Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Fairness Act. I want to first thank my colleague Senator Casey from Pennsylvania for cosponsoring this important legislation with me. Promoting small business is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; it is an economic issue that is of even more importance as we consider ways to help improve our Nation's job situation. This bill is just one of many efforts that I hope Congress can consider this year that will help promote the needs of our small businesses on Main Street. This particular issue involves a rule currently in place that prevents agencies from counting their government procurement contracts toward their statutory obligations if a small business is a member of a cooperative or association of other small businesses. While the rule was well intended when it was written, it likely never anticipated the growth of small businesses that pool their resources into teaming agreements to compete for large government contracts. This bill, the Small Business Fairness Act, helps address this issue. The Internet and other resources in recent years have helped small businesses identify and partner with other businesses to make competitive bids for government contracts. Not every small business can meet the contracting needs of federal agencies, however, as a group they can often offer competitive bids for some of the largest government contracts being offered. We know that the Federal Government is one of the largest consumers of products and it is only right to make sure our small businesses can group with other small businesses for their own mutual benefit. The bill is specifically designed to ensure that agencies can do business through teaming agreements with small businesses that qualify through the Small Business Administration as socially or economically disadvantaged firms. This includes businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, women-owned small businesses and firms located in qualified HUBZones. Without this bill, an agency can do business with a small entity through a teaming agreement but cannot count that business towards its statutory obligations for small business set-asides. As a former small business owner and a member of the Small Business Committee, I am a firm believer that small businesses should be able to access government contracts. These contracts help businesses diversify and offer new opportunities for their products. That is why for over 9 years I have helped to host a Procurement Conference in Wyoming where contactors can meet with our State's small businesses to ensure the Federal Government gets the goods and services they need. This bill is a step in the right direction to help our small businesses and I look forward to opportunities to discuss this and other efforts that help our small businesses succeed.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Small Business Fairness Act. I want to first thank my colleague Senator Casey from Pennsylvania for cosponsoring this important legislation with me. Promoting small business is not a Republican or a Democrat issue; it is an economic issue that is of even more importance as we consider ways to help improve our Nation's job situation. This bill is just one of many efforts that I hope Congress can consider this year that will help promote the needs of our small businesses on Main Street. This particular issue involves a rule currently in place that prevents agencies from counting their government procurement contracts toward their statutory obligations if a small business is a member of a cooperative or association of other small businesses. While the rule was well intended when it was written, it likely never anticipated the growth of small businesses that pool their resources into teaming agreements to compete for large government contracts. This bill, the Small Business Fairness Act, helps address this issue. The Internet and other resources in recent years have helped small businesses identify and partner with other businesses to make competitive bids for government contracts. Not every small business can meet the contracting needs of federal agencies, however, as a group they can often offer competitive bids for some of the largest government contracts being offered. We know that the Federal Government is one of the largest consumers of products and it is only right to make sure our small businesses can group with other small businesses for their own mutual benefit. The bill is specifically designed to ensure that agencies can do business through teaming agreements with small businesses that qualify through the Small Business Administration as socially or economically disadvantaged firms. This includes businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, women-owned small businesses and firms located in qualified HUBZones. Without this bill, an agency can do business with a small entity through a teaming agreement but cannot count that business towards its statutory obligations for small business set-asides. As a former small business owner and a member of the Small Business Committee, I am a firm believer that small businesses should be able to access government contracts. These contracts help businesses diversify and offer new opportunities for their products. That is why for over 9 years I have helped to host a Procurement Conference in Wyoming where contactors can meet with our State's small businesses to ensure the Federal Government gets the goods and services they need. This bill is a step in the right direction to help our small businesses and I look forward to opportunities to discuss this and other efforts that help our small businesses succeed.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Tim Johnson, Grassley, and Tester. Without their support this bill would not be possible. We have always enjoyed bipartisan support on this issue and I want to thank them for their work in making sure that our livestock markets remain competitive. Our Nation's ranchers and family farmers aren't looking for handouts when they take their animals to the auction barn, they simply expect that they will receive the price they deserve for the quality they produce. However, there is evidence that there are bad actors out there who stack the deck when it comes to the prices they use in livestock contracts. The Packers & Stockyards Act was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law since that time has provided protection and remedy from manipulative market practices but the growth of our markets in recent decades has opened up opportunities for new abuses that the original law never could have expected. These opportunities for manipulation have developed as our markets have become increasingly more consolidated. The top four firms control over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic doesn't even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry in recent years. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti-competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. Some livestock markets already do this to ensure transparency but there are others who allow transactions to happen behind closed doors. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders. I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem, large packers owning captive supplies, by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements. This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. All our livestock producers are asking for is a level playing field and this bill helps them do what they do best, continue producing the finest meat in the world.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss high gas prices and the direct impact they are having on every American. Every day, we see the impact of high gasoline and diesel prices on our constituents and their pocketbooks. Some wonder if they will be able to put food on the table when they cannot afford the gas it takes to get them to work. Others see skyrocketing food prices caused by the increased fuel costs and wonder if they can afford a healthy meal for their children. Others wonder if they can take a vacation or cool their houses this coming summer. Today, gas prices hover around $4 per gallon. According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, nearly 7 in 10 Americans say that the cost of fuel is causing a financial hardship for their families. That same poll suggested that 21 percent of Americans say the impact of high gasoline prices is so dramatic that their standard of living is jeopardized. This is a serious problem and it needs immediate action. Unfortunately, rather than taking action to address the problem, I am concerned that Congress will once again punt on doing what we need to do to bring prices down now. To bring prices down, we need to address the fact that the United States imports too much oil from foreign nations. We need to increase supply at the same time we work to reduce demand. There are two approaches that have been considered in recent weeks. My Republican colleagues and I have offered legislation that will increase production in the Gulf of Mexico. It will allow for the development of more American energy, which will decrease the amount of oil we import. With unrest in the Middle East, it will start the process of giving America a more stable source of domestic energy, and it will create American jobs at a time when the unemployment rate is 9 percent. Our bill looks at the problem--an unstable supply of energy-- and provides a solution that will make our country more energy independent today. The other approach being considered is that of my Democratic colleagues. Their bill, which failed to