Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the ranking member for the tremendous job he has done and the hours he and his staff have put into reviewing these things. This is not an easy thing to follow. The book we have is an actual manual. The bill we receive to work from is just a bunch of numbers. It is hard to put that all together, and I thank the Senator for the information he has provided.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, we are busy patting ourselves on the back for avoiding the fiscal cliff. I don't know how much congratulations we ought to have for that. Yesterday, I was buying some groceries, and the guy at the checkout stand had no idea who I was and shouldn't have. He said: What is going on, on Capitol Hill? What are those people doing? We ought to fire everybody in Congress. They can't get their work done. We have to get our work done. They don't have to get their work done. He made a good point. I am telling you, it is down to the level of grocery store checkout people--and I suspect different levels than that, different occupations than that. Americans, because they are kind of tuned in to the news media, which is kind of an information media or an entertainment media, built this fiscal cliff so it appeared to be Niagara Falls with money running over it. It is more of a gradual slope. But we have to stop the downward slope we are on. It is important we do that. And this is a body that can do that. Congress can do that. We conduct a war of words around here--of this protecting the ``rich''--and it sticks. You know, I don't know of anybody who is trying to protect the rich. The problem comes with the definition of ``rich,'' and that is a hard one to explain. Any attempt that looks like that, and we go back to the sticky word of ``rich,'' whom nobody is trying to protect. I used to be in business. I used to be one of those small businessmen, and I knew that at the end of the year, the business would show a profit. Now, unfortunately, we couldn't take the money out of the business if we were going to continue to grow the business, if we were going to bring on more people. It also meant we needed to have more product, and that meant we had to have more investment in the business. So the money we could have taken out that showed as ``profit'' actually went back into the business. We kept saying: How can we have so little money when we make so much money? Well, that is the position a lot of the small business men and women are in around this country. They are having to put all their money back into their businesses. And I understand when people say don't protect the rich--those making $250,000 or $400,000 or $450,000, whatever the amount comes out to be--but the person working in that business, probably making $30,000, $40,000, $50,000, or $60,000, says: If all I am making is that amount and they are making $250,000, we really ought to tax them. You know, it is a fairness issue. But when it gets down to the point of what they actually get to take out, what their take-home is, it is a lot different. They look really good on paper, they look rich on paper, but the money they get to take out is significantly less than that, and that is where the divide came in when trying to solve this problem. Now, could it have been solved? Yes, it could have been solved. What we need to do around this institution is to start legislating and stop deal-making. We are a legislative body. You can't have 100 people involved in a deal, and consequently we don't. We have the group of 2, as in the case of this one, or a group of 4 or 6 or 9 or maybe as many as 12 getting together and putting together some kind of comprehensive package to put before this body, and those who aren't in the group are really kind of insulted by it. They do not make a big deal out of it because that has become the tradition, but that is not how it is supposed to work. I have been there. I have gotten to legislate. It is one of the privileges of this country. The main person with whom I legislated was Senator Kennedy. Senator Kennedy was considered one of the most liberal people in the Senate, and I have always been considered one of the most conservative people in the Senate, but we were able to work together to get 38 bills out of committee and through this body, and the worst vote we ever got was 15 votes against. How did we do that? Well, we didn't try to solve the world's problems all in one bill. We took an issue at a time, and we found the common ground. We found what we could agree on, and that was usually about 80 percent of the whole issue. That is pretty good. We worked on issues that had been around here 10 or 12 or 15 years without passing, having come to the floor numerous times, and mainly what we did was we would sit down with the stakeholders, who were intensely interested in the bill, who had been lobbying on that bill for years and years, and we would say to them: This is what we can get. This is what we have to leave out. It wasn't compromise. Compromise is when you give up half of what you believe in, I give up half of what I believe in, and we wind up with something that neither of us believes in. But common ground happens. There is common ground on every one of these issues, and that is what we have to find--the common ground. So we would meet with these stakeholders, and they would say: No, you are leaving out the most important part of this whole bill. This is what we really want. If it was Senator Kennedy's constituency, he would have to make the comment, and if it was mine, I would have to make the comment: How long have you been working on this? They would say: We have been working on this for 10 years. I would say: How much of it have you gotten? Then they would say: Well, nothing. I would say: Here is what we can get for you. And I would outline it again, and I would say: Isn't that better than nothing? The light would come on, and they would say: Oh, that would be good progress. Then they would quit pushing against us, and they would get together with us. It is amazing sometimes that the advocates for a bill are really sometimes the ones who are stopping the bill from happening, and it is over the issues--that 10 percent on each side, which amounts to 20 percent--that we are not going to get resolved. There are some basic values on both sides, and they are important to both sides and they are both right, but they are not common ground. But this is where we have to go. We have to get to common ground again, and the way we do that is by legislating. We put out a bill that is 80 percent of the whole issue, not 100 percent of the whole issue because that is comprehensive. We need to put out the 80 percent both sides agree on and then allow amendments on it. That is something we haven't been doing around here for a long time. First of all, a bill needs to go to committee. The committee is where the people intensely interested in that particular bill preside and work and exert their efforts. That is where they want to concentrate. When a bill comes to committee, you can have maybe 200 or 300 amendments in committee, and the chairman and the ranking member--that is the name we give to the person with the most seniority in the minority--can sit down together and sort through these amendments. Out of the 200, there are probably 100 that nobody in their right mind would really offer. Out of the remaining ones, you will find there are people on both sides who have very similar ideas on how to solve that problem, so you get those people to sit down together and take a look at all the amendments that are similar to that one and see if they can't come up with a single amendment that will solve that part of the problem. And you know what. They do. Now, it might not be 100 percent of what they want. It is probably, again, only 80 percent of what they want. But it is something on which they can all agree. Here is the really magnificent part that helps a bill get through committee: They can all say: It was my idea. They can all go to the media and put out the release that says they solved this particular problem, and that helps a lot around here. So committee work is extremely important, but when a bill comes out of committee, it is not perfect. When Senator Kennedy and I were working the bills, we not only recognized they weren't perfect, but we were able to talk to those Members whose problems we weren't able to solve by the time the amendment process came up in committee, and we promised to work with them until the bill got to the floor and not to take the bill to the floor until we had a solution to that problem or the right for them to offer an amendment. That helped a lot to get the bill out of committee. Once a bill comes out of committee in a bipartisan way--meaning people from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, support the bill--then there is a chance of bringing it to the floor and actually getting some time to debate. And the debate part is important. That is kind of where we bring America along. There is coverage during the committee process, but that is a little harder to follow. The debate here on the floor is where we bring America along on whatever ideas we have, and so the debate here is very important. Over time, there has been this process where the leaders have invented some things that actually concentrate the power in the hands of the leaders rather than the body as a whole, and that is the filibuster process, and that filibuster process can be manufactured. I have to tell a couple of stories. One bill I worked on around here had a solution for health care. I called it small business health plans. The idea behind the bill was that small businesses could get together through their association or any way they wanted to, across State lines, even nationwide, to form a buying group big enough to take on the biggest of the insurance companies. Think about that--the power to take on the biggest of the insurance companies. Yes, there was some opposition to that--call it the insurance companies. But many of them worked with us and began to understand how they could participate in the process and then went along with it. One of the biggest insurance companies in the Nation had some ads out of Massachusetts opposing the bill, and eventually that helped to keep the bill from ever happening. But the biggest thing that kept the bill from happening--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for another 10 minutes or the right to allow the Senator from California to speak and then have it come back to me.

Mr. ENZI. Yes, just a couple more minutes.

