still take Federal money. In addition, the Director of the Bureau has unlimited discretion over how the agency's money--these hundreds of millions of dollars I just talked about--is spent. Let me repeat that. The Director of the Bureau has unlimited discretion over how the agency's money is spent. He doesn't submit a budget. Nothing is approved. Not only that, the Director is allowed to put fines and penalties collected by the Bureau into a slush fund that it does not have to return to the Treasury the way other agencies have to do. Do you think that might encourage a lot of fines and penalties by this Bureau? I think it would. I don't think it ought to be done that way. The same Director who has so much unchecked authority doesn't even answer to the Office of Management and Budget and only has to submit routine financial information to the Office. There is also no inspector general for this Bureau. Here is one example of why that is a problem. The Dodd-Frank Act expressly exempted auto dealers from the oversight purview of the Bureau. They listened to me when this bill was passing and found out that loans could be canceled within 180 days by the Bureau without the approval of the automobile dealer or the person who bought the automobile. However, the Bureau doesn't think auto dealers should be exempt from oversight, so it found ways to exert itself through the banks. Banks are now looking at auto loans made, and the Bureau has issued its first significant penalty in connection with the vehicle financing. The Bureau has also issued what it calls a fair lending guidance bulletin directed at institutions that make indirect automobile loans. In it the Bureau says indirect lenders will be viewed as participants in any discriminatory pricing by dealers due to their role in the auto loan credit decision process and suggests lenders impose controls on dealer markup and compensation policies. Is this revenge for them getting an exemption in the bill? The Bureau's interpretation of Dodd-Frank and this guidance will have wide ramifications for indirect lenders and ultimately auto dealers. Because the bulletin issued is considered guidance and not a rule, there has been no opportunity for the public--including consumers, lenders, and dealers--to comment on this policy interpretation that will affect an industry that was exempted from the Bureau oversight. The lack of accountability and congressional oversight over the Bureau's budget and Director are troubling, to say the least, but the picture becomes even more concerning when the lens is shifted to what kinds of oversight power are afforded to and being practiced by this Bureau--this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It sounds like it is for everybody. Here is what I said when expressing my concern about this Bureau and the Dodd-Frank Act on May 20, 2010: This bill was supposed to be about regulating Wall Street; instead it's creating a Google Earth on every financial transaction. That's right--the government will be able to see every detail of your finances. Your permission is not needed. They can look at your transactions from the 50,000 foot perspective or they can look right down to the tiny details of the time and place where you pulled cash out of an ATM or charged to your credit card. Unfortunately, we are now finding this fear has become a reality. A recent Bloomberg article states that the Bureau is demanding records from banks and buying information from companies on at least 10 million American consumers for ``use in a wide range of policy research projects.'' This information gathering from banks includes credit card and checking account overdraft information as well as requirements to provide records on credit cards and on products such as credit monitoring. In addition to the bank records it is collecting, the Bureau is collecting data on payday loans from debt collection agencies and building a mortgage database of loan and property records with information from agencies and other financial and property information holders. The CFPD also says they are not including any personally identifiable information such as names and Social Security numbers while compiling all of this information. I made that statement at one of our listening sessions in Wyoming, and somebody from the audience yelled: No, they just check with the NSA. What they are doing is taking all of that consumer data and layering it into consumer profiles to show a complete snapshot of each consumer's finances. For example, they can say: There is a consumer at a specified zip code who has $1,500 in the bank, $6,000 in credit card debt, $10,000 in student loan debt, and a $200,000 mortgage. To the American people who are listening to me speak right now, what happens if you are one of the 10 million customers whose data is being collected? Does this make you angry and uncomfortable? What happens if you don't want all of your financial information compiled and used by the Bureau for policy research projects? I am sure you would like to hear me tell you that you can call or write the Bureau and say you don't want the Bureau collecting your financial records from your bank, your student loan from a third party provider, your mortgage data, or your ATM data. I am sorry. You can't. You can't tell them to stay out of your records. It is not possible. If your data is being collected, you do not have the option to opt out nor does the CFPB need any kind of permission from you to gather your personal financial information. This is another issue I tried to work on when the Dodd-Frank Act passed. I had an amendment that would simply require a privacy release, a signature from the consumer before the Bureau could collect the consumer's financial data. Unfortunately, my amendment was not accepted and we find ourselves in the situation we are in today: Americans cannot tell the government they don't want