move forward yesterday, sought to increase taxes on five companies in the oil industry. Whether or not those tax benefits should exist is worth debating in the context of overall corporate tax reform, but that is not what we are debating today. We all know that their approach to energy policy won't do anything to improve the current situation. In fact, their legislation might make matters worse by leading to less domestic production and a larger increase in gasoline prices. The contrast couldn't be greater. Republicans have put forth thoughtful legislation that will begin to address the problem and help lower gasoline prices. Democrats have put forth punitive legislation that might make some feel good now because it punishes ``Big Oil,'' but ultimately it will not do anything to lower gas prices. Republicans support legislation that will create American jobs. Democrats support legislation that will drive American jobs overseas. Some suggest that our bill will not do anything to lower prices because it will take too long to implement to have a real effect. That is the same argument I have heard since I came to the Senate over 14 years ago. Opponents of domestic production always say that it will not do anything to lower prices today. If we had taken action to open up areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when I came to the Senate in 1997, we would be producing approximately 1 million more barrels of domestic oil today. If we had stopped efforts to lock up the gulf coast 10 years ago as many Republicans suggested, we might not be having this conversation today. And, if we do not do anything today, Senators will still be asking these same questions 10 years from now. And, it might not take 10 years for oil to come online if agencies are not delayed from issuing permits by frivolous lawsuits. The 2006 highway bill included a provision that prohibited lawsuits from being filed more than 180 days after publication of the final permit in the Federal Register. Such a provision should be included in future legislative efforts to move forward with American energy development in a timely manner. With high oil prices, we have an opportunity to act today and we should not let this opportunity pass without action. In addition to lowering gasoline prices, we have the ability to increase revenues to the Federal Treasury today without raising taxes in a punitive manner on one industry. By passing legislation that allows for more domestic production, we will increase revenues to the Federal Treasury at the same time it creates good paying American jobs. In 2008 and 2009, the oil and gas industry paid over $30 billion in rents, royalties, and fees. The industry is estimated to generate approximately $100 million in revenue each day this year to the Federal Government. This amount will only increase as we allow for the production of more domestic energy. With Americans hurting, we need to do something--anything to reduce gasoline prices. But, instead of working on solutions for one of the single most important issues confronting the American people, my colleagues in the majority loudly sings campaign rhetoric chorus and verse. They say, ``let's punish big oil for making big profits'' and ``let's not allow these energy companies to dupe us when Americans are paying record high prices.'' What they do not say is that their approach will do nothing to help the situation and will likely make the situation worse. They do not admit that their proposal is good politics, but bad policy. This is not the way we should legislate when Americans cannot afford to fill up their tanks. We need to do something about energy and we need to do it now. Like most of my colleagues, I support developing more alternative energy. I support the use of wind energy and the development of better solar energy technologies. Wyoming is the perfect place for much of that development to happen. While we need to develop these technologies for the long term, we need of the energy we can get today. We need more American oil from American soil. We need more domestic natural gas. We need more nuclear energy and we definitely need more clean coal. Republicans stand ready to have a serious debate about our country's energy policy. We have offered a proposal that looks at the supply and demand challenges we face and addresses them head on. Republicans stand ready to pass legislation that will lower gasoline prices and will increase domestic production. Those actions will, in turn, create American jobs and will increase revenues to the Federal Treasury at a time when we see record deficits. For too long, we have talked about the need to have a comprehensive energy policy. We have talked about the need to decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources. It is time for us to stop talking and to act. The upcoming vote on S. 953, the Offshore Production and Safety Act, is our first opportunity to act, and I hope my colleagues will join me in working to lower gas prices by passing this measure.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in February the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing on the success of the automatic enrollment provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 which helped millions of workers and their families access to a 401(k) retirement savings accounts. Because of the Pension Protection Act, we greatly expanded retirement savings and individuals ability to put money away for their golden years. Just last week, Fidelity Investments released a report that employer- sponsored retirement plans with an automatic enrollment feature have an overall participation rate of 82 percent compared with only 56 percent without automatic enrollment. The Fidelity report also indicated that average account balances for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts have reached an all-time high. This is some good news to show that workers and their families retirement accounts are coming back from the economic distress of just a few years ago. While our Nation's 401(k) retirement system is providing greater opportunities for individuals to save, there is still room for improvement. Recent studies have shown that money saved in 401(k) accounts sometimes ``leaks'' out of the system and is never put back. AonHewitt released a report this week showing that unpaid loans, withdrawals and cashouts of 401(k) monies, otherwise known as ``leakage,'' can have a substantial effect on how much money ultimately will be there for retirement. According to the AonHewitt report, an individual who ceases to make loan repayments during the loan term is expected to erode future retirement income by 10 to 13 percent. If the individual has two loans and payments are not made then the reduction in retirement savings nearly doubles. In the event of a complete default of the loan, then the monies are permanently gone from the retirement system. Today, I join the Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, Senator Kohl, in taking the first step in helping to stop leakage in the retirement system. Chairman Kohl held a hearing on this very issue and had the Government Accountability Office, GAO, research and come up with recommendations to stop retirement savings leakage. The bill we introduce today, The Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k) Pension Act also known as the SEAL Act, is based upon those initial GAO recommendations. The SEAL Act takes the first steps in helping workers and their families to pay back loans from 401(k) accounts when a worker leaves a job. Typically, when a worker separates from an employer any outstanding 401(k) loan must be paid back immediately or suffer tax penalties. The SEAL Act would allow for a greater period of time for the loan to be paid back thereby helping families to pay back the loan and allowing the monies to be put back into their retirement savings and avoid the tax penalty. The bill also would remove the prohibition against individuals from making contributions to their 401(k) accounts in the following 6 months after a hardship loan has been made. Situations where hardship loans are made are some of the most stressful times for individuals and their families. If they have the ability and means to continue to contribute to their 401(k) accounts then they should be provided that option. The bill gives them the option to continue to save for retirement even in dire circumstances. Finally, the bill would provide structural changes to 401(k) plans to help businesses keep down administrative costs and extra fees. Currently, the Internal Revenue Code permits businesses to structure retirement plans with an unlimited amount of loans per individual but an individual cannot take more than 50 percent of their retirement account balances in loans up to $50,000 for all outstanding loans. The Federal Government's Thrift Savings Plan has a limit of two outstanding loans, one personal loan and one loan for the purchase of a house, at any time. We consulted with retirement experts, mutual funds and retirement service providers and virtually all agreed that the optimal number of loans agreed upon was 3 outstanding loans at any time. Some believed that we should match the Thrift Savings Plan, however, we believe that businesses need to reduce administrative costs but they should be able to provide flexibility to their workers. The bill also would restrict the use of credit and/or debit card loans on 401(k) accounts. Again, these types of loans pull money out in ``reserve'' so that individuals can tap the reserve at any time. However, the extra administrative costs and fees are burdensome to businesses and to their workers. Overall, the SEAL bill is the first step in helping to provide flexibility for individuals and plan structure to help keep retirement monies in retirement savings accounts. I look forward to working with Chairman Kohl in moving this important piece of retirement savings legislation. I also look forward to working with my colleagues to improve and add other items to help reduce leakage in 401(k) retirement savings and to help our Nation's workers and their families have their money there for them at retirement. Each step that we take to stop leakage will mean that individuals will be more financial secure in retirement.