Mr. ENZI. So on this small business health plan, when it came to the floor, I had the unfortunate experience of having Senator Frist setting a filibuster and filling the tree. ``Filling the tree'' means nobody can make another amendment to the bill. But here is the catch: After this came out of committee, we got the people together who had a problem with the bill, and we had one amendment that would have solved those problems. With the tree filled, that one amendment couldn't come up. That one amendment couldn't happen. So what happened? We talked about the bill and how it lacked this particular part. I kept explaining how we had an amendment that would take care of that. Everybody in the Chamber knew that amendment was not going to happen, and consequently, on a process vote, it was killed with just over 40 votes. That is what happened with the filibuster. Had that amendment been possible, we would have had one of the things in place for health care--just one, but it would have solved a lot of things for a lot of businesses, and that is where a lot of people work in this country, and that is where jobs are. So that is how we can do this job of legislating. My second story would be--and this one is much shorter--about the year Senator Harkin and I brought an FDA bill to the floor. When it got to the floor, we explained to the leader that there were going to be 14 amendments--8 of them would be brought up and would fail, and the other 6 would be withdrawn. A week later we finally got to start on the amendments for that bill. There was worry that there would be some extraneous ones thrown in. We already had agreement, I guess you could say, from the most conservative and most liberal from each of our sides that they would not bring up the peripheral amendments, and they didn't. So a week later, when we finally got to start to vote--and we could have done that the same day, although we finished up in a day and a half--we had eight amendments that got defeated and six amendments that were withdrawn. So we wound up exactly where we knew we were going to be, and the bill passed here 96 to 1. That is how the committee process can work, and that is how not having a filibuster can work, and that is what we need to get back to. We need to be legislating, not deal-making. And I will talk later about some of the deal-making, and we have seen that with the cliff process. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to join the Senator from California in the hope that the House will pass the bill that was sent over from the Senate last night. It was a tremendous amount of effort that was put into it by a number of people over a number of days and weeks, and I think it is the best answer that we could come up with at this point in time. I particularly want to thank Leader McConnell and Vice President Biden for working numerous hours; starting, again, yesterday morning at 6:45 and winding up with something late last night, more than 12 hours later, over the last two issues, as I understand it. And, yes, I am glad that AMT was fixed. I would remind everybody that AMT is the last effort we had to tax the rich, and it backfired to where it now taxes everybody or almost everybody. So it desperately needed a fix. Now we are talking about taxing the rich again, and I hope we can come up with some collective ways that will be certain for the people who are rich and that it will last over time instead of just for a few short years. In my area of the world, the biggest thing in that bill was the estate tax. People who own land in Wyoming that they bought maybe at $40 an acre now have land that is worth $2,000 an acre or more, and they haven't figured out how to pay the taxes on these few acres they were able to scrape together over a period of time if the amount of the exemption went down to $1 million, and that is where we were headed. At $1 million, they would have to sell off part of the ranch or part of the farm in order to pay the taxes when somebody died. All the time that land is making a profit people are paying taxes on it. Then when they die, they would have to pay taxes on something they would like to keep and continue in operation. So the estate tax piece of that was a very important part for a lot of America, and not just the ones where people are land rich and dollar poor. Of course, I keep wondering what would have happened if a month ago a basic bill would have been put on the floor--perhaps the President's proposal--and both sides had been able to do amendments to it, even multiple amendments on the same topic, like the Department of Defense bill. We did 119 amendments in a day and a half or 2 days. What if that had happened on this bill? Would we have been able to come up with a package that would, I suspect, be very similar to what we passed last night but done it with everybody participating, everybody understanding, the American public thinking that Congress is actually getting something done? That would be a huge relief. I think we could have done that with an open amendment process, limiting it probably to relevant amendments. There are a lot of different things people would like to bring up because they don't know any other way they are going to get votes, but I keep reminding my colleagues that when you bring up one of those irrelevant amendments, it might make it into the bill, but it will be pulled out in conference committee. You still did not win anything. I guess you could make a big press release about how you got that into the bill to begin with, but it is not in the bill. I want to talk today about the questions I hear from Americans who say: Why can't politicians in Washington get along? Why is there this gridlock? Those are questions folks outside the beltway have been asking, but, like may questions, the answer is involved. For many, including President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid, it is easy and strategic to oversimplify the answer. They have identified GOP Senators as the culprits and the filibuster as the instrument. But as one of those GOP Senators, let me give you my side of the story. What I think people are missing and what some of the majority wants you to miss is why a filibuster happens. You do not hear this from the majority leader, but for the last few years many filibusters in the Senate have been designed and instigated by him; they have not been through the committee process. Here is how it works. He has a bill that is popular with his party and whose title really sounds great. He knows many of those on our side, the minority, would actually agree with many parts of the bill, but we would want votes on the items that could potentially be politically embarrassing. In order to avoid these votes, he skips the committee of jurisdiction and brings the bill directly to the Senate floor. Then he uses an arcane Senate parliamentary procedure--he files for cloture and fills the amendment tree. That means he prevents amendments on the Senate floor, and often because he believes they might be embarrassing for Members on his side. Our majority leader is no slouch; he picks bills with great titles that on the surface anyone could support--anyone. Remember, most of these have not been to committee. Who could possibly be against students or veterans or seniors or women? The problem for the minority is that within these great-sounding bills is usually something that deep down, philosophically in our bones, many just cannot accept. An example would be tying a woman's health care to a mandatory public funding of abortions or adding gun control to an otherwise acceptable crime bill. These are poison pills that the majority knows the minority won't swallow. Best of all politically for the majority, the minority gets blamed for filibustering and the majority leadership looks like the hero fighting hard for the cause. That is how a filibuster can be initiated by the majority leader to make the minority look like obstructionists. If the majority party brings up a bill containing a poison pill, even though the bill has a great title, they should not expect the other party to swallow the poison pill without using every delay tactic possible. In fact, they don't expect the minority to go along, and they use it to their full political advantage. Those of us on this side in the minority have been seeing bill after bill that did not even go through committee, with great titles, containing poison pills, come to the floor directly. We were not assured even of a vote to try to take the pill out even though the majority had sufficient votes to ensure the poison pill would stay in. That is the meaning of majority--enough votes to always win. If you can always win, why stop the vote? So stopping the right to vote should and has resulted in a filibuster. The big, dirty, not-so-secret secret is that a filibuster can be controlled by the majority leader. If the leader agrees to allow an open amendment process, permission to proceed would be a formality, and work could start immediately. That is what happened with the Department of Defense authorization we just finished. It was a fresh breeze through what the majority has turned into a stale Senate. We worked through more than 100 amendments in short order. But if no agreement to an open amendment process is agreed to before starting the bill, the minority has to believe their amendments will be blocked. The majority can vote down any proposal it does not like and with a motion to table can do it quickly. Let me say that again. With a motion to table, they can do it quickly, they can actually limit debate. That is why the minority has been filibustering on motions to proceed and also why the majority leader wants to end that process. Delaying action on motions to proceed is our best chance to ensure an open amendment process. We can slow the bill down to try to get that agreement. The majority still does not have to agree, and if they have 60 votes, they can move ahead. If they do not have 60 votes, it has to be at least a little bit bipartisan--just a little bit. The real point gets lost in all this; that is, to be effective, Congress has 535 people looking at every proposal--lots of viewpoints, lots of experience. If all the decisions are going to be made by the majority leader, how does every American's elected leader get to represent his or her constituents? The people back home who put their faith in their Senators expect to be represented by their Senators, not a party or a majority leader who does not know them as their own Senators do. The majority leader has used the filibuster count to effectively falsely claim obstruction by Republicans. Remember, you can manufacture a filibuster. Now he wants to weaken the filibuster further. That may happen the day after tomorrow. That is damaging America's faith in Congress. That is damaging what the Senator from California said was one of the basic principles of this body. There are already filibuster rules. If used, they would make those objecting spend time on the floor explaining themselves, actually talking. That already exists, and in a very limited way, each Senator has the right to 1 hour of debate during a filibuster--1 hour. They can have other people cede their hours to them, but it is still a very limited amount. At any point, if there is not somebody on the floor to take more of that hour, the Presiding Officer can end that part of the filibuster. So there are already ways to shorten the delay involved, but they are not being used. Using current rules would be much better than breaking the rules for the first time in order to change the rules. We have never done that. It has been threatened once before. It did not happen. I hope it does not happen during the time I am in the Senate. Breaking the rules to change the rules is not the way of the Senate for the history of the Senate. I know there are amendments on which the majority does not want to have a recorded vote. That would put his Members on record. But that is the price for being in the majority. I think our side would like to be in the majority and have to take those kinds of votes. They are putting us on record without the poison bill being obvious in the vote. All we are voting on is a bill title. That is the way the people of America looked at it, and it worked very well in the last election. Going all out to avoid votes is silencing the voices of millions of Americans and tearing down the institution of the Senate and eliminating transparency. The media usually demands transparency. This hides transparency. The proposal to weaken the filibuster would only hasten the Senate's decline. It is like adding lemon to a recipe that is already too sour. We do not need a new recipe. We do not need to change the rule as the majority is proposing. We need to use the great system that has been in place for hundreds of years. Even now, we get glimpses of it working. If the majority leader and those advocating for the weakening of the filibuster were in the minority, they would speak out against it. In fact, they did. In 2005, when he was in the minority, the GOP started talking about challenging the filibuster, and Senator Reid warned of grave consequences. I want to quote Senator Reid. The time has come for those Senators of the majority to decide where they stand, whether they will abide by the rules of the Senate or break the rules for the first time in 217 years. . . . Will they support the checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers? That is a quote from the majority leader. He asked if the majority would ``silence the minority in the Senate and remove the last check we have in Washington against this abuse of power.'' That is a quote from leader Harry Reid. I hope he will follow his own advice and that that will not be a part of the problem right after we swear in the new Members this next week. I hope the institution of the Senate will continue to be a Senate. I hope we will have more of a committee process where people can work out the things there are difficulties with and bring a more consolidated, more comprehensive, less compromising area between which neither of them believe that will get to the floor and then have an open amendment process on the floor, and I guarantee things will happen faster than they have been in the Senate. Holding up things a week or 2 weeks while we go through the whole filibuster process is a waste of our time. Amendments are not a waste of our time. I hope we get back to that system. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, at the end of each session of Congress, the Senate takes a moment to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the service of those retiring Members who will not be a part of the next Congress when we reconvene in January. We offer each of them our thanks for a job well done. Joe Lieberman is such an individual, and he has brought so much to our work in the Senate over the years. We will miss him. Ever since he arrived here in the Senate Joe has always seen our deliberations as not so much a matter of party so much as it has been about each issue taken individually. That is why we see him as such a thoughtful legislator. He examines every matter that comes before the Senate, taking stock of how it will impact his home State of Connecticut and the future of our Nation, and then he makes a decision on the best course of action for the Congress to take. His ability to sort through each issue focused more on policy than politics has helped him to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle--and bring something important to each discussion. That is why the people of Connecticut kept hiring him back on for another term. Simply put, they saw him in action in the Senate and visited with him when he would return to Connecticut and they liked what they saw. I got to know Joe as we worked together during a trip to South Korea. The Kyoto Conference had concluded and South Korea was in the midst of a series of problems. The outlook was troublesome and action needed to be taken on a priority basis. The problems were magnified by the election that was going on and the monetary crisis that was being played out in the midst of all of that political campaigning and posturing. In an effort to be of assistance, the International Monetary Fund had stepped in and was willing to provide the support that was needed in exchange for South Korea's willingness to take certain steps that they believed were essential if any additional elements of the crisis were to be avoided. The International Monetary Fund asked us to meet with the candidates who were running in South Korea and make them aware of the importance of the current problem and the need to work with the International Monetary Fund toward the solution that had been proposed. It was not going to be enough for them to privately state that they were open to the idea. We needed them to go public with their support for the proposal so that all the candidates would be on the record as being on board with the plan. That would help to strengthen and stabilize the economy and put South Korea on a track toward a long term solution to their financial problems. We were so ``effective'' with our assignment that, after meeting with us, each of the candidates took to the airwaves the next day to make it clear that if they were elected they would rewrite the whole deal. As soon as they made it clear they were not interested in the proposal that had been made, the value of their currency began to sink like a rock. It hit the maximum loss for three days. That was enough to teach each candidate that they had no alternative but to move in the direction the International Monetary Fund had recommended. As soon as that realization became clear, each of the candidates went back on the airwaves and said that they would comply with the International Monetary Fund's recommendations and pursue the policies that would place the nation on firmer ground. When there is only one viable alternative it makes taking a position on an issue like this a lot easier. I learned a great deal about Joe on that trip--and from him, too. It was in every sense time well spent both for me and Joe--and for the government of South Korea as well. That experience has been with me ever since and I have never forgotten it. Joe is completing his fourth term and through it all he has been a good representative of the people of Connecticut. He has been a part of many difficult and complex issues during those four terms. Each day, strengthened by his faith and guided by his strong sense of values and principles, he has taken on each challenge that has come before us and done some very important work for the Nation. Thanks, Joe, for your willingness to serve. You have compiled a record during your years of service on the State and national level of which you can be very proud. As I thank you for your service, I also want to thank you for your friendship. I have enjoyed having the chance to come to know you and I hope you will continue to keep in touch with us in the months to come.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the work of the Senate for the current session of Congress begins to wind down, it is good to take a moment to acknowledge and express our appreciation to our friends and colleagues who will be retiring when the final gavel brings to a close the 112th Session of Congress. One friend I know I will miss in the months to come is Kent Conrad. Kent is a hard worker, a Senator who is fully focused on the needs of his home State and the work that needs to be done to address the issues of concern to his constituents. He is a Senator who will always be known as a serious and thoughtful legislator who has a good sense of how today's problems will affect tomorrow's bottom line if we don't act now to bring our economic policies under control. Throughout his career, Kent has never been one to look for the most popular way of doing things. He was more concerned with finding the most productive way of doing things. He knows that what looks like a good idea in the short term doesn't always lead to producing the kind of long term results we must have if we are to strengthen our economy and put the Nation back to work. He has a great sense of what needs to be done now to ensure our children and grandchildren will have the same advantages that we had. That means never putting off until tomorrow what we ought to be doing today to ensure those issues are addressed. In fact, when Kent announced his decision to retire he made mention of that fact and how his time would be better spent working instead of campaigning. Kent has been a part of the Senate for four terms--and I am on my third. Over the years I have enjoyed having a chance to come to know him and his wife. They are a very special couple and they are equally committed to each other and to the future of our Nation. Their shared determination to make this a better country for all of us has helped to make them a team that has left their mark on the Nation's capital. I have had a chance to travel with them both and Diana and I have enjoyed the time we spent together. Kent has a tremendous sense of humor and he has a very interesting outlook on the world. He knows more about the legislation we take up on the Senate Floor than almost anyone else and his understanding of how our bills are written and the impact they will have on our future and our children's future make him someone you would want to be on your side when the battles begin to rage in Committee or on the Floor. Kent is pretty easy to work with and I have enjoyed the opportunities we have had to tackle some pretty difficult issues together. That sense of humor of his has helped him out on a number of occasions when the going got tough. I know, because I have seen him in action as we worked together on several bills. I also co-chaired a Caucus with him. As the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Kent has really revealed his leadership abilities. The Budget Committee provided him with a platform that made it possible for him to speak out on issues that were of great interest and concern to him. He has been a very effective Chairman and he has left a legacy of hard work and positive results that will provide all those who follow him with a good road map to follow that has already proven to be effective. The main thing I think I will always remember about Kent, however, is the way he prepares for his presentations. I don't think there has ever been, nor will there ever be a Senator who is always so well prepared. Kent and I both appreciate the power of a well designed chart or graph. If you really want me to understand how the policy or program you are offering will affect my home State of Wyoming and the Nation as a whole, show me the data in pictures not words. Kent makes a regular habit of doing that, and he does it better than just about anyone else. I know that we will be hearing more from Kent in the months to come. I don't think he views his retirement as an opportunity to stop working, I think he sees it as a chance to take on something new, some great and challenging new adventure in his life. I don't know what he has planned, but I am looking forward to seeing him take it on day by day. Kent has been a friend to so many of us over the years and I know he will be missed. We appreciate his service, we thank him for the way he handled the gavel in his Committee, but most of all we thank him for his friendship, for his love of the Senate and his determination to make the country a better place for us all--both current and future generations. Kent has been an effective Senator for his home State and in so many ways he has succeeded in helping to make North Dakota and our Nation a better place to live. Richard Lugar

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, at the end of each Congress the Senate has a custom of taking a moment to express our appreciation to those members who will be returning home when the gavel brings the current session to a close. This tradition provides us with an opportunity to acknowledge each Senator's efforts and take note of the difference they have made both back home and here in Washington, DC. One Senator I know I will miss in the months to come is Senator Richard Lugar. He has had a great influence on my service here in the Senate. During his six terms of service in the Senate, I know I'm not the only one who learned a great deal from him about how to be the kind of legislator that gets results. I was fortunate to have had someone like Senator Lugar reach out to serve as a mentor to me. When I first arrived, my experience in the Wyoming State Legislature had taught me to enter the legislative battles slowly, taking the time to learn from the seasoned veterans how to be an effective advocate for my home State and the people back home. Senator Lugar proved to be a good choice for me to observe as I tried to pick up on his way of doing things on the floor and in his Committee. I soon learned that Senator Lugar had a style all his own. His demeanor of being quiet and calm in his dealings with other members and the thoughtful presentations he made on the Senate floor made it clear that he always had a strategy in mind as we took up those issues that meant a great deal to him. I shouldn't have been surprised he had such a good understanding of the right way to do things here. It's an indication of one of his great achievements--he's a fellow Eagle Scout. That great training he received in his younger days never left him. His years in the Boy Scouts prepared him for the challenges he had taken on over the years and it taught him the importance of teamwork--bipartisan teamwork--in taking on the issues that were of such great concern to the people of his State. His experience with the Scouts taught him a great deal about life and the importance of holding on to the principles and values that helped to make him a leader back home and here in the Senate. Another aspect of our lives that we have in common is our service as mayor. There are few jobs quite as difficult as that and I have a great deal of respect for anyone who takes on that challenge. I served as mayor of Gillette, Wyoming during a difficult time in its history. Senator Lugar served as mayor of Indianapolis. He brought quite a few good proposals with him and that helped to make it possible for him to do some pretty remarkable things. One accomplishment that stands out was his consolidation of the city and the surrounding county. That helped to make the government work better for the people of the area. His proposals received a great deal of attention and that got his administration noticed. It soon led him to bring his unique brand of leadership to the National League of Cities, where he served as its president. After such a string of successes, it was only natural that he then bring his vision for the future of our Nation to the United States Senate. For six terms he has been a strong voice for the people of his home State on a long list of issues that were of great concern to them. He has been a leader in both the areas of foreign affairs and agriculture. He has been a great friend of rural America as he has worked to ensure that the programs and policies that work so well in urban areas also benefit rural States and communities like those in his home State and mine. He has compiled a legacy during his service in the Senate that should make him very proud. Now Senator Lugar will be returning to his beloved home State. Those are his roots and it represents the kind of experiences that helped to form him over the years. It was a life that made him what he is today-- strong, independent and committed to doing what is right. Now that this chapter of Senator Lugar's life has come to a close, another will soon begin. That is just as it should be for we will miss his leadership on a long list of issues. I hope we continue to hear from him with his thoughtful ideas on the direction we need to follow to turn our economy around. I know I join with our colleagues in thanking Senator Lugar for his service, for the leadership he has provided on more issues than I could ever list in this short reflection on his many years in the Senate, and most of all, for his friendship. That was a great gift that meant a great deal to us all. Olympia Snowe