their personal financial information collected and stored. What I would like to know is how this information is reining in Wall Street. The Dodd-Frank Act was sold to the public as a way to rein in Wall Street. As far as I can tell, it has turned out to be the perfect excuse for Big Brother to worm his way even further into our lives and our privacy. Actually, Big Brother doesn't have to worm his way in. Dodd-Frank opened the door and invited him in, and that is what this lack of oversight is signaling. Go ahead and collect millions of consumers' information. Don't tell us what you are using it for, and don't feel the need to tell us much of anything else because this Director and this Bureau will not be accountable to Congress. Meanwhile, the message we are getting from the Bureau, and some of my colleagues, is that Congress needs to sit back and butt out of the Bureau's business. We are hearing the message that asking for congressional oversight is akin to wanting consumers to be deceived and discriminated against. Let's get one thing straight. None of my colleagues disagree that protecting consumers is important. We all want consumers to get a fair shake and be able to make informed financial decisions. I never envisioned the Federal Government making your financial decisions. I have championed financial literacy for much of my time in Washington and believe strongly in the value of individuals having the tools they need to make sound financial decisions for themselves and their families. I repeat: I never envisioned the Federal Government making your financial decisions, but that is not the issue. The issue is the need for checks and balances and for consumers to be able to make a choice as to whether their financial information is collected and used. I cannot in good conscience, with these concerns weighing so heavily on my mind, support moving forward with the confirmation of a Director to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--the one already in charge of collecting your financial records--while doing a daily speech about his good work. Wait until his confirmation. We will see more intrusion into our personal lives. Until it has changed so this man does not have this much power--power beyond anybody else in the Federal Government--there needs to be some changes that will balance consumers' protections with privacy protections and allow for a healthy and appropriate level of congressional oversight over an agency that wields this tremendous power and has its own source of revenue and no oversight. Not even an inspector general has this kind of power. Until that happens, I have to oppose this nomination. I hope my colleagues will join me. 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 wish to make some comments about the vote we had on the floor awhile ago. I think it is time to stop holding the students of this country hostage 1 year at a time. That is what the bill did that just got turned down for cloture. It kicked the can down the road for a year. There were several Democrats who voted with the Republicans on that one, because they thought it is time to stop kicking the can down the road. How do we stop kicking the can down the road? Take a look at the Republican alternative that was offered. The Democratic bill was going to save 40 percent of the students half of the interest rate for 1 year so that 3.44 percent would be their interest rate. The Republican plan solves it for all students getting a loan and it solves it in perpetuity. It does it by making it 3 percent greater than what the Federal Government borrows its money at, which at the present time is 3.66 percent. I submit 3.66 percent is not much higher than 3.44 percent and it is a lot less than 6.88 percent. Why do we have a rise in the interest rate to 6.88 percent? The Federal Government, this body and the other body, and the President, decided a way we could fund health care in this country would be to take over the student loan business and then raise the rates to 6.88 percent. It provides money for the Affordable Care Act. So we had a vote without having a side-by-side. Nobody got to vote on the 3.66-percent interest rate for everybody in perpetuity, but we got to vote for the 3.44-percent interest rate, which means kicking the can down the road for a year for 40 percent of the students. That is wrong. Why didn't we get to vote on both of them? Well, the Republican plan would have had more votes than the Democratic plan. There are people on the other side who don't want to kick the can down the road and who understand the alternative is a reasonable solution to the problem. It would take care of all the students and take care of them from now on, and it provides a solution to the problem. I have to say it is pretty clever, that by bringing up this bill by itself and having it defeated on cloture, it solves two problems: No. 1, they get to blame the Republicans. No. 2, the money will still be there for the Affordable Care Act. That means keeping the money and blaming the Republicans. How can it get better than that? It can get better than that if we solve the problem for all of the kids applying for loans this year, not just 40 percent of them, and solve it so they know exactly where the interest rate is going to be at the time they apply and it stays that way on their loan for the whole time they have the loan. In future years, as others apply, the interest rate may be higher. The rate will be the same as whatever rate the Federal Government pays to borrow money. We are not going to be able to borrow at the low rates we are borrowing at now, but students will get the same break everybody else does, at just the 3-percent higher interest rate. I notice the majority leader changed his vote to no, and that is so he can bring up this bill again. Why would we bring up this bill again without having the alternative bill so people can