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in February the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions held a hearing on the success of the automatic enrollment provisions of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 which helped millions of workers and their families access to a 401(k) retirement savings accounts. Because of the Pension Protection Act, we greatly expanded retirement savings and individuals ability to put money away for their golden years. Just last week, Fidelity Investments released a report that employer- sponsored retirement plans with an automatic enrollment feature have an overall participation rate of 82 percent compared with only 56 percent without automatic enrollment. The Fidelity report also indicated that average account balances for 401(k) and similar retirement accounts have reached an all-time high. This is some good news to show that workers and their families retirement accounts are coming back from the economic distress of just a few years ago. While our Nation's 401(k) retirement system is providing greater opportunities for individuals to save, there is still room for improvement. Recent studies have shown that money saved in 401(k) accounts sometimes ``leaks'' out of the system and is never put back. AonHewitt released a report this week showing that unpaid loans, withdrawals and cashouts of 401(k) monies, otherwise known as ``leakage,'' can have a substantial effect on how much money ultimately will be there for retirement. According to the AonHewitt report, an individual who ceases to make loan repayments during the loan term is expected to erode future retirement income by 10 to 13 percent. If the individual has two loans and payments are not made then the reduction in retirement savings nearly doubles. In the event of a complete default of the loan, then the monies are permanently gone from the retirement system. Today, I join the Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, Senator Kohl, in taking the first step in helping to stop leakage in the retirement system. Chairman Kohl held a hearing on this very issue and had the Government Accountability Office, GAO, research and come up with recommendations to stop retirement savings leakage. The bill we introduce today, The Savings Enhancement by Alleviating Leakage in 401(k) Pension Act also known as the SEAL Act, is based upon those initial GAO recommendations. The SEAL Act takes the first steps in helping workers and their families to pay back loans from 401(k) accounts when a worker leaves a job. Typically, when a worker separates from an employer any outstanding 401(k) loan must be paid back immediately or suffer tax penalties. The SEAL Act would allow for a greater period of time for the loan to be paid back thereby helping families to pay back the loan and allowing the monies to be put back into their retirement savings and avoid the tax penalty. The bill also would remove the prohibition against individuals from making contributions to their 401(k) accounts in the following 6 months after a hardship loan has been made. Situations where hardship loans are made are some of the most stressful times for individuals and their families. If they have the ability and means to continue to contribute to their 401(k) accounts then they should be provided that option. The bill gives them the option to continue to save for retirement even in dire circumstances. Finally, the bill would provide structural changes to 401(k) plans to help businesses keep down administrative costs and extra fees. Currently, the Internal Revenue Code permits businesses to structure retirement plans with an unlimited amount of loans per individual but an individual cannot take more than 50 percent of their retirement account balances in loans up to $50,000 for all outstanding loans. The Federal Government's Thrift Savings Plan has a limit of two outstanding loans, one personal loan and one loan for the purchase of a house, at any time. We consulted with retirement experts, mutual funds and retirement service providers and virtually all agreed that the optimal number of loans agreed upon was 3 outstanding loans at any time. Some believed that we should match the Thrift Savings Plan, however, we believe that businesses need to reduce administrative costs but they should be able to provide flexibility to their workers. The bill also would restrict the use of credit and/or debit card loans on 401(k) accounts. Again, these types of loans pull money out in ``reserve'' so that individuals can tap the reserve at any time. However, the extra administrative costs and fees are burdensome to businesses and to their workers. Overall, the SEAL bill is the first step in helping to provide flexibility for individuals and plan structure to help keep retirement monies in retirement savings accounts. I look forward to working with Chairman Kohl in moving this important piece of retirement savings legislation. I also look forward to working with my colleagues to improve and add other items to help reduce leakage in 401(k) retirement savings and to help our Nation's workers and their families have their money there for them at retirement. Each step that we take to stop leakage will mean that individuals will be more financial secure in retirement.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the growing burdens placed on states by our Federal Government in recent years and how we can stop this trend. Our States have faced many Federal mandates in recent years that have hurt, not helped, the citizenry of our country. In 2009 alone, the Federal Government issued over 3,300 new rules and regulations. This puts the total number of Federal rules and regulations placed on our States and citizens at around 75,000 as of 2010. In addition, incredible price tags have been placed on our citizens due to these laws and regulations. Our country is facing trillions of dollars in debt and forcing further expenses onto our taxpayers is inexcusable. This Federal top-down approach does not encourage a strong economy. States and local governments should have the ability to address the needs of their citizens in ways that actually fix the problem without their hands being tied by burdensome Federal rules, regulations, and laws. I have always believed that the ingenuity of individuals should not be hampered and top-down approaches do just that. As of now, states have one recourse, go through the court system which is already backlogged. No matter who has the political power within our Federal Government, States need to have the ability to force the Federal Government to reconsider laws and regulations that do not support them. Providing states with the option of repealing any Federal law or regulation is the next step. Allowing a repeal option would also institute a check against egregious congressional actions and especially un-elected bureaucratic action. Today, I am introducing the Repeal Amendment to address this issue. My colleague Representative Rob Bishop of Utah is introducing this important piece of legislation in the House of Representatives so that we can give the states a real voice. Allowing States the option to say no will allow them the breathing room to decide what policies are best for them. The Repeal Amendment would allow States to remove unnecessary and burdensome Federal laws and regulations. When 2/3 of the States collectively find a Federal law or regulation so out of touch and destructive, they will have the power to repeal it if they so choose. States must be given back their role as an equal partner in addressing the needs and issues of the people of the United States. The growing Federal Government must be put in check and I believe that the Repeal Amendment will do just that.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the growing burdens placed on states by our Federal Government in recent years and how we can stop this trend. Our States have faced many Federal mandates in recent years that have hurt, not helped, the citizenry of our country. In 2009 alone, the Federal Government issued over 3,300 new rules and regulations. This puts the total number of Federal rules and regulations placed on our States and citizens at around 75,000 as of 2010. In addition, incredible price tags have been placed on our citizens due to these laws and regulations. Our country is facing trillions of dollars in debt and forcing further expenses onto our taxpayers is inexcusable. This Federal top-down approach does not encourage a strong economy. States and local governments should have the ability to address the needs of their citizens in ways that actually fix the problem without their hands being tied by burdensome Federal rules, regulations, and laws. I have always believed that the ingenuity of individuals should not be hampered and top-down approaches do just that. As of now, states have one recourse, go through the court system which is already backlogged. No matter who has the political power within our Federal Government, States need to have the ability to force the Federal Government to reconsider laws and regulations that do not support them. Providing states with the option of repealing any Federal law or regulation is the next step. Allowing a repeal option would also institute a check against egregious congressional actions and especially un-elected bureaucratic action. Today, I am introducing the Repeal Amendment to address this issue. My colleague Representative Rob Bishop of Utah is introducing this important piece of legislation in the House of Representatives so that we can give the states a real voice. Allowing States the option to say no will allow them the breathing room to decide what policies are best for them. The Repeal Amendment would allow States to remove unnecessary and burdensome Federal laws and regulations. When 2/3 of the States collectively find a Federal law or regulation so out of touch and destructive, they will have the power to repeal it if they so choose. States must be given back their role as an equal partner in addressing the needs and issues of the people of the United States. The growing Federal Government must be put in check and I believe that the Repeal Amendment will do just that.