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it has long been a Senate tradition to take a moment as the current session of Congress draws to a close to express our appreciation and acknowledge the many contributions each retiring Senator has made to our legislative deliberations both on the Floor and in committee. We will miss them when the gavel brings to a close the 112th Congress--especially senators like Olympia Snowe who have made an important difference during their service. With Olympia's retirement Maine has lost a very powerful and effective legislator and our Nation's small business community has lost the support of a great champion. Throughout her service in the Senate Olympia has shown her great understanding of our economy and her commitment to keeping our small businesses strong and vibrant. She knows that our small businesses are truly the backbone of our economies--on the local, State and national level and everything we can do to keep them going strong will have the greatest impact on our efforts to keep our American dream alive and available to the people of our great Nation. Olympia has very strong roots in Maine and she has an in depth understanding of the priorities of the people of her home State and what they expect her to work on here in Washington. That is why she has a well deserved reputation for being a thoughtful and careful legislator, one who looks closely at all the details of a bill before making her decision, based on its merits. I don't think I've ever met a Senator who was a more avid reader than Olympia. Whenever the Senate takes up an issue, she is always looking for more materials to read that will help her develop creative and innovative solutions to our Nation's problems. Then, when the matter comes up for our review in Committee or on the floor, she has at the ready several articles that will drive home and anchor the point she is making. No one is better at researching an issue than Olympia and then, when the matter is up for debate, making it clear what she believes to be the best way to tackle the problem. No matter the topic, it's always a plus to have her on your side. In the years to come, I will always remember Olympia's dedication and firm resolve to get things done. As we worked together on several issues, it was clear she had a wealth of knowledge about how each provision of a bill would play out. She brought some very good ideas to the process and her input helped to make each bill better. Olympia had always been known as a powerful and effective speaker. Someone with the ability to not only present her position with clarity and precision, but who could also persuade others to her point of view with her common sense approach to problem solving. Those skills and so many more helped her to make a difference throughout her home State of Maine during her career in public service. In the end, that is why she was so successful in the politics of her home State. The people of Maine know Olympia and they appreciate her efforts on their behalf. Over the years Olympia has compiled a record of success of which she can truly be proud. I know I join with the people of Maine in telling Olympia how much we appreciate her willingness to serve. She could have followed so many different career paths, but she was determined to make Maine a better place for our children and our grandchildren. Thanks, too, for her friendship and her support on the issues on which we worked together. Olympia is an individual of great strength and firm convictions and will be missed in the months to come. I don't know what the Senator has planned for the next great adventure in her life, but whatever it is I am certain we haven't heard the last from her. We will always be pleased to hear her thoughts about the issues we have before us here in the Senate.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate having this opportunity to join my colleagues in expressing not only my great sadness on the passing of Senator Inouye but my great appreciation of his lifetime of service to his beloved Hawaii and to our Nation. Danny Inouye lived a full and active life, and his great gifts enabled him to make a difference that will continue to be felt for a long time to come. I had the honor of introducing Danny Inouye during one of our Prayer Breakfasts earlier this year. Even though I thought I knew him pretty well, as I read the interviews and personal reflections he had shared on his life, I realized more than before the importance of the role he had played over the years as he worked so very hard to make Hawaii all that it is today. Danny learned at an early age all about the importance of observing the great values that served to help direct his life--love of country, love of family, service to all those who needed his help, and, equally important, service to God. Over the years those great principles helped to make him a leader in every sense of the word as people looked to him for his leadership in difficult times of both war and peace. Over the years, he was often asked about his experience during World War II and the impact it had on him. Danny would begin his reflections when he was a young man, still in high school and pursuing his dream of a career in medicine. As so often happens in our lives, his life was changed forever in a moment that began one morning as he was getting ready for church. He heard a report on his radio that Pearl Harbor was being attacked. Without hesitation, Danny headed over to the base to see what he could do to help those who had been injured. Danny had learned a great deal about first aid, and his skills were put to good use to help those who had been injured that day. That was just the first part of Danny's story and his experience with the war effort of those years. In the days to come it would present him with one of the toughest challenges that anyone could have ever faced as he played an important role in the effort to protect our Nation and restore peace to the world. As he would continue with his story, Danny's war experiences told a powerful and compelling story about what so many of our Nation's veterans have experienced in battle. That is why Danny will always be known as one of our great war heroes. Even with that standard, however, there was something special about him and the courage and bravery he showed on the battlefield. His efforts were so extraordinary they were recognized with a Medal of Honor, one of our Nation's highest awards. They place him on the roster of our most distinguished heroes, and they remind us all of the great sacrifices that he and so many of our veterans have made over the years to keep our Nation strong and free. Thanks to Danny and those with whom he served, we were able to emerge from that world war victorious and bring peace and freedom to those nations that had been overrun by an evil alliance led by a ruthless dictator in Germany. That was just the start of Danny's life, but it had taken a heavy toll from him that would change it forever. With the loss of his arm, it was no longer possible for him to complete his dream of being a surgeon. Those who knew him and his great caring heart urged him to find another field in medicine to pursue. He decided to follow another path, and as we are told in the Bible, God had a hand in helping to direct his steps. As soon as he could, Danny attended George Washington University, my alma mater, and earned his law degree. He then became a part of the effort that would lead Hawaii to statehood. Danny knew the result would bring great changes to his home State and increase the opportunities available to the people who lived there. Thanks in part to Danny, those efforts to achieve statehood were successful, and they resulted in the addition of Hawaii to the roster of our States--and placed another star on the American flag he loved so dearly. Danny knew that statehood would not be the end, it would be just the beginning of the next great chapter in the history of Hawaii. Danny wanted to be a part of that effort, too, so he was encouraged to run to serve as Hawaii's first Representative in the House. He was successful, and his election to the Congress gave him an opportunity to take on another leadership role--crafting the future of his beloved home State. Once again, it brought out the best in him, as he dedicated himself to making Hawaii a better place for all those who called that special place their home. It wasn't long before Danny then ran for and won his election to the U.S. Senate. It began a Senate career that was to enable him to make a difference in more ways than we will ever know. As he served here, he did more than observe history or participate in it--he helped to write it day by day, chapter by chapter. Danny's career has been so active, so full, and so productive, it would be impossible to list all his achievements that make up his legacy of service both here in the Senate and back home in Hawaii. One thing will always stand out in my mind, however--Danny's great loyalty to all those with whom he served. In every sense Danny was a gentleman and a gentle man. He had a quiet and understated way of doing his work day by day. He was man of great kindness, and he shared that kindness with everyone he knew or worked with. His service as a Member of the Senate provided us with a great example of how we should all approach our duties and our work together, putting our country, our God, our family, and our home States first. That is why Senators on both sides of the aisle have come to respect and appreciate him and his character so very much. I will long remember the great friendship and close working relationship he had with Ted Stevens. They shared such a strong bond that they often referred to each other as brothers. He had strong and supportive friendships with other Senators, too, and that is why we will all miss him so very much in the days and months to come. I know I will never forget that Prayer Breakfast and all Danny had to share with us that day. He had a great and powerful faith in God and the special relationship they had built up over the years. It helped strengthen him on the battlefield. It helped to guide his efforts when he was called to serve the people of Hawaii. It gave him a source of inner strength that firmed his resolve as he worked to serve the people of our Nation. By any and all standards, Danny Inouye lived a life we would all be proud of. He packed more into each day than some people experience in a lifetime. Although we had him with us for so many years, it still feels like he was taken from us all too soon. Now we come together to say goodbye to our colleague--confident in the knowledge that he has made a difference in Hawaii and in Washington that will continue to have an impact for many years to come. It is often said but always bears repeating that one person can make a difference in the world that will equal their determination to do so. Danny is the proof of that, and his memory will continue to inspire all those who knew him or will read about him and his great love for the United States of America. As a grandfather, I will also long remember that day just a few years ago when Danny became a grandfather, too--for the first time. It was a day he had long anticipated and looked forward to. It reminded me of how much it means to all grandfathers to hold the next generation of their family in their arms and to be reminded of the great circle of life and all that it means as the memories of the past give way to our hopes for the future. Now that grandchild will proudly carry the legacy Danny Inouye leaves behind to all those who knew and loved him. It is more than a record of great achievements, it is a challenge he leaves to all those who will follow him to dare to try to do even greater things than Danny Inouye has done. God bless and be with you, Danny. Thanks for your service, but most especially thanks for your friendship. Our faith reminds us that we will be parted for only a short time and the day will come when we will see you again. Until that time, you will be greatly missed and you will never be forgotten. Diana and I will keep your family in our prayers. May God bless and be with them all. Tributes to Departing Senators Kent Conrad

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, each year on November 11, we come together as individuals and as a Nation to express our heartfelt gratitude to our veterans for the countless sacrifices they have made over the years on our behalf. Thanks to them, our Nation is strong and free, and our American way of life that we are so justifiably proud of continues to be protected and preserved. Although Veterans Day is over for this year, our appreciation for our veterans should never be over. Specifically, I wish to honor our selfless men and women in the Armed Forces who have served and continue to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom. October 7th marked the 11th year the United States has been fighting the war in Afghanistan, and that is why the Senate recognized October 7th as Operation Enduring Freedom Veterans Day. Much has changed in the world and our lives in the last 11 years, but the United States remains committed to fighting for freedom in Afghanistan. More importantly--our brave military men and women have maintained their commitment to us. They fight to protect us, and to protect our freedoms. The war in Afghanistan is so physically far away; it can be easy to forget and get caught up in our daily lives. I ask every American to not forget our brave men and women are still overseas. I hope those courageous souls never fade from the hearts and minds of the people of the United States. In order to remember and honor the veterans' service in Afghanistan, the United States Senate recognized October 7th as Operation Enduring Freedom Veterans Day. I want to thank Andrew Koenig, a Marine and native of Casper, WY, who reached out to my office with this idea of how to remind Americans of the war in Afghanistan we continue to fight. I thank him for his service and selfless dedication to all veterans and those currently serving. Think of both October 7th and November 11th as a refresher of what it means to be an American. As you do, remember to take the first opportunity you have to thank a veteran for what we have received from their efforts. No one ever gets tired of being appreciated--especially our veterans. The work our veterans began years ago continues today as our brave servicemen and women serve at outposts