vote for it, which I think might pass? It is so we can be blamed one more time. This isn't supposed to be a blame game around here. This is supposed to be about finding common ground and getting things done. I think there is some common ground; otherwise, there wouldn't be some Democrats joining with Republicans on a bill Republicans proposed, but that is not the way we need to do bills anyway. We need to have the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriate committee sit down and work out a basic bill that can then be amended on the floor--first amended in committee. We are not going through a regular process on a lot of these bills and yet we should be. I assume it would go to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Maybe, since it deals with the health care act, it would go to the Committee on Finance. At any rate, there would be an appropriate committee for it to go to, perhaps both the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee, but it didn't come to either. Neither proposal came to that committee. It is time to quit making deals around here and start legislating. That is the way things have been done in America for a couple of hundred years and it is time we did that again. We can get solutions if we go through the regular process. It is time to stop kicking the can down the road. I hope we can reach a solution. I hope we get to vote on both proposals and we can see where a majority of the votes go. Slowly, people are coming to realize that a solution for 100 percent of the students taking out loans is better than a solution for 40 percent of the students taking out loans, and one that goes on in perpetuity is better than one that goes on for 1 year. Every year in July we say to the students, Your interest rate is going to go up unless we take action, and then we show how one side or the other doesn't want to take the action. We have to get this problem solved. There are a lot of other aspects of higher education that need to be solved as well. It is time for that bill to be reauthorized, and it should go through the regular process as well. I hope we quit blaming each other and get something done. I personally like the long-term solution for 100 percent of the students instead of half of a solution for 40 percent of the students. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for expediting the confirmation of Greg Phillips. I rise this afternoon to add strong support for the confirmation of Gregory Alan Phillips to serve as a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. I believe Mr. Phillips has all the characteristics necessary to serve as a Federal appellate judge. I worked with Mr. Phillips in the Wyoming Legislature and can say with confidence that he is recognized throughout the Wyoming legal community as a talented, respected, and thoughtful attorney. This vote is also important because the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has experienced a number of judicial vacancies recently. In February the Senate confirmed Judge Bacharach of Oklahoma to the panel, and we now have the opportunity to fill another vacancy so the Tenth Circuit can continue its work. Mr. Phillips has served as Wyoming's attorney general since 2011. The attorney general is not an elected position in Wyoming, and it is important to note that Mr. Phillips was appointed by Governor Mead, although they do not share the same party affiliation. This speaks tremendously to Mr. Phillips' talent and legal reputation. Governor Mead and former U.S. attorney comments that Greg is a ``first-rate legal thinker, a tireless worker and has an abiding sense of fair play.'' Governor Mead goes on to say that if confirmed, all those who appear before Mr. Phillips will find ``a judge fully prepared, engaged, and respectful to all.'' Mr. Phillips was reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with a unanimous vote on April 18. The fact that he now stands for a vote after only being nominated in January is a credit to his abilities and strong bipartisan support. I thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and members of the Judiciary Committee for reviewing and moving this nomination along so quickly. It is no surprise that the American Bar Association unanimously gave Mr. Phillips its highest rating. Greg has extensive experience practicing law as a deputy county attorney and in private practice. Before becoming Wyoming's attorney general, Mr. Phillips served 7 years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Wyoming, handling criminal prosecutions and appeals. Greg has extensive experience arguing in Federal court, including taking nearly 20 cases before the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Phillips studied economics at the University of Wyoming and graduated with honors from the Wyoming College of Law, where he was on the Law Review. Immediately following law school Mr. Phillips served as a clerk for U.S. district judge Alan Johnson of Wyoming. Judge Johnson writes that Greg is ``devoted to the rule of law and will honor the remarkable judicial officers who preceded him.'' Specifically, Judge Johnson notes that Mr. Phillips' thorough study of the U.S. sentencing guidelines, experience as a Federal criminal prosecutor, and understanding of State and Federal legal issues will serve him well on the Tenth Circuit. Mr. Phillips also has strong support from his colleagues from around the Nation. Thirty-four attorneys general wrote the Senate Judiciary Committee in March expressing their support for the nomination. I am told there would have been more signatures on that letter, but the nomination was advanced so diligently that some did not get a chance to sign the letter before Greg's hearing. I would like to conclude by saying that I can personally attest to Mr. Phillips' qualifications to serve as a Federal judge. Greg was on the senate Judiciary