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Landrieu known as the Voluntary Protection Program Act. This bill will codify the Voluntary Protection Programs, or VPP, expand it to include more small businesses, and incorporate recent GAO recommendations for program improvements. No program has been more successful in creating such a culture of safety in the workplace than VPP. Since it was created in 1982, Republican and Democrat administrations alike have fostered its growth to more than 2,500 worksites, a quarter of which are unionized, and it covers approximately one million employees. The bipartisan support for VPP continues into this Congress. Last year, the Senate Budget Committee unanimously approved an amendment to preserve VPP budget authority and I have been pleased to work with the Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, on this bill again this Congress. Our bill is also drawing bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Congressmen Tom Petri and Gene Green are introducing companion legislation today and 1 thank them for their strong support on this important issue. Worksites that pass the rigorous evaluation process and become VPP sites have an average Days Away Restricted or Transferred, DART, case rate of 52 percent below the average for its industry. In recent years, smaller worksites have made significant strides in VPP, increasing from 28 percent of VPP sites in 2003 to 44 percent in 2010. The innovative program doesn't just keep employees safer; as I have noted, it also saves both the VPP companies and the taxpayer's money. In 2007, Federal Agency VPP participants saved the government more than $59 million by avoiding injuries and private sector VPP participants saved more than $300 million. The Department of Defense has estimated that it saves between $73,000 and $8.8 million per site because of VPP. Additionally, when workplaces make the significant commitment to safety required by VPP, it allows OSHA to focus its resources where they are most needed. VPP Participant employers contribute a great deal to the VPP program expenditures. VPP participants have assigned approximately 1,200 of their own employees to act as OSHA Special Government Employees, SGEs, who conduct onsite evaluations for OSHA. Despite the strong bipartisan support for VPP and its very positive results, the need for this legislation has become painfully clear. Last year, the administration's fiscal year 2011 Budget Request proposed eliminating the small amount it takes to administer VPP--$3.125 million--and sought to transfer the 35 FTE it takes to run the program to other functions. The failure to complete the appropriations process last year thwarted that plan, and the administration did not renew the request in their fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. I hope that Department of Labor officials will note the bipartisan support VPP has and maintain support for the program. Surely, this proven life and cost-saving program is something we can all get behind. I would like to thank Senator Landrieu for working with me on this important legislation and add the following Senators as original cosponsors: Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Isakson and Sen. Coburn. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Landrieu known as the Voluntary Protection Program Act. This bill will codify the Voluntary Protection Programs, or VPP, expand it to include more small businesses, and incorporate recent GAO recommendations for program improvements. No program has been more successful in creating such a culture of safety in the workplace than VPP. Since it was created in 1982, Republican and Democrat administrations alike have fostered its growth to more than 2,500 worksites, a quarter of which are unionized, and it covers approximately one million employees. The bipartisan support for VPP continues into this Congress. Last year, the Senate Budget Committee unanimously approved an amendment to preserve VPP budget authority and I have been pleased to work with the Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Landrieu, on this bill again this Congress. Our bill is also drawing bipartisan support in the House of Representatives. Congressmen Tom Petri and Gene Green are introducing companion legislation today and 1 thank them for their strong support on this important issue. Worksites that pass the rigorous evaluation process and become VPP sites have an average Days Away Restricted or Transferred, DART, case rate of 52 percent below the average for its industry. In recent years, smaller worksites have made significant strides in VPP, increasing from 28 percent of VPP sites in 2003 to 44 percent in 2010. The innovative program doesn't just keep employees safer; as I have noted, it also saves both the VPP companies and the taxpayer's money. In 2007, Federal Agency VPP participants saved the government more than $59 million by avoiding injuries and private sector VPP participants saved more than $300 million. The Department of Defense has estimated that it saves between $73,000 and $8.8 million per site because of VPP. Additionally, when workplaces make the significant commitment to safety required by VPP, it allows OSHA to focus its resources where they are most needed. VPP Participant employers contribute a great deal to the VPP program expenditures. VPP participants have assigned approximately 1,200 of their own employees to act as OSHA Special Government Employees, SGEs, who conduct onsite evaluations for OSHA. Despite the strong bipartisan support for VPP and its very positive results, the need for this legislation has become painfully clear. Last year, the administration's fiscal year 2011 Budget Request proposed eliminating the small amount it takes to administer VPP--$3.125 million--and sought to transfer the 35 FTE it takes to run the program to other functions. The failure to complete the appropriations process last year thwarted that plan, and the administration did not renew the request in their fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. I hope that Department of Labor officials will note the bipartisan support VPP has and maintain support for the program. Surely, this proven life and cost-saving program is something we can all get behind. I would like to thank Senator Landrieu for working with me on this important legislation and add the following Senators as original cosponsors: Sen. Landrieu, Sen. Isakson and Sen. Coburn. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the other accountant in the Senate. It is nice to have additional help with numbers. It will make a tremendous difference. He has had both the business experience and the accounting experience, and he understands a lot of things that to us in the Senate are pretty simple but to the person working on the ground it is very difficult. He is good at expressing himself and, as I said, particularly good with numbers. So I congratulate him on his maiden speech. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about decisions we need to make about cutting spending, decisions we need to make now. The Congress and the White House have not agreed on how much spending needs to be cut or where the cuts need to come from, but at least we can all agree that spending does need to be cut. Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses for decades have continually increased Federal spending. Change is hard. It can be painful. That is because we have lots of ideas for great programs that would really help people out. But it is absolutely essential that our spending habits take a 180-degree turn starting right now. Tonight at midnight, the government will shut down if Congress does not pass a continuing resolution. This situation can be avoided if decisions are made in the next several hours. The House approved a temporary plan yesterday to fund the government for another week while a longer term deal was worked out. That plan also funds our military through September. It includes language the Democrats have approved in the past and the President has signed. But the full Senate--all Senators, Democrats and Republicans alike--has not been allowed a chance to vote on it. In the Senate, we don't always agree on every line included in a given bill, and we don't get a chance to vote on every line included in a given bill, but I will venture to say most of us can agree on some of them. We can all agree that a government shutdown is not an outcome anyone wants. The bottom line is that talk is cheap, and it is time to stop talking about passing a continuing resolution and take action. Actually, it is action that should have happened last September. Then we could be working on the next year instead of the last year. The House-passed bill gives us such an opportunity. It is the only bill that provides funding for the troops, funds the government, and continues the practice of cutting spending. We are in this position because we do not have a budget from last year, and we do not have completed funding bills for the current fiscal year. The current fiscal year started last October 1--not January 1, last October 1. We were supposed to get that finished up in September so that agencies know what they are going to be spending for the next fiscal year beginning October 1. Without action, the agencies get to spend a proportionate amount of what they spent the previous year. This year, we haven't had nearly the pressure to get a budget done that we have had in previous years. But it is easy to know why. The previous year, the spending increased by 18 percent. So agencies get to continue spending at 18 percent above previous levels until we do something about it. It is far too late to do what we should have done last September, which is make drastic cuts. We have already had 6 months of additional spending, which makes it a little tougher at this time of year because any spending cuts have to be taken out of the total year's revenue beginning now. So a 50-percent decrease in an overall budget now is tough because it is taken from funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. I am an accountant, so I like to explain how funding cuts work. I am especially concerned about our men and women in uniform who are putting their lives on the line for this country. They will be paid despite the shutdown, but their compensation should not have to be delayed. They don't hesitate to defend this country, and we should not hesitate to return that loyalty. I strongly support efforts to make sure military personnel and their families are paid without delay if the government shuts down. I am hearing from servicemembers and their families in Wyoming. They are worried about paying the rent, paying the bills, feeding their children. Some have recently been transferred and are dealing with the expense of moving their families across country or, in some cases, back to the United States. They do not know where the backpay will come from and are not sure what to tell their landlords or their banks. They want and deserve answers. For some time, we have been talking about reining in spending and making sure our grandchildren are not saddled with the enormous debt this country is facing. What we need to do in Washington is live within our means. We have not been doing that, and it shows. We have a $14 trillion debt, and it is growing daily. Does anybody know what 1 trillion is? I will tell you a good start: Write the number ``14'' and put 12 zeros after it. It is a whole different number than 1,000 or 1 million or 1 billion. I saw a kid with a T-shirt that said: Please don't tell them what comes after a trillion. They are worried about it, and they should be. We should all be worried about it. This year we are going to take in $2.2 trillion. That is a lot of money. Unfortunately, we are going to spend $3.7 trillion. Imagine if you are a person who makes about $67,000 a year, and you spend $100,000 a year, each and every year. Where are you going to get the money? Well, for a while you could probably borrow it. That is what we have been doing. We are borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend. That is the only way we can stay afloat--by borrowing 40 cents of every $1. That means the interest on what we owe is $616 million a day--a day. We are haggling over $61 billion in cuts. That would fund the government's interest for 100 days--a drop in the bucket. But we have to start sometime, and the best time to start is now. Yesterday, Britain raised their interest rates one-quarter of a percent. That is not much. Do you know what happens if our bonds go up one-quarter of a percent? We are spending $240 billion--with a B--a year on interest. If it goes up by 1 percent, we are going to spend another $140 billion a year on interest. Interest payments do not buy military equipment. They do not build schools. Interest payments go to other parts of the world, some of which are not our friends. If our interest rates increased by one quarter of one percent, that would be an additional $35 billion owed--$35 billion just in increased interest. If it goes up a whole percent, it is $140 billion. So what we have been talking about is going back to 2008 levels of spending, plus inflation. I have been talking to Wyoming folks who have come out here. March is a big month for people to come to Washington because they all come out for their special programs to make sure we know how important they are. Of course, one disappointment I always have is they think each one of those programs gets a vote. They do not. By the time it gets here, what we get to do is vote for a package that cuts spending or sometimes a package that increases spending. We do not even get to vote on one that keeps spending neutral. In the condition we are in, we have to be voting for the one that cuts spending-- whatever one it is that happens to get to us. Yes, cutting spending is going to inflict some pain on some programs that each of us feels is extremely important. It will affect families. It will affect people. But that is what happens when you get so delayed in outlining what you are going to pay that you are 6 months late. If you were paying your own bills and you were 6 months late paying them, what would your creditors say? They would be a little upset. That is where we are. We are that far behind. It is a dilemma, how to fund the government so it spends within its means. But we are going to have to do that. When I explain where we are and what we have to do and talk about going back to 2008 levels, I have been real pleased that the Wyoming people say: Well, we can live with that. Hopefully, we don't have to go below the 2008 levels. Well, if we were being serious about it, we would. But that is where we are talking about going, the 2008 levels. So that is what we are facing today. The budget forecast for the future is troubling if we make changes now and dire if we do not. With Americans across the county tightening their belts, it is time for the Federal Government to do the same. Folks in Wyoming do understand this concept. Our State is required-- and many States are required--to operate under a balanced budget, and that does not mean borrowing money in order to balance the budget. That means spending less than the revenues you get in any given year. Wyoming is one of the few States that are still operating in the black. We noticed there was a problem, and I want to congratulate Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg for getting together the deficit commission bill. We got a lot of cosponsors on it, and we had a vote on it. We did not have the 60 votes that were necessary to do it. But I applaud the President for picking that up and appointing a deficit commission. I think he had two great cochairs. He had Alan Simpson, a former Senator, and Erskine Bowles, who was the Chief of Staff for President Clinton. They joined with 16 other people to figure out how to get out of this morass. They came up with a plan, a good plan. Their 18-member Commission had to have 14 members in favor of it before they could actually put it into a forced vote for us. They did not get that. They came close, but they did not get that. Of course, I would have liked them to have broken that down, promised they would do all six parts but break it down into six different parts because different people objected to different parts, and there would have been enough support to pass each part. We may have to do that in order to get the same thing done on the Senate floor. I hope we will pursue that. We need to pursue that. It is an absolute must. The President did the right thing appointing the Commission. But we had the State of the Union speech this year, and I thought he would take what the Commission said and make it clear to the United States that we must follow the Commission's recommendations. The President is very good at making things clear, and they gave him a blueprint to make clear. I think everybody in the United States would have understood. In fact, I think a lot of people in the United States understand, even without the explanation. They know if you spend more than you take in, you are going broke. We have been doing it so long we are $14.6 trillion broke. President Obama had another opportunity, which was the budget, and I hoped his budget would reflect what the deficit commission said. One of the things I found was he took some of the savings in tax expenditures that could have resulted in some lower tax rates to increase our international competitiveness and he spent it on new programs. As I mentioned before, everybody has ideas for new programs, and a lot of them are good ideas, and they would have an impact. But we are not even able to afford the programs we already have. I wish to laud Senator Coburn for joining me in asking for a review of duplicative programs. In one department, we found $10 billion worth of duplicative programs. That is not fraud, waste, and abuse. That is people doing the same things as everybody else. I know from working on education that in preschool we have 69 different preschool programs that receive almost as much money as all of kindergarten through high school from the Federal Government. There is a review on which ones are effective