here in the United States and all over the world. Stationed far from family and friends, they have made a commitment to each one of us that they will do everything they possibly can to keep us safe and protected from harm. Our country is recognized for its freedom and this is due to the men and women who serve in our outstanding military. They are patriotic, compassionate and courageous and set an example for us all to follow. In word and deed our veterans have shown their great love for our country. We are very grateful for their service. Thanks to our country's veterans, the world is a much better place. God bless you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the President, the administration, and the Senate majority have failed to govern during a crucial time for our Nation. There is a willingness to kick our problems down the road, with the hopes that the next election will suddenly inspire action. Rome burned while Nero fiddled. We have had enough fiddling. The President's answer to jobs and the economy was to have his failed budget. Three times it was voted on without a single vote in favor--not even a single Democrat in favor. Over 23 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed. Government regulations and redtape stunt business growth. That is not leadership, that is being asleep at the wheel. Their answer to jobs is a bill with a good title and a poison pill that comes right to the floor, and it is set up so the poison pill cannot be amended out, and then they wonder why the bill does not pass. That is politics. That is not legislating. What is their plan for America? We have yet to see one. The lack of a budget shows they do not have a plan, and inaction remains the status quo. Republicans are prepared to lead today and in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have often said how blessed I am to have found a group of people who are strongly committed to the future of Wyoming, the West, and the United States to serve on my staff. If being a Senate staff were an Olympic event, I have no doubt I would be the coach of one of the Senate dream teams. I believe they would be the gold medal winners. I am that proud of them. Today I wish to express my appreciation to one of my long-time staffers who will be returning home to run a business in Wyoming. She is Wendy Gnehm, and although we are going to miss her, we are also proud of her decision to return home to raise her family with her husband Ed, because there is no better place for families and children than Wyoming. We wish them both the best and we are confident as she is that they have made the right decision. Although Wendy has been part of my staff for quite some time, her family, her husband's family, and my own family have been close for a lot longer than that. Wendy's mother Sharon was the one who first introduced me to Diana, now my wife, on a blind date in Denver when Sharon was in town looking for a bridal gown. It was not long thereafter that Diana was looking for one too, which means we knew Wendy's parents long before she was born. So we have known Wendy for all of her life. I remember when Wendy was in high school. She set her sights on coming to Washington to serve as a page in the House of Representatives. It was a difficult goal, but with her determination, her abilities, and her good grades she was able to make it happen. Wendy's time in Washington as a page must have given her the idea of coming to college here, which she then began to pursue in earnest. So when the time was right, I agreed to write her a letter of recommendation to the George Washington University, as an alum and Wyoming liaison for the school. I was glad to be of help, but Wendy's credentials spoke for themselves and soon she was headed back to Washington, DC, to attend one of the finest schools in the country. Later, when I came to Washington to serve in the Senate, I had a swearing-in reception for friends and extended family to mark the beginning of this new and great adventure in my life. And of course Wendy was there. It was at that reception that she met the son of my college roommate, Skip Gnehm, and they started to date. Their romance blossomed while she served as an intern for me, and it started to occur to them and to Diana and me how all three of our families could soon be permanently intertwined. What a great gift for all of us. Soon Wendy was looking for a wedding gown of her own and she and Ed were married. Not long after their marriage, Ed and Wendy moved to Kuwait to work. They absorbed a great deal of knowledge about the culture and the way of life in the Middle East. When they returned to the United States and made their way back to Washington, DC, I learned that Wendy was looking for a job. At the time I happened to be looking for someone who could help me handle constituent mail and services. She was quickly promoted to legislative assistant specializing in the foreign relations field. I could not think of a better individual to take on those responsibilities than Wendy. I was right. Wendy has been a great help with those difficult issues ever since. She did so well, in fact, that I did not hesitate to expand her responsibilities to include defense, veterans affairs, transportation, and the Judiciary Committee agenda when the opportunity presented itself. Wendy has worked on so many issues of importance over the years--defense, with the focus on the United States Air Force and missile communities, to helping start the Air Force Caucus, veterans health, United Nations reform, Cuba travel, immigration, gun rights, to name a few. She is now my senior legislative assistant, a title and post she has earned with her hard work and determination to make a difference. As my senior legislative assistant, she has been a captain in the legislative office and she has always made herself available to help guide and direct our efforts as a legislative team. She is also there to provide some good advice on the issues that are coming up and how we can best focus our efforts to obtain the results we are working together to achieve. Now she and her husband are packing up and moving to Sheridan, WY, where Wendy grew up. They will be running a business there and providing some good jobs to the community and some support to the local community economy. It is a restaurant, so they will be providing some good food to people in the area too. Although we are sorry to see them go, we could not be happier that they are returning to Wyoming. I always tell the people from Wyoming who come to work for me: Enjoy your Washington experience and learn all you can every day you are here. Tomorrow, when you find yourself married with children, do not hesitate to start looking for a way to get back home. As I said, and it bears repeating because it is one of life's great truths: There is no better place to raise your family than Wyoming, where you were born, where your roots are strong, and your family is nearby to give you the love, guidance, and support that helped to make you the person you are today. Of course, it is no surprise that the place that is calling Wendy home is one of the most beautiful on Earth--Wyoming. In the years to come, Wyoming will teach Wendy's children all about being individuals, trusting in your instincts, about facing the future with confidence and faith. It is a great lesson to be learned, and there is no better place to learn it than the great outdoors and open spaces and magnificent mountains of Wyoming, where life is centered around being a part of the great splendor and creation of God, and with a strong sense of community. For team Enzi, this was a good-news, bad-news moment. The bad news is we are losing a very special staffer, a good friend, and a member of our extended family, someone who has given so much to everyone she has known or worked with here in my office. The good news is we are not only gaining a constituent who knows us and understands the work we do every day, Wyoming is gaining another family that will forever define for others what is so great about being from the West. Diana and I send our best wishes to Wendy, Ed, and their children, who must be looking forward to the opportunity to live the life that made Wendy what she is today. Wendy, we could not be more excited for you and for the great opportunities that lie ahead as you begin the new chapter in your life, the great adventure of coming home to Wyoming. We know we will miss seeing you every day, but when we are back home and traveling around in your area, we will expect to see you at our official functions and when we stop by your new business. May God bless you and be with you and your family. Good luck, Wendy. I yield the floor

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I came over earlier to speak and talk about a dedicated staff person of mine who is moving back to Wyoming, but I had to wait about 30 minutes while I listened to the Senator from Iowa talk about a Romney-Ryan budget. There is no such thing. Governor Romney hasn't put forward a budget for this group. Congressman Ryan, of course, was the chairman of the Budget Committee in the House, and he was obligated to do a budget. He did a budget--something the Senate hasn't done. I don't think we can complain about a budget when we have gone 3 years without a budget. There is a timeline for a budget around here. We are supposed to have a budget finished by April 15 of each year, but we have gone 3 years with no budget. The President submitted his budget to us, and that is what we are supposed to work from in the Budget Committee. I am on the Budget Committee, and we have had a little discussion in the Budget Committee. We haven't gotten to do the budget debate on the floor, which is one with unlimited amendments, but we have gotten to vote on the President's budget. At least Congressman Ryan got some votes for his budget. The President's last two budgets have been voted on by this body and there hasn't even been a single Democrat who was willing to vote for that budget--not a single one. The President couldn't persuade one person from his party to go along with the plan he had for this country. You know what would happen in a corporation if the chairman of the board or the president presented a budget to his board of directors and they rejected it unanimously. He would be looking for a new job. I think I have heard some suggestions along that line. Do we want to continue with out-of-control spending? That is what a budget controls. That is where the caps are put on and it lays out what is the most we can spend. We actually ought to be doing that, as we used to do it, where there were multiple-year caps, and we would be stuck with the far-out caps we projected. It is time we had a balanced budget around here. I applauded the President when he named a deficit commission. That was a great thing. I was a cosponsor on a bill that came before us, and we didn't have enough votes to pass that bill, but the President went ahead and did a deficit commission and he appointed two outstanding people to chair that budget commission--Erskine Bowles, who was the Chief of Staff for President Clinton, and Alan Simpson, who was a long- time Senator from the West, a member of the revenue committee--and they did some diligent work with the commission and came up with a plan. They actually came up with a plan for how we could save America. I heard the Senator from Iowa say: Some of these people who are talking are talking like we are broke. You know what. We are pretty close to broke. When the national debt is the same as the gross national product, we are in trouble. In the United States, every man, woman, and child owes a shade over $50,000. We have been seeing the riots in Greece and Italy. In Italy, they only owe $40,000 per person. In Greece, they only owe $39,000 per person. Yes, we are the most resilient country in the world, and that is why we have a little bit of breathing room. But it is not inhaling time. It is time to figure out what we are going to do about it. I did expect, after the President appointed this deficit commission and when they came back with a report-- and it didn't have enough to force us to have a vote, but it was a report that would solve the situation--I thought for sure at the State of the Union speech the President would paint the same bleak picture they painted in order to get the deficit report they got. But instead, he promoted another stimulus. Had he painted that same bleak picture and at the end of his speech said, I am not telling you tonight how to solve it, but in 2 weeks, when my budget is delivered to the Senate, you will see what the deficit commission said we ought to be doing and we will do it. I think that by about May of that year, we would have hassled through that situation, and we would have adopted most of what they had in that. It would not have been easy. There would have been a little bit of pain, but it would have had a lot of gain. I think, by this point in time, the President would have been a hero--instead of hearing the question: Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago? We can't continue the out-of-control spending we have had. Let me give an example of what we are doing. We are doing it without a budget, but here is what we are doing. The highway bill, that is one of the most important bills--everybody admits--for America. We have to have transportation in this country, and the highway bill is one of the major ways we do that. It creates jobs because people go out and build the roads or repair the roads, and it makes a difference. But here is how we funded the highway bill: In the Finance Committee, I suggested we needed to increase the tax on gasoline. That is the tax that funds the highway trust fund, which is the sole source of money for building the highways before. But we haven't raised that since 1993, and it ran out of money. The deficit commission President Obama appointed suggested we needed to raise the gas tax 5 cents a year for three consecutive years if we wanted to build highways. In the Finance Committee I said, I am going to put in something a little bit more modest to see if we have any support for it. I am going to put in something that just deals with inflation on the gas tax. I was told we wouldn't have a vote in the