Committee when we served together in the Wyoming Legislature. On the senate floor, we sat across the aisle from each other--and I do not mean just across the Republican-Democratic aisle, I mean right next to each other across the aisle--and got to visit a lot. He was a part of formulating my 80 percent rule for legislating. Greg and his family are highly respected in their Wyoming community, and Wyoming is proud to call Greg one of our own. He will be an outstanding judge to follow Terry O'Brien, another longtime friend of mine. Terry and I, when he was a Wyoming District Court judge and I was in the Wyoming State senate, used to have dinner together to solve the world's problems. Then I became a U.S. Senator and he became a U.S. circuit court judge. I know his successor will honorably fill that seat. Mr. Phillips is highly qualified to serve on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I call on my colleagues to also support his confirmation. Let's get this man to work in his new job. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENZI. I yield back the remainder of any of our time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to speak about why this body should reject the amended version of the immigration bill. I believe our immigration system is broken. As a matter of fact, I know the Senate could agree unanimously on the fact that our immigration system is broken. This includes both the legal system which allows individuals to visit and work in our country in addition to the failures which continue to allow others to reside illegally within our borders. The intentions of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the sponsors of this bill are correct. Those Senators deserve credit for their work on the bill over the past few months. However, as we approach final passage on this legislation I have to say I respectfully disagree with the final product and its failures to make fixes in several key areas. The first key fix rests in the fact that the United States remains a place of opportunity. The whole reason why people want to come to the United States is because of jobs. In order for immigration reform to work we must have a strong, workable employment verification system in place. If Congress can ensure that only authorized job seekers gain employment in this country, then we remove the incentive for illegal immigration. Workers who cannot get jobs cannot afford to stay in the United States illegally. This immigration bill works towards making E- Verify mandatory. I agree with this goal, but as a former small business owner familiar with this process, I also recognize that this bill fails to strengthen protections against the fraudulent use of identifiers used in the employment process--particularly Social Security cards and Social Security numbers. Small business owners by nature do a lot. They mop floors, make sales, greet customers, do the accounting, set up computers, and pay the bills. However, you should not have to ask a business owner to act as a customs agent and determine if the government issued documents presented to them are authentic. One recent study suggests that the current E-Verify error rate for unauthorized workers is 54 percent. This is attributed to the fact that even though the system says that a particular person is legal, there is no way for the employer to know for certain if that worker is really who they claim to be. The proposal before us attempts to address this problem through a photo-matching tool. However, the verification system does not have photos for the more than 60 percent of Americans who do not have a U.S. passport and relies on States to be able to provide driver's license records on a voluntary basis. This legislation allows a fundamental flaw in the E-Verify system to exist, making it even more difficult for employers to ensure that the people they hire are lawful. Several of my colleagues have filed amendments to fix these problems. I know that this is something Senator Portman has worked on extensively and I support his efforts. Unfortunately, the necessary changes have not been made to E-Verify and it is difficult for me to support a bill knowing that it fails to provide small business owners with the tools they need to efficiently and accurately verify the identity of new employees. Another draw to the United States happens to be the Federal welfare and tax benefits that workers receive. My colleague Senator Hatch has been working on several amendments, which I support, that ensures non- citizens do not benefit from these federal programs. Amendment No. 1246 clarifies that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services cannot undermine welfare reform so that non-citizens receive welfare. Additionally, I support Hatch amendment No. 1247 that ensures back taxes are collected for applicants under the Registered Provisional Immigrant program. Failing to fix these draws to our country undermines immigration reform, incentivizes illegal behavior and adds costs to Americans who lawfully pay their taxes. Second, dependable border security and interior enforcement is crucial to the entire immigration system. I voted for several amendments in this debate which would enact firm border security and enforcement triggers. One lesson from previous immigration efforts is that we cannot reduce illegal immigration without better border security and entry/exit enforcement measures. I cannot support the amended version of the bill because it offers false promises about border security and enforcement measures. I do not understand how the submission of a border security plan makes our nation safe, particularly when current law is not being enforced. Border agents are added but not before the provisions of the underlying bill go into effect. I think the Senate should take a lesson from history. Failing to secure the border and ignoring enforcement