and which ones are not, but we do not ever do anything with the ones that are not. We are going to have to start eliminating ineffective programs. Several of my colleagues and I have suggested going back to funding levels enacted in 2008 before the economic stimulus bill became the baseline for government spending. It is time to start making tough choices. If we do not make cuts now, all the scenarios down the road are worse than what we are facing today. Let's stop the partisan banter and concentrate on the job we are here to do. The current discussions between the Congress and the White House are the beginning of America's journey back from the brink of financial ruin. This is the first of many budget engagements. Democrats and Republicans are playing chicken and neither is swerving. There may be a collision tonight, but in the end, amongst the wreckage, smoke, and scattered debris, I know America has to be the one left standing. We can make it easy or we can make it hard. We do need to focus on getting a long-term funding bill passed for the remainder of the fiscal year--not just the next 5 days, the remainder of the fiscal year. Time is running out in that year. If we can get this done, we can start doing the real work; that is, focusing on the Nation's solvency for future generations. Senator Conrad, who is the chairman of the Budget Committee, has said he is not going to start on the next year's budget until we finish this year's appropriations. I think that probably makes sense so you know how much money there is left over. But, wait a minute, there is not any money left over. We are overspending. As a grandpa, I do want to get this done so my grandchildren and other children across the State of Wyoming and across the Nation are not stuck with the consequences of our inaction. I hope everyone here hopes they never have to answer to any of their grandchildren why they had a chance to fix the problem and they did not. I do not think that will happen. I think we will reach an agreement. I hope it is done tonight. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the American dream and honoring those who have not only embodied a pioneering spirit, but more specifically, one individual who inspired two nations through his passionate leadership, and through his dedication to family and pride in tradition. Italian-American Guiseppe Garibaldi lived and fought for the dream of creating his own destiny. All too often today we give little thought to the freedom of deciding who we are, to deciding what we want to be even how and where we raise a family and practice our faith. However, 150 years ago, these decisions meant the world to Mr. Garibaldi. Giuseppe Garibaldi was born in Nice, Italy, on July 4, 1807. In his early twenties, Mr. Garibaldi continued his family's coastal trade business and answered a call of duty to enlist in the military. At the age of 25, Garibaldi's budding leadership was recognized and he was commissioned as a merchant marine captain. Throughout Central and South America, he fought in independence struggles leading the Italian Legion. His success earned him the title ``Hero of Two Worlds'' from the people of Italy and Uruguay. Garibaldi continued to foster his passionate beliefs and soon after leaving South America began learning English and applied for citizenship in America. His request was granted and Garibaldi settled in New York among other notable Italian minds of the time. Not only did he become a community leader for Italian Americans living in Staten Island, he encouraged fellow immigrants to work hard for their dreams and to create true communities with their neighbors, while still embracing family and traditions from Italy. After his time living in the United States, Garibaldi was called upon again to be a military leader. He led the troops at Risorgimento that fought to unite a divided Italy and succeeded in their mission in 1861. This man's great works and leadership helped shift Italy from a dynastic tyranny to a time of political self-determination. Because of this extraordinary accomplishment, President Abraham Lincoln offered Garibaldi a position as Major General of the Union Army. Although Garibaldi declined the impressive commission, the 39th New York Infantry was still known afterward as ``The Garibaldi Guard''--where Italian-Americans fought alongside fellow soldiers to protect the America they loved. Giuseppe Garibaldi was not just a soldier though. He was a husband, father and an active free mason who believed that people should unite as brothers within a nation and as a global community. He encouraged fellow immigrants to persevere through hope and hard work and to be proud of their Italian roots. As an Italian American, I am proud of my heritage and this is why yesterday I introduced a bill today to posthumously award the Congressional Gold Medal to Giuseppe Garibaldi for his life's passions and accomplishments. My bill also commemorates the 150th anniversary of the Republic of Italy, which will be celebrated across Italy and the United States on March 17, 2011. Thank you to Congressman Michael Grimm of New York who is introducing the bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is my hope that this legislation will challenge us all to pause and reflect on the pioneering spirit, family and traditions that have made this great country what it is today.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the legislative climate the United States Senate has found itself operating in. Like many of my colleagues, I began my political career in local government. I was mayor in my hometown and then served as a legislator in the Wyoming State Legislature. It was during this time I learned that the most effective legislation comes from a process that is transparent and focused. For example, the Wyoming State Legislature requires that all bills must be focused on one issue. They cannot be loaded up with random provisions, riders, and add-ons that have nothing to do with the overall legislation. In Congress, we often use omnibus bills to pass multiple legislative items that should be considered on their own merit. Omnibus bills often create more problems in the long run than they solve. Instead of focusing on one policy issue at a time, we have allowed legislative logjams to foul up the Senate's work and ill-considered legislation to be hastily pushed through this institution. These legislative practices, which have become the norm, are a gangrene that eats away at this institution. Legislation that is fundamental to our country's well-being has become politicized and burdened with extraneous provisions that have not been fully vetted through the regular order. Most of the time Members have not had the opportunity to read the bills they are voting on, let alone the public which will have to live under and pay for whatever lurks in the unseen pages. By tolerating this behavior, the Senate is allowing legislation needed to address our Nation's most pressing challenges to go through unrefined and lousy with special interest provisions. To help bring this institution back in line with its original purpose, today I reintroduce my Single Issue Legislation bill. I want this bill to be a starting point for changing the attitude the Senate has toward building bills. It will allow us to focus on getting individual issues addressed more effectively. Specifically, this bill enacts a standing order that creates a point of order against a bill or resolution that is not confined to a single issue. This point of order can only be overruled by a supermajority. My Single Issue Legislation gives the Senate the flexibility in the amendment process it has always enjoyed and allows the Senate as a legislative body to develop the structure and scope of the standing order through practice and precedent rather than through arbitrary rules. At the same time, we ensure that our legislative process is focused and productive. In short, we bring ourselves back to how the Founding Fathers intended and wanted our legislative process to operate. Our job is not to score political points by stuffing as many pet projects and knee-jerk provisions as we can into bills, but rather to represent the needs of our constituents, our States, and our country by doing what is best for us as a nation. We must get back to a better process for crafting and considering legislation so that we can enact effective policies to meet the many challenges we face today. This is why we were elected to serve in the United States Senate. We owe it to the people we represent to work through a process that allows legislation to be properly and thoroughly considered and debated. My Single Issue Legislation bill helps us do just that.