Finance Committee on it-- and we didn't have a vote in the Finance Committee on it. And when it came to the floor, we did not have a vote on that on the floor because we weren't going to raise any taxes. Well, let me tell you what the bill does: There is a tax increase in the bill. We just didn't talk about it. I talked about it, but not many people talked about it. There is a tax increase in the bill. There is a tax on any private pension fund in America. That goes into a trust fund, supposedly. I have a little problem with what we call trust funds around here, because I don't have trust any of them. That is going into a trust fund so that if a company goes out of business, the people who were promised a pension will get at least 60 percent of what they were promised. That is what that tax is for. That is why we do the tax on private pensions. The Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation guarantees that people will get a portion of what they were promised in a private pension, and so we raised the tax to make sure that would be there. Then, before it got there, we diverted it, we stole it, we stripped it, and we put it in the highway bill. And we didn't just take 2 years' worth. That is how long the bill covers highway construction. It says in the next 2 years all the highways that we will build and how much they will cost. But from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation tax that we increased, we took all of that for 10 years to build 2 years' worth of highways. I don't know of anybody who would consider that to be good financial management. Highways are essential, but that is not good financial management. We have to stop this trend. And we particularly have to stop stealing from trust funds. There is one other source of trust fund in there I am particularly sensitive to. There is an abandoned mine land fund. This is a fund that was set up where coal mines in the West would get an additional tax-- which we agreed to and the companies agreed to. Half of that tax would stay with the State where the coal was mined, and the other half would go to the eastern States to reclaim abandoned mines. It is a good idea. Well, Wyoming mines most of the coal in the United States, so Wyoming gets most of that money. There is a little provision that they stuck in there to affect Wyoming--and I don't think ought to be the sole source of revenue for funding all the highways in the United States, but they took that abandoned mine land money and said that would go into this highway fund. That is a trust fund too. We heard about it at 2:00 in the morning the day before we voted on this bill, and it was a total shock to us that they were giving this to the trust fund that was billed as a massive coalition between the East and the West, between companies and between miners who relied on the companies that went out of business for their health care. And abandoned mine land money takes care of that, too. But they said, Well, for Wyoming we think you get too much money, so we are going to strip out the half that you were promised and didn't get for years and years and years while they took care of their own problems. That is in there too and that is in there for a 10-year period for 2 years' worth of highway construction. So when we say that America is not broke, America is not broke. But it isn't fixed either. It needs to be fixed, and it needs to be fixed legitimately, upfront, telling the people exactly what we are doing. There is going to have to be a lot of things that have to be done in order to do it. I have suggested one way it can be done--and I have tried to cut things before, and I know that if we try to cut a single program, any single program--and we have to cut a lot of programs--that program will inundate Washington with a few good examples of what that program has done, even though audits of it say that is not what happened. But those people will flood here, they will talk to their Senators, we will feel sorry for them, we will approve the program, and we will continue the program. It is almost impossible to cut a program around here. It is hard to cut the amount of increase that program gets, let alone make an actual cut to a program or--Lord help us--eliminate a program altogether. So what are we going to do? I have a 1-percent solution. That is to take 1 penny out of every dollar the American government spends and eliminate that, cut that, save that--1 penny out of every dollar. People across America, when I talk to them about this, say, I have personally had to make a bigger cut than that. I could make 1 percent; the government ought to be able to take 1 percent. And if the government made 1 percent for between 5 and 7 years, our budget would balance. That is a lot of discipline, but it is a little pain for a lot of gain. And I am pretty sure if we were able to do that, at the end of 1 year people would say, You know, that didn't hurt that badly, and we ought to go for 2 and speed this thing up. Because I don't know how much time we have before interest rates go up, and when interest rates go up, they can use up all of the revenue we have from taxes to pay the interest on the loans we have out there. We have tremendous debt out there, and we had better start taking care of it. I have looked at some ways to do that, and I will share those at another time. But I hope I don't hear a lot about the Romney-Ryan budget here on the floor when there hasn't been a budget presented and voted on by the other side. You have got to have the courage to make some cuts. You have got to have the courage to put forward a budget that is on a track--a track somehow to getting us back to solvency. And it better happen pretty fast. So I think I am going to feel sorry for whomever gets elected President, and perhaps whomever is going to be in this body and in the House next year, because it is not going to be a pleasant task. We are going to have to buckle down and do the right thing. I got to meet earlier with the new Prime Minister of Italy, and I was very impressed with him. He was talking about what he has to do right now to pull them out of their deficit. Remember, we owe $50,000 per person. They owe $40,000 per person. They are taking the hard steps. He has laid out a plan, he has talked to the people involved. Over there they have strikes whenever they get upset with the government. He had to talk to some of the labor unions. He said, I talked to them and they went out on strike for 2 hours. Of course, usually a minimum strike is 3 days over there, so he felt pretty good about that. But he said with the changes that he has to make--and it was a reflection on what we are looking at too-- probably none of the people will be there next year. Those in the cabinet who were sitting next to him were a little bit shocked to hear that. I think if he does the plan, people will appreciate the way he is saving their country and they will put him back in again. But we are looking at some difficult times and we need good solutions. It is going to mean working across the aisle to make sure that gets done. Our time is short. But this is the most resilient country in the world, and the rest of the world is relying on America. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, since this is a day of remembrance of 9/ 11, when I started my day this morning, I picked up a book I read from time to time. It is called ``One Simple Act'' by Debbie Macomber, and it is about gratitude and being generous. The very first paragraph I picked up happens to be about 9/11. It says: Watch the Helpers After the bombing of the twin towers at New York's Trade Center, the nation was stunned. Parents didn't know what to say to their children. They'd seen such evil things on television that even adults couldn't put the events into any kind of context. When a few parents wrote to Mr. Rogers, the beloved children's television personality, to ask for advice, Fred Rogers said, ``Tell them to watch the helpers.'' What wise advice. I've thought about his answer many times. When tragedy hits, don't focus on the faces of pain and horror. Let your eyes follow those who are rescuing, feeding, healing, sweeping, comforting, and rebuilding. On 9/11, it was the selfless firefighters who took center stage. They will be remembered long after the evildoers are forgotten. What good advice: Watch the helpers. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I deliver on July 11 at the Brumidi Gold Medal Ceremony be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Joel Bousman who will be inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame later this month at the 100th Wyoming State Fair. Since 1992, Wyoming has recognized the individuals each year who have made substantial contributions to agriculture in our State. This year I have the honor of presenting this award to Joel with my colleague Senator Barrasso. Joel Bousman is a fourth generation rancher and operator of Eastfork Livestock in Boulder, WY. Actively involved in the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, he is admired for his leadership in the State's livestock industry. Having served as regional vice president of the Wyoming Stock Growers and president of the Green River Valley Cattleman's Association, Joel is a determined advocate and defender of agriculture. Wyoming ranchers are known nationwide for their stewardship and Joel leads by example with his own operation and when grazing on public lands. In 2003, he was presented with the Wyoming Stock Growers Environmental Stewardship Award and was most recently presented with the 2011 Guardian of the Range Award. Bousman's nomination letter reads, ``He was a pioneer in initiating grazing monitoring that is conducted jointly by the federal land agencies and the grazing permittees.'' To this day, he remains active in promoting joint efforts to improve grazing and wildlife habitat on Wyoming's working lands. Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame Award recipients are also expected to serve their communities and Joel has been no exception as the chairman of the Sublette County Board of County Commissioners. Joel has not only served his community as a commissioner but has regularly come to Washington to bring his message before congressional committees and directly to Members. Wyoming Governor Matt Mead writes that Joel is, ``a proven leader who is well respected in all circles--from the halls of Congress to the Wyoming Capitol and from the Sublette County Building to a constituent's kitchen table.'' I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize Joel's achievements with Senator Barrasso as a 2012 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, the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Alexander, is far too modest. Yes, I have been working on this since I got to the Senate, but he is the one who got it shortened down to 11 pages and made it a States rights bill. The States are realizing their rights anyway, and there are attempts at making changes in the sales tax law in order to cover this huge loss of revenue they are experiencing, but it doesn't work unless we do what the Supreme Court urged us to do when they issued the Quill decision back in the 1990s, which is to pass a national law that clarifies how this tax would be collected if the States choose to do it. I am very pleased Senator Durbin joined us on this issue. Practically every State is losing money because of the tax that is only being collected for people who buy instate, and when they buy out of State, they are used to it being collected and it isn't collected. So half the time the State is not getting its money, and we need to change that before States come to the Federal Government and say we need some money for this project and then that sometimes gets worked into a bill. We are out of money at the Federal level. We have eliminated earmarks, so we can't do what we used to do, and we probably shouldn't have done it then. At any rate, we are borrowing 42 cents on every $1 we spend, so we don't have any money to give to the States. But the States do have this authority, an authority to do a sales tax. Of course, they didn't anticipate they were just going to tax the businesses that were in their State that were paying a property tax and were hiring local people and were participating in all the community events and telling everybody out of State they didn't have any responsibility in it. There has always been an effort to get their responsibility too. I am glad we have this opportunity to discuss the small business jobs and tax bill, but in this amendment to it--which would be known as the Marketplace Fairness Act--we are talking about fairness. We do expect everybody will be treated fairly. So let's start with a common-day practice that is happening in our Nation's retail markets today. If someone buys the book ``The Hunger Games'' at the local bookshop in town, they will pay more for the book from the brick-and-mortar store than if they bought the book online. There is nothing different about the brick-and-mortar store's book versus the book purchased on the Internet except the sales tax they have to pay. If they choose to do so, States should have the flexibility and the ability to fix this inequality. Sales taxes go directly to State and local governments. They bring in needed revenue for maintaining our schools, fixing our roads, and supporting our law enforcement. As I like to add, have you ever tried to flush your toilet on the Internet? If sales over the Internet continue to go untaxed and electronic commerce continues to soar, revenues to State and local governments will plummet. But if Congress fails to authorize States to collect tax on remote sales and electronic commerce continues to grow, we are implicitly blessing a situation where States will be forced to raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue. Do we want this to happen? No, we don't. The Marketplace Fairness Act was written in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 1992 Quill decision. Congressional involvement is necessary because the ruling stated the thousands of different State and local tax rules were too complicated and onerous to require businesses to collect sales tax unless they had a physical presence-- store, warehouse, et