will not reduce illegal immigration. Finally, I think it is also important to discuss why more hasn't been done to fix the underlying bill. The Senate has been on this bill for nearly 3 weeks. In that time, the Senate has only voted on nine amendments. It appears clear now that few if any more amendments will be considered as we approach final passage which makes it difficult to make some real common sense changes to the bill. I believe that part of the reason is because the bill is being considered as comprehensive reform. Comprehensive bills give everyone reason to oppose the bill. This Senate wants a legitimate fix to immigration. The best way to do that is to focus on it one piece at a time. For example, had more attention been placed on E-Verify as a standalone bill, I am confident that we could find a way to ensure that the program works effectively for small businesses and helps deter the incentive for illegal behavior. For these reasons I will be voting against final passage. I understand that we all want to fix our immigration system, but I cannot find the resolve to support legislation that misses the mark on so many levels. I am hopeful that more work will be done on fixing our immigration system in the interest of our economy, national security and moral obligations as a country.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I wish to offer my sincere congratulations to the Western Research Institute in Laramie, WY. On July 15 to 17, 2013, the Western Research Institute will be hosting the 50th Annual Petersen Asphalt Research Conference. This highly acclaimed international forum promotes understanding of how asphalt chemistry, physical properties and interactions affect the performance of asphalt applications throughout their life cycle. In 1963, Dr. J. Claine Petersen organized the first asphalt research conference, emphasizing how the chemical and physical properties of asphalt affect its performance as pavement over time. In 1990, the name of the conference was changed to honor Dr. Petersen's efforts. Dr. Petersen remains an active and vital participant in this event each year. Partnering with a pavement performance prediction--P3--Symposium has enhanced the ability of the conference to ``dive deep'' on key topics. This year, the topic for the symposium is ``Innovations and Issues in Pavement Preservation and Durability.'' The symposium links researchers, highway officials, producers, and others with a need to understand how asphalts may perform in a given application over time. The Federal Government typically provides between 75 and 90 percent of the costs of federally supported highway projects. Federally supported asphalt research has been proven to yield substantial cost savings and return on investment. The Petersen Asphalt Research Conference continues to enhance this Federal investment by advancing the understanding and production of state-of-the-art materials, which improve pavement performance, durability, and safety. The Western Research Institute is a nationally recognized research center for transportation and energy projects. The annual Petersen Asphalt Research Conference is one more example of the institute's leadership in transportation and energy research. Congratulations, again, Western Research Institute, and Wyoming is looking forward to hosting many more in the years to come.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am proud to submit a resolution today to designate Saturday, July 27, 2013 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'' 9 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 27, 2013, 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. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the special procedures for certain nonimmigrant agricultural workers included in the underlying immigration bill. I have thoughts about the overall immigration bill which I will share later, but at this time I want to focus on a specific provision in the underlying substitute amendment. Many farmers and ranchers in this country will tell you that they need reliable, dedicated, and experienced employees to make their operation successful. This could mean contracting with seasonal workers to help a farmer harvest row crops or for my colleague, Chairman Leahy, it could mean finding employees to milk and move cows on dairy farms in Vermont. Agricultural labor in this country comes from a variety of places, and an important source is from temporary and seasonal foreign workers. Currently, the H-2A program assists employers and foreign workers with visas to perform temporary and seasonal agricultural labor. The most common form of agricultural visa is for seasonal work in harvesting, planting, or maintaining crops. Workers usually get visas to the United States to perform work for several months and then return to their home nations. However, Congress and the administration for decades have recognized a special segment of temporary agricultural workers which are distinct from the others, particularly those industries within agriculture which require workers for longer periods because of the unique work they perform. Under the existing H-2A program, these occupations are recognized by special procedures which allow employees to meet the needs of the specialized industries they serve. Occupations which serve the livestock industry are examples of agricultural jobs that require temporary work for longer periods of time. Herding and managing livestock is an inherently different type of work than that which is performed by other temporary agricultural workers. In many cases, those working as temporary foreign workers in livestock related occupations often have rich cultural histories and family ties to herding which allow them to bring their unique experience to the United States and make significant contributions to our livestock industry. This inherent challenge is evident in the special procedures which manage nonimmigrant sheepherders in the existing H-2A program. For over 50 years, temporary nonimmigrant agricultural workers have been coming to the United States to work as herders in the sheep and goat industry. Over all these decades, Congress has recognized the special nature of the sheepherding program in immigration law. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the following letters dated July 28, 1987, from U.S. Senator Al Simpson and the response from Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS, Commissioner Alan Nelson dated November 4, 1987 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. In this exchange, Senator Simpson, serving as the chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and a primary author of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, wrote the administration expressing the continued intent of Congress that the agency and its rules reflect the historical arrangement that sheepherders had within the H-2A program. Senator Simpson highlighted specifically the fact that sheepherders should not be subject to the same return requirements as other nonimmigrant temporary agricultural worker programs. In its response, the Immigration and Naturalization Service recognized the uniqueness of the sheepherder program, its effectiveness operating under these special procedures, and sheepherders should not be subject to the same return requirements as other nonimmigrant agricultural workers. As a result, the H-2A sheepherder program has operated successfully with little change from when it first started. Currently, the special procedures fall under the authority of the U.S. Department of Labor and have continued to largely reflect the unique needs of sheepherders and other special procedure occupations. That is why I am pleased this immigration bill includes language which authorizes special procedures for these very agricultural occupations. Section 2232 of the legislation creates the new nonimmigrant agricultural worker program. Within that section 218(A)(i) authorizes ``special nonimmigrant visa processing and wage determination procedures for certain agricultural occupations''. Those occupations include (A) sheepherding and goat herding; (B) itinerant commercial beekeeping and pollination; (C) open range production of livestock; (D) itinerant animal shearing; and, (E) custom combining industries. This is an important step forward in making sure that the nonimmigrant sheepherders and workers in other special occupations can continue to enter our country and work in these unique temporary agricultural jobs. Particularly important is that the bill provides these special occupations with unique rules on work locations, and housing. This is because unlike the typical temporary nonimmigrant agricultural jobs performed in the United States, the special procedure occupations operate in unique conditions. For example, sheepherders may work alone or in teams monitoring animals graze in remote areas where mobile housing is required. For sheepherders, mobile sheep wagons serve as both a historical symbol and functional shelter from the elements of the range where teams of sheepherders prepare meals, bunk, and keep supplies for livestock. By including the housing language in this section, Congress clearly intends that traditional uses of these housing units continue for special procedure occupations. I have expressed concerned in recent years about efforts by the U.S. Department of Labor to avoid consulting stakeholders when drafting new policies for special procedure occupations. Bypassing stakeholders has confused employers and employees and led to a number of inconsistent enforcement actions by agency personnel. I ask unanimous consent that the letter I sent to the Department of Labor on November 14, 2011, as the ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, HELP, Committee as well as the response I received on February 2, 2012, from Department of Labor Assistant Secretary Jane Oates be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. You will note that previous practice afforded the Secretary some discretion in how it consults with special procedure stakeholders--specifically, that the ``administrator may consult with affected employer and worker representatives.'' I am pleased that this bill includes text which requires that agencies ``shall'' consult with employer and employee representatives and publish for notice and comment regulations relating to the implementation of the special procedures. This is an important step in ensuring that both employers and employees are heard in the rulemaking process and their concerns are reflected in agency guidance. This consultation will help avoid future confusion amongst the parties, ensure that policies practically serve the program, and that there can be an end to inconsistent enforcement actions. Mr. President, the occupations represented by these special procedures may affect only a few specific industries but play an important role in protecting the future of American agriculture. I am pleased the immigration bill allows occupations such as sheepherding to operate under the new program as it has operated for the past 50 years. In addition, I am pleased that the legislation recognizes a specific need to address the unique wage, housing, and operational components of the special procedure programs. Finally, it is vital that rulemaking requires agency consultation with stakeholders when drafting policies for the special procedure program. I thank the sponsors of this bill for their work on this section.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to note that on the evening of Monday, June 24, 2013 I missed Senate rollcall vote No. 160 on the motion to invoke cloture on the Leahy substitute amendment No. 1183 due to travel delays. I would like to make clear in the Record that if I were in attendance I would have voted in opposition of the motion to invoke cloture on this measure.