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we will soon mark the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ronald Reagan, one of our greatest Presidents. In the days and months to come, in cities and towns all across this great Nation of ours, people will pause for a moment to reflect on the past and remember him, each in their own way, for the greatness in him that inspired a nation. I know he would be humbled by and greatly appreciative of our remembrance of his legacy of service and touched by the great admiration and affection with which we will always remember him. I don't think anyone is a better example of the American dream than Ronald Reagan. He was born in Illinois, the son of a shoe salesman. His mother loved to read and she encouraged him to do the same by reading to him. In books Reagan was able to tap into the wisdom of our Founding Fathers and many other great leaders of our past. What he learned from his reading would help to shape his character and ultimately mold his destiny. It wasn't long before Reagan's natural confidence and his determination to do something with his life began to show itself, first during his school years and later when he pursued a career as an actor. He proved to be a born leader and he took a leadership role at every stage of his life. While in college, he served as student body President. In his acting days he served as the president of the Screen Actors Guild. In between he worked hard and built a career as a successful actor in film and television as he became a familiar face in Hollywood. If that had been all he had done, he would be remembered for his talents and abilities as an actor. He would have earned his reputation for being unafraid of hard work and his life would have inspired others to follow his path just by his success in Hollywood. All of the fame and notoriety that came from his acting days would have been enough for most people, but not for Ronald Reagan. He was just getting warmed up. The best was yet to come. With his beloved wife Nancy by his side, Ronald Reagan began to pursue a bigger dream. He wanted to make an impact on the world that would put him on a bigger stage. He wanted to get more involved in politics and put his principles and values into action in the work that had to be done to solve the problems facing the Nation. His first effort was a run for Governor of California. People thought that was an impossible dream of his and he would never make it. Ronald Reagan proved them wrong--not for the first or the last time. He took his case to the people, put together a coalition of both Republicans and Democrats and when the votes were counted, he had won. I still remember meeting him when I was the president of the Wyoming Jaycees. We held our national convention in California and Ronald Reagan spoke to us. I had a chance to meet him and I was quickly impressed by his personality and his style. He clearly had a way not only with words, but to connect to people one on one. Still, I don't think any of us could have guessed what would happen next in his life. Reagan had his sights set on the Presidency of the United States. He knew it wasn't going to be easy, but for Ronald Reagan the only failure would be to fail to try. He wasn't successful at first, but he never gave up. He kept traveling around the country, speaking to groups, and sharing his message of hope and opportunity with the people who came to hear him speak. This seemed to be another impossible dream, but once again Reagan made it happen. He won the Republican nomination for President, facing an incumbent who spoke often about the terrible problems facing the Nation. Ronald Reagan didn't speak with doubt and uncertainty about the future; he spoke with strong and passionate certainty that things would get better if we all worked together. Unfortunately, optimism will only get you so far--so when the time came for him to take the oath of office, he knew he had a lot of work to do. He often referred to our economic problems as the ``misery index.'' We were in the middle of a time of high unemployment, high interest rates and high inflation. The Nation seemed to have lost its self-confidence and no longer believed that it could dare to do great things--and succeed. The experts all seemed to say that there was little if anything that one person could do to change things and reenergize the Nation. Once again, Ronald Reagan proved the experts wrong. It seemed almost overnight things changed. There was a renewed sense of confidence in our shared destiny as a nation, a new feeling of hope and opportunity about the future, and a return to the spirit of America that had been lost. In just a short time, with his words and his actions, he inspired a generation to look to the future with the kind of confidence that comes from our belief in and commitment to the principles upon which our Nation was founded. I remember those days very well. I was the mayor of Gillette, WY, and when the National League of Cities held its national meeting the President flew to California to speak to our group. I had a chance to meet with him again and enjoyed having an opportunity to speak to him. He was the greatest ambassador for the West and our Western way of life that we have ever had. He understood rural life and because of it he understood the problems of our rural communities. He also understood public service for what it is--service--and he continued to see himself as a public servant throughout his career and his life. I always thought the years he spent living on his ranch in California were responsible for his passion for speaking the truth, regardless of whether or not it was politically expedient to do so. It is a trait that people in Wyoming appreciate and expect from their leaders. It quickly led to some of his best moments. I believe we all have strong memories of Ronald Reagan speaking by the Berlin Wall, taking advantage of the occasion to challenge Mikhail Gorbachev to ``tear down this wall.'' He then went counter to the advice of his staff and referred to the Soviet Union as the ``evil empire.'' For Ronald Reagan, life was that simple. If it was the truth, it must be said for there are two kinds of people in the world--the good guys and the bad guys. If the good guys worked hard and were willing to sacrifice and do whatever it took to succeed, they won. In Ronald Reagan's world, we were the good guys and, during his Presidency, more often than not, we won. Still, no matter how harsh the rhetoric may have seemed, his political opponents always knew that it wasn't personal--it was principle based. That is why, after all that he said, he was still able to form a friendship with Mr. Gorbachev. Our two countries were two of the biggest superpowers in the world and he knew he would have to find a way to keep the lines of communication, trust and understanding open between them, a necessity that gave way to another of his trademark lines, ``Trust but verify.'' Over the years he turned many a phrase that reflected the strength of his character, his sense of humor and more. He had a unique way of expressing complex truths in simple sentences that held great meaning by virtue of their simplicity. Because of his trademark one liners and other famous remarks, he has often been called the Great Communicator, a title that caused Reagan to remark ``I never thought it was my style that made a difference--it was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things.'' Ronald Reagan did communicate great things and he communicated them in a number of ways--most importantly by the way he lived his life. There is an old saying that reminds us that we can play it safe and take the well worn path or we can dare to go where few have gone before and blaze our own trail in life, leaving a path for others to follow. Such was Ronald Reagan's philosophy and by so doing he helped to give us an example of what was possible for us as individuals and for our Nation. In the end, Ronald Reagan will be remembered for many things. He found a cure for an ailing economy. He helped to bring an end to the Cold War. He did all of that and so much more but he also did something else that was to prove to be far more important. He helped us to regain our spirit as Americans. He helped us to regain that great pride we had always had for our heritage. He helped us to believe in ourselves again and in our ability to serve as the leaders of the free world, a title we were always meant to carry. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, it is a title we have carried proudly and with purpose ever since. Through his words and his enthusiasm for life and living, the Great Communicator was able to infuse our country with optimism, patriotism and an unashamed hope for a better tomorrow. Thanks to him, the United States of America became a brighter, better place for us all to live as the impact he had on the world around us continues to be felt to this day. Ronald Reagan's burial site is inscribed with the words he delivered at the opening of his Presidential Library. ``I know in my heart that man is good, that what is right will always eventually triumph and that there is purpose and worth to each and every life.'' As in so many things in life, just like the old show business adage reminds us, he left us wanting more. And that is why he will never be forgotten by those who knew him and those who remember how he touched a generation for the better just by the great strength of his character and the warm gentleness of his soul.