cetera--in the purchaser's home State. The Supreme Court essentially stated Congress needs to decide how to move forward. I strongly believe now is the time for Congress to act. Many Americans don't realize when they buy something online or order something from a catalog from a business outside their own State, they still owe the sales tax. For over a decade, Congress has been debating how to best allow States to collect the sales taxes from online retailers in a way that puts Main Street businesses on a level and fair playing field with the online retailers. The Marketplace Fairness Act empowers States to make the decision themselves. If they choose to collect already existing sales taxes on all purchases, regardless of where the sale was--whether it was online or in a store--they can. If they want to keep it the way they are, the States can do that. I have been working on this sales tax fairness since joining the Senate in 1997. As a former small business owner, it is important to level the playing field for all retailers--in-store, catalog, and online--so an outdated rule for sales tax collection does not adversely impact small businesses and Main Street retailers. As a State legislator, I know we never passed a law, as I said, that discriminated against the instate people. We never put a burden on people who pay the property tax, who hire local residents and participate in the community events while telling those out of State we want them to have our money, but they do not have to do anything in return. We never intended to give the out-of-State businesses a free ride. That is what the local legislators are all concerned about. On November 9, 2011, Senators Durbin, Alexander, Tim Johnson, and I introduced, with six of our other colleagues, in a very bipartisan way, the Marketplace Fairness Act to close this 20-year loophole that distorts the American marketplace by picking winners and losers, by subsidizing some businesses at the expense of other businesses and subsidizing taxpayers at the expense of other taxpayers. All businesses and their retail sales and all consumers and their purchases should be treated equally and fairly. I wish to provide some highlights of what the Marketplace Fairness Act accomplishes: The bill gives States the right to decide to collect or not to collect taxes that are already owed. The legislation would streamline the country's more than 9,000 diverse sales tax jurisdictions and provide two options by which States could begin collecting taxes for online and catalog purchases. The bill gives States two voluntary options that would allow them to collect the State sales taxes that are already owed if they choose. The first option is the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, supported by 24 States that have already passed laws to simplify their tax collection rules. The second option puts in place basic minimum simplification measures States can adopt to make it easier for out-of- State businesses to comply. The bill also carves out small businesses so they are not adversely affected by the new law by exempting businesses with less than $500,000 in sales online or out-of-State sales from collection requirements. It is very important there is an exemption for startup and small businesses if they have less than $500,000 of sales in 1 year. Once they reach the $500,000, then the next year they have to begin collecting the tax. This small business exemption will protect small merchants and give new businesses time to get started. Don't let the critics get away with saying this kind of simplification cannot be done. In the early 1990s, when the Quill decision was handed down, the Internet was still in diapers and cell phones came with bags and looked like bricks. Cell phones now have Internet capability, and software, computers, and technologies have all advanced at an exponential pace. The different rates and jurisdiction problem is no problem for today's programs. As a former mayor and State legislator, I also strongly favor allowing States the authority to require sales and use tax collection from retailers in all sales, if they choose to do so. We need to implement a plan that will allow States to generate revenue using mechanisms already approved by their local leaders. We need to allow States the ability to collect the sales taxes they already require, if enacted. This would provide $23 billion in fiscal relief for the States for which Congress does not have to find an offset. This will give States less of an excuse to come knocking on the Federal door for handouts and will reduce the problem of federally attached strings. It will give States a chance to reduce property taxes or other taxes. The Marketplace Fairness Act is not about new taxes. No one should tax the use of the Internet. No one should tax Internet services. I do, however, have concerns about using the Internet as a sales tax loophole. Sales tax collection is already required by my home State of Wyoming no matter how or where we buy something, if it is not taxed by the State we get it from. We are supposed to fill out our own form and submit the information. Nobody is used to filing that kind of form or doing that kind of tax collection, and they never know whether the tax is owed or how much it is, particularly on small purchases. It is always collected at the stores by the stores in state. We have to make the system simpler so they don't have to fill out forms. Under Wyoming law, online purchases are already subject to a sales tax; it just can't be collected and given to our State. The situation is very similar to that of other States. Senators Durbin, Alexander, and I have worked tirelessly to assist the sellers, States, and local governments to simplify sales and use tax collection and administration. We have worked with all interested parties to find a mutually agreeable legislative package to introduce. Many hours have been dedicated to finding the right solution. I want to publicly commend and thank Senators Durbin and Alexander for taking a leadership role in working on this important policy issue. Ten years ago, the bills we considered to try to close this loophole were not adequate to solve the problem. Marketplace Fairness does solve the problem. It is simple. It is about States' rights. It is about fairness. At a time when States' budgets are under increasing pressure, Congress should give State and local governments the ability to enforce their own laws. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support amendment No. 2496, known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, and get it enacted into public law this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed to be here today to discuss a provision in the conference report that impacts my home State and potentially impacts a number of other states. The provision relates to the abandoned mine land trust fund, and undoes a carefully construed compromise that occurred in 2006 between a coalition of Eastern and Western States, mine workers, and coal companies. This provision was included at the last moment. This pay-for was not in either the Senate version of the Transportation bill, nor was it in the House version. Although it has a tremendous impact on Wyoming, neither Senator Barrasso nor I were consulted about the impact of the provision. We are extremely disappointed that is the case and seek commitments from our colleagues to fix this provision hopefully as a technical correction, but at any rate not later than the end of the year to reconstruct the careful compromise that occurred in 2006. While I respect the work of the conference committee, provisions like this are the reason that Congress is unpopular. I look forward to working with my colleagues to undo this terrible provision and make Wyoming and other impacted states whole.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, it is disappointing that the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the new health care law. Just because it is constitutional doesn't mean it is the best policy, the perfect policy, or even good policy. And just because the Court upheld the law does not change the fact that the American people have overwhelming concerns about it--not all of it but a lot of it. In fact, the Court affirmed that the new health care law is a massive tax increase on the American people. Congress must get serious about fixing our broken health care system. We can start by changing this misguided health care law that has divided the American people and failed to address rising health care costs. Congress should work together to make commonsense, step-by-step health reforms that can truly lower the cost of health care. I was pleased to see that the Supreme Court narrowed the Medicaid expansion because States can't afford them. Hard-working Americans are still struggling in this anemic economy and need real action to make health care more affordable. Reforms do not have to start here in Washington. Our Nation's States are laboratories of democracy and can play a significant role in addressing the health care crisis in America. Governors are in a special position to understand the unique problems facing their States, and fixing health care, like most problems facing our Nation, cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution. Efforts underway by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels provide a great example of what different States are working on. He is moving forward with the Healthy Indiana initiative, which is an affordable insurance program for uninsured State adults aged 19 to 64. Outside Washington, some health insurance companies have already stated they will adopt several reasonable provisions to lower health care costs. These include allowing young adults to be covered until age 26 while on their parent's plan, not charging patients copays for certain care, not imposing lifetime limits, and not implementing retroactive cancellation of health care coverage. They said they would do that regardless of how the Supreme Court case came out. 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, and tackling this issue is a good start to reining in rising health care costs. What is fee for service? This method of payment encourages providers to see as many patients and prescribe as many treatments as possible but does nothing to reward providers who help keep patients healthy. These misaligned incentives drive up costs and hurt patient care. The new health care law championed by President Obama and congressional Democrats did very little to address these problems. The legislation instead relied on a massive expansion of unsustainable government price controls found in fee-for-service Medicare. If we want 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. In the health care bill, we took $500 billion out of Medicare and put it into new programs. Then we appointed an unelected board to suggest cuts that can be made, and the only place left for cuts are providers, hospitals, home health care, nursing homes, and hospice care. I don't think that is where we want to be cutting Medicare. Shifting the health care delivery system from one that pays and delivers services based on volume to one that pays and delivers services based on value is an idea that unites both Republicans and Democrats. We have been mentioning a number of simple steps that can be taken while Congress weighs the larger fixes needed for preventive care. We can encourage insurers to offer plans that focus on delivering health care services by reducing copays for high-value services and increasing copays for low-value or excessive services. Consumer- directed health plans provide another avenue for linking financial and delivery system incentives and have the potential to reduce health care spending by $57 billion a year. Bundled payments will support more efficient and integrated care. All of these options have already been utilized by a number of private sector firms with great success. The Federal Government should be willing to support viable reforms where it is needed, but also refrain from handcuffing innovative private sector designs with excessive regulations or narrow political interests. Our Nation has made great strides in improving the quality of life for all Americans, and we need to remember that every major legislative issue that has helped transform our country was forged in the spirit of compromise and cooperation. These qualities are essential to the success and longevity of crucial programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. But when it comes to health care decisions being made in Washington lately, the only thing the government is doing is increasing partisanship and legislative gridlock. I wish to leave the Senate with some words of wisdom from one of our departed Members, and that is Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, who served in this body. He said in 2001, shortly before he retired: Never pass major legislation that affects most Americans without real bipartisan support. It opens the door to all kinds of political trouble. Senator Moynihan correctly noted that the party that didn't vote for it will criticize the resulting program whenever things go wrong. More importantly, he predicted the measure's very legitimacy will be constantly questioned by a large segment of the population who will never accept it unless it is shown to be a huge success. That is a quote from Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former Senator. Truer words were never spoken. We have seen each of these scenarios play out over the past 2 years as the new health care law polarized the Nation. I hope this distinguished body has the courage to learn from our mistakes, because our Nation needs health care reform, but it has to be done the right way. Providing Americans with access to high- quality affordable health care is something I am confident Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree on. Two-and-a-half years ago, a Democratic President teamed up with a Democratic-led Congress with only Democratic votes to force a piece of legislation on the American people that they never asked for and that has turned out to be as disastrous as predicted. How so? Amid an economic recession, a spiraling Federal debt, and accelerating increases in government health spending, they proposed a bill that has made the problems worse. Americans were promised lower health care costs. They are going up. Americans were promised lower premiums. They are going up. Most Americans were promised their taxes wouldn't change. They are going up. Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected. It was raided to pay for a new entitlement instead. Americans were promised it would create jobs. The CBO predicts it will lead to nearly 1 million fewer jobs. Americans were promised they can keep their plan if they liked it, yet millions have learned that they can't. And the President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax. That was one of the Democrats' top selling points, because they knew it would never get passed if they said it was a tax. The Supreme Court spoke today. It said it is a tax. This law was sold to the American people under deception. But it is not just that the promises about this law were not kept, it is that it has made the problems it was meant to solve even worse. The supposed cure has proved to be worse than the disease. We pass plenty of terrible laws around here that the Court finds constitutional. We need to do some commonsense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, and at a lower cost. That is precisely what I am committed to doing. The American people weren't waiting on the Supreme Court to tell them whether they supported this law. That question was settled 2\1/2\ years ago. The more the American people have learned about this law, the less they have liked it. Now that the Court has ruled, it is time to move beyond the constitutional debate and focus on the primary flaws of this law because of the colossal damage it is doing and has already done to the health care system and to the economy and to the job market, which needs to be turned around. There are things that need to be done and can be done. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I come to floor to talk about a bit of a crisis the United States is in right now. We are out of money, but we are not recognizing that we are out of money. We must make that realization soon. We are going to have to do some work for this country to keep it operating so that the next generation has the same hope as the present generation. I think the best example of where we are is probably this highway bill. Highways are important to this country. We need them to get from one place to another. We need them to move the goods across this country to keep the economy going--highways are extremely important. Highways have always been funded from a gas tax, until now. Using different funding is a prime example of what is about to happen in all of the bills that we do because we have run out of money and we haven't taken the necessary steps to solve that crisis. When the highway bill came to the Finance Committee, I suggested that we ought to change the gas tax so that there was an inflationary rate added each year for the following year. That was the least that I could think of to do for highways. It would have added half a cent a gallon. The price fluctuates at the pump more than half a cent a day. I have to tell you, though, that I really thought there would be strong support for doing something like that, taking a minimal step. I had the amendment devised so that it could be changed easily to increase that amount. The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission said--and this was over a year and a half ago--that for the next 3 years, we needed to raise the gas tax 5 cents per year for 3 years. So we really ought to be at 7\1/2\ cents or 10 cents in increase already. Now, if we did that, the highway bill could be funded from highway funds. And that is a user fee. If you drive, you buy gas. If you buy gas, you pay for the highways on which you drive. I have been talking about this ever since we started on the highway bill, and I have not had anybody say to me: You are wrong, we should not raise the gas tax. I was really surprised. I thought there would be a huge outcry and that I would be in a lot of trouble for suggesting a raise in the gas tax. But America understands we are broke better than Congress understands. Both parties told me we would not vote on my amendment. And we didn't vote on that amendment in committee, and we didn't vote on that amendment on the floor. Of course, by my count, I think I had two Democrats supporting me and two Republicans supporting me, but we didn't even really get to debate it. We should debate it. We should go to the logical spot for highway money, the spot that through the history of highways has been used to fund highways. So where are we getting the money? Well, we did raise the tax on people who have pensions, and that is very important. There is a trust fund--the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has a trust fund to see that if a company goes out of business and it had promised pensions, then the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's trust fund makes up part of that. They do not make up all of it, but they make it part of it. So it is an insurance policy for people across America who have pensions. And we said: That needs a little bit more of a jolt. So we did a couple of things. One of the things was to do some smoothing so companies would not have to put quite as much money into the fund, and therefore they would have maybe more profit, and on the profit they would pay taxes, and we can steal those taxes to put in the highway trust fund so that we can build the highways. We have never stolen money to pay for highways before. Never use the Pension Benefit Guaranty trust before. But this bill does that. And then there is another little bit of money that comes right out of the Pension Benefit Guarantee trust fund that goes into the highway bill. That is the wrong way to do business. We should not violate trust funds. Wait until the seniors who said ``don't touch my Social Security'' realize that Social Security is a trust fund and that we are stealing from trust funds. I think we will hear a furor across this country that will be unmatched if Social Security is touched. So we are not touching that one--yet. We have maxed out our credit cards. You know what a maxed-out credit card is. That is when you buy something and the clerk says: I am sorry, but there is a hold on your card. When you check on it, you find out that you have so much debt with that credit card company that they are not going to let you charge any more. Well, we have maxed out a lot of our credit cards. We are relying on foreign countries to help us out with our debt. There is a problem in Europe right now. The euro is having a real tough strain. Eight of the banks that have a lot of euros have invested that in U.S. bonds because we are the safest place in the world. But if those banks collapse, they will need their money. Between those eight euro banks and the four Japanese banks, that is 40 percent of the money, almost 40 percent of the money we borrow from other countries in order to keep our government going. We are at $16 trillion worth of debt. What is worse, we have quadrupled the bottom line on the Federal Reserve. We have made money--we have printed money to four times the amount of money we had 3 years ago. We are facing some really difficult times, and we are going to have to deed up to those. One of those ways would be to raise the gas tax and to do the highway bill the way the highway bill ought to be done. Now, I mention these trust funds, and I mention them for a very specific reason; that is, they found a trust fund they could violate. They did it very cleverly. They did not mention it to anybody who is going to be affected by the trust fund. Fortunately, there were some diligent people who took a look at that highway trust fund bill, and they said: Wow, they are going after abandoned mine land money in this bill. That is an abandoned mine land trust fund. The money comes from coal that is mined, and the money, the tax on that coal, is supposed to go to fix abandoned mines across the country. The conference report's drafters found $700 million in that trust fund. That trust fund hasn't maxed out its credit cards because, so far, we are still mining coal in this country, and so far there is money going into it. But there are uses for that money that need to be achieved. It helps fix abandoned mine lands. Another use is taking care of orphan miners. I mentioned the pension folks before; when their company goes out of business, they get a little help. Under the abandoned mine land trust fund, if a coal company goes out of business and the miners don't have any health insurance then part of this abandoned mine land money goes to make them whole in the health insurance area. This system was part of a grand coalition that came together to solve some problems that are involved with mining in America. The companies and the employees and the States that were involved said this probably isn't the perfect solution, but it helps a lot of people, so we were going to do it, and we did it. We were able to override a point of order on the budget in order to maintain that trust fund and move the money from the trust fund to where it was supposed to be used. For more than a decade, the money wasn't even taken out of the trust fund, and do you know why? Anytime I asked about it and said we needed some of the money, the government said: Oh, I am sorry. You will have to put some money in there so we can take the money out. I said: What kind of a trust fund do you have to put money into twice before you can get money out? The money already went in there once before. Here is how it works. The money goes into bonds and the bonds go into the drawer and the money gets spent. Think about that. Seniors have been complaining about the Social Security trust fund and how we have been spending money from the Social Security trust fund. They were more clever than most people who are involved in trust funds because they figured it out. The Social Security trust fund has a whole bunch of bonds in the drawer. It doesn't have money in the drawer. But don't worry, those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America, and Europe is about to have a huge problem. It is kind of interesting. In America, every single man, woman, and child owes more than $49,000 in national debt--and it is growing daily. In one meeting I attended, I mentioned that figure and somebody said: Can I pay my $49,000 and not be responsible for the rest of it? I said that is not the way it works. Even if we could do that, that is not the way it works. So it is $49,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. If a child is born today, we can tag him or her with a $49,000 debt immediately. Why is that significant? You have probably watched Greece and Italy. Greece and Italy had to do 19 percent cuts. They cut pension plans 19 percent. They cut employees 19 percent. They cut the number of employees 19 percent. They cut the services they provide by 19 percent. They cut everything by 19 percent. You probably saw there were some riots in their countries. If we cut 19 percent, there would be riots in this country. Here is an interesting fact. In Italy, they only owe $40,000 per person. In Greece, they only owe $39,000 per person. We owe $49,000 per person. We are considered to be the safest place in the world to put your money, and I think that is right--at the moment--and it will change if we don't act soon. If we keep doing what we are doing in the highway trust fund--and it shows better there than any other place I can think of--we won't be a secure place to invest. The way we are fiddling with funds and shuffling credit cards so we are not using the maxed-out ones, has to stop, my friends. With the highway bill before us, the conferees did construct a bill so they could get quite a few votes on it. They put a limit on the amount of money certified states could get from the abandoned mine land trust fund. It doesn't discriminate against very many States. It does discriminate against Wyoming, and so I make a plea that they not do that and remove the section of the bill. Trust fund money needs to go for what the trust fund said the money would go for. Even if they decide to steal from Wyoming--and I hope they don't--but even if they do, the money ought to go into the other States that are a part of the trust fund that need to do mine clean up. Over the 10 years of the bill, it takes about $715 million worth of money from the abandoned mine land trust fun--10 years. I did mention 10 years. There is a reason I mentioned 10 years. This highway bill we are talking about doesn't get all the money from all the places we are stealing from in a short enough period to pay for the highways we are going to build over the life of that bill. After the bill expires and all those things have been built, we will still be trying to collect the money from the sources it has been stolen from in order to pay for what has already been built. OK. What happens when we get to the end of this highway bill, and we are still waiting for all the places we stole the money from to get the money in? Where do we steal the next money from? We better raise the gas tax. We better take a look at what we are doing, and make changes. If there is a user fee--and that is what the gas tax is--if we use the highways, we buy gas; if we buy gas, we pay into the trust fund. We should use the user fee to pay for highways. We have an additional problem that is the user fee is probably diminishing because there are cars that run on electricity now, and that will probably be increasing. Alternative fuels will be increasing, and that will affect how much money goes into the trust fund. But just to meet the immediate needs, there needs to be something done, and stealing from other trust funds is not the way to do it. If we get in the habit of stealing from trust funds, Social Security will have to watch out. Of course, that will be the end of the road for a lot of people in this body if they start stealing from Social Security. But it ought to be the end of the road for people if they are stealing from other trust funds because it starts the habit, and we can't afford that habit.