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, for Americans all across the country, June 14 is a very special day--Flag Day. On that day, we all join together to celebrate our shared heritage and our history as a Nation as represented by our American flag. We each have our own way of showing our respect and our great love for this symbol of our land. Down through the years it has been given many names, from the Stars and Stripes to Old Glory--to the Grand Old Flag that was memorialized in song. It has so many names because of all that it represents. The story of our Flag reminds us of all the sacrifices that have been made over the years so that our Nation would always be strong and free. Each of us has our own favorite memory of the flag. There are some that we recall from the pictures of the wars that we have seen, or from our remembrance of all the veterans who proudly fought, especially those who died in the service of our Nation. Anyone who has seen a picture of the Marines raising the American flag during the battle of Iwo Jima will never forget that iconic image. It held such meaning to us we created a statue to memorialize that moment. It stands just a short distance from the Capitol, a reminder to us all that freedom is not free. It comes to us at great cost. Although we celebrate our American flag's proudest moments on this day, we should also remember those days when we did not treat the Stars and Stripes so kindly. There were those who thought to use the flag to promote their own agenda by burning it in the streets. Fortunately, those moments were few and far between and were usually done by people who did not understand the symbolism of the flag or fully appreciate all they had received from their citizenship. Some of them just did not realize how blessed they were to be Americans. Here in the Senate, we begin each session by joining together to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. As we do, we pledge our loyalty to our country, our determination to do everything we can to make this a better place for us all to live, and most specifically, we pledge our love and appreciation for this ``one Nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.'' Over the years, our flags have inspired works of art of all kinds, most especially a song with a remarkable story behind its origin. Every American knows what happened on that day when our young Nation was in the midst of a great war. We were fighting for our very right to be free. As the battle waged, a young man, Francis Scott Key, mesmerized by the action of the battle, suddenly caught sight of our Flag, still flying proudly over the fort in the midst of all the gunshot, flame and fire around him. The words he wrote became another symbol of our Nation as he took up his pen to tell us about the sight. From where he stood he could see ``the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, which, gave proof through the night, that our Flag was still there''-- the same Flag that still proudly flies ``o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.'' The Flag that helped to inspire those words is still on display, one of the most popular attractions at the Smithsonian Institution just down the street from us. On Flag Day, and every other day, I would encourage all Americans to fly their flag and to talk to their children and grandchildren about the meaning of the flag and the history of our Nation. The great gifts we have received of ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' should never become just words to us. They are our birthright as Americans and they should encourage us to continue to remember the sacrifices that have been made in our name. In a very real sense, Flag Day is a call to express the great pride we feel for this country and those who served in our Armed Forces--our great heroes of the past--and those who continue to serve our Nation all over the world--our heroes of the present. I have often mentioned here on the floor what it means to me to be a grandfather and the thrill of holding the next generation of your family in your arms. Well, my granddaughter continues to share with us one of those special moments we all need to experience so we do not forget the legacy we have received from our citizenship. Every time she sees an American Flag she pauses, looks at it with an understanding that surpasses her years, and with a smile of pride and admiration, says ``God bless America!'' As she says those special words she looks around at everyone near her, expecting them to join her in expressing that sentiment--which we do. She is only 2 years old and she is already learned to do that all by herself--which makes her twos not so terrible after all. Friday morning, as I reflected about Flag Day I found myself reading the words of Lloyd Ogilvie who served as our Senate Chaplain for many, many years. In his book, One Quiet Moment, he wrote ``Thomas Jefferson inscribed in his memorial God, who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a Nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?'' On Flag Day and throughout the year, those are good words of advice to consider and put into practice. We must never forget that all we have received from our citizenship ultimately comes from God. Then it is up to us to share those great blessings with all those we meet as we work together to make our Nation a better place not only for us, but for our children and our grandchildren so they will never lose their fondness and appreciation for this great land of ours. I can think of no better way to celebrate Flag Day than to join with my granddaughter in her recognition of the flag with an exuberant ``God bless America!'' Yes! God bless America and God bless us all. May our future be as blessed as our past.