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote to repeal the new health care law. Repeal is the only way we can prevent the job losses, insurance premiums increases and devastating Medicare cuts that are a direct consequence of the new health care law. We are just now beginning to see many of the consequences resulting from this poorly conceived, hurriedly drafted 2,700 page law. Rather than taking the time to get it right, the majority rushed to enact this new law, despite the many warning signs pointing out serious flaws in the new law. These consequences are a result of the majority willfully ignoring those who criticized their proposals and deciding that folks in Washington knew what was best for small businesses and families across the country. One example of this kind of unintended but easily predicted consequence is the impact on child only health plans. Last week, my staff conducted a survey, and found that the new law and the regulations implementing it have caused many health insurers to stop selling child only plans. As a direct result of the new law, insurance plans in 34 States have stopped offering child-only plans, and parents in at least 20 states are no longer able to purchase any child only plans. This is a devastating problem for parents who need to buy health insurance plans for their children. Many parents need to buy child only plans for their children, because their jobs provide insurance for them but not for family members. Before the new law took effect, these parents could buy child only policies for their kids. Unfortunately, because of the new law, parents in 20 States no longer have this option. For other parents the cost of getting a family plan is too expensive, and their family budget can only afford to buy health insurance for their kids. Again, because of the new law these parents in 20 States no longer have the ability to buy health insurance for their children. I recently got a letter from a disabled Veteran in Wyoming. He wrote to tell me that because of the new law, he can't get health insurance for his kids. He gets his health care from the VA so he doesn't need a family policy. He needs a policy for his two kids. Because of how the law was drafted and then implemented, this veteran now cannot get health insurance for his children. I discussed this issue with Secretary Sebelius at a hearing last week in the HELP Committee and her reply was that kids can enroll in SCHIP or the new high-risk pools. In fact, the veteran in Wyoming doesn't qualify for either. While some low income kids are eligible for public programs like SCHIP or Medicaid and some sick kids are eligible for high-risk pools, many children are ineligible for any of these plans, and will now go without insurance as a result of the new law. Another unintended but easily predicted consequence of the new law is how the new law is undermining the economy and the preventing the creation of new jobs. During that same HELP Committee hearing, we also heard the testimony of Mr. Joe Olivo, who owns a small printing company in Moorestown, NJ. Mr. Olivo told us how the new law will actually restrict his ability to expand his business and hire new workers. While he currently has 46 employees, he will do everything he can to not hire 5 more people, in order to avoid the new law's mandate to offer health insurance to his employees or pay a new tax. Small businesses across the country are being forced to make similar decisions, in order to avoid the $52 billion in new taxes that the new law attempts to place on employers. A study by the National Federation of Independent Business estimates that the employer mandate will eliminate 1.6 million jobs at a time when over 15 million Americans are searching for new jobs, most of which are small businesses. We need to be encouraging our businesses to grow, not discouraging them. Over the last 2 years our economy has lost almost 3 million jobs. Unfortunately, the health reform law makes a bad employment situation even worse. Another consequence of the new health care law will be to increase the health insurance premiums paid by millions of Americans. During the health care debate, GOP Senators highlighted how the new health care law will cause millions of Americans to pay higher health insurance premiums. In November of 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the new law will increase health insurance premiums by 10 to 13 percent. This means families purchasing coverage on their own will have to pay $2,100 a year more because of the new law. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that many of the new taxes included in the health care reform law will be passed on directly to consumers. This means that each of these new taxes, including the $60 billion tax on health plans, the $20 billion tax on medical devices, and the $27 billion tax on prescription drugs, will further increase premiums for Americans. In addition to CBO and JCT, six additional private actuarial analyses published by Oliver Wyman, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the Hay Group, Milliman, Wellpoint and Lewin have all shown that the new law could increase premiums, with increases ranging as high as 60 percent. Additional studies by Milliman determined that because Medicaid pays doctors and hospitals below costs, these providers must increase their costs to everyone else, thereby costing the average American family an extra $1,700 per year. Forcing 16 million more people on to Medicaid will further increase insurance premiums for many Americans, as providers try to shift the costs resulting from inadequate Medicaid reimbursements The estimates of the law increasing insurance premiums are already being born out in the market. I heard from a small business owner in Saratoga, WY, whose health insurance premiums are going up by 30 percent. A 30-percent increase in health insurance premiums could tip him over the edge of staying in business or closing his doors. He wrote to me to tell me that he is considering closing the doors of his construction company because he is having trouble making ends meet; he urged me to repeal the new health care law. Blue Shield of California--a nonprofit health insurer--recently filed a 59-percent premium increase for some of their individual market plans and said that at least a portion of its increase was a direct result of the new law. They estimate premiums will increase by 4 percent to comply with the new mandated benefit. Another unintended yet easily predicted consequence is the impact of cutting $500 billion from the Medicare Program. You can't cut a program by a $\1/2\ trillion and not expect to see decreases in covered benefits or access to providers. Republicans understand how important Medicare is to nearly 46 million seniors and disabled Americans. We want to protect and strengthen it. We all know Medicare faces tremendous challenges in the near future. Yet the law cuts over $500 billion from Medicare, not to strengthen Medicare, but to fund new entitlement spending. More importantly, the new law fails to address even the most basic problems with the Medicare Program, such as the broken physician payment formula. I have already heard from seniors in Wyoming about how the new law is hurting them. A lady from Thermopolis, WY, wrote to tell me that she got a letter from her Medicare Advantage plan saying her premiums were drastically increasing because of the changes made in the new law. She wrote say ``unfortunately, my former policy was $0. The ones available now--even the most expensive one--have fewer benefits than what I was getting for free before ObamaCare took so much money from Part C. For instance, $45 for a specialist instead of $35; $10 for a generic drug instead of $6; and up to $350 for tests, when the old policy had a flat rate of $16 for tests. I can't afford the premiums on my Social Security and am considering dropping Part B, which would save me $97 per month.'' These are real life examples of the impact this new law is having on everyday Americans. I get letters every day from my constituents asking me to repeal this new health care law that is limiting their freedoms and emptying their pocketbooks. The Senate will soon vote on whether or not to repeal the new health care law. I urge my colleagues to listen to their constituents and vote in favor of repeal. Madam President, we need to pursue a step by step, bipartisan, approach to health reform that will reduce costs, expand coverage and allow our economy to expand. Using that process will allow us to thereby avoid the unintended consequences of this deeply flawed new law.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to explain why I voted against the New START treaty. The U.S. Senate is the deliberative body of Congress. Our forefathers created the Senate so issues of this magnitude are thoroughly considered with all of the facts and with a careful eye on all possible future consequences. With previous treaties of this magnitude, the full Senate has been allowed over a full year to consider what the treaty would require of not only Russia but also the United States. That hasn't happened here, and it is a disconcerting trend. The executive branches of both the Russian and the U.S. governments stated they will not take actions during the negotiations of this treaty that would be contrary to the spirit of the treaty. Both the Russian and U.S. governments recognize the treaty's implementation will take time. The need to get this treaty right is paramount. I am concerned that I haven't had all of my specific questions answered about the treaty. Although members of the Foreign Relations Committee have had the opportunity to consider this treaty and ask many questions, the full Senate has not had the chance to have all of their questions answered. Forcing through a treaty without detailed scrutiny by the full Senate is not how our government should work. Even with post-Cold War threats and adversaries, the nuclear balance between the United States and Russia remains a cornerstone to global non-proliferation. That's why each member of the Senate must determine if he or she believes this treaty will make our Nation safer. We can only do so if we have all the information about the treaty, and we can only make it better if we have the opportunity to fully amend the treaty. During debate, we were repeatedly told that amending the treaty would kill it. That's just not true. Going back and forth on treaties is not new. As with the original START, which was signed in 1991, the U.S. Senate did not accept the first version and required that a better treaty be created. We offered amendments that would have simply required that Russia be more involved in the changes this treaty will require, stressing the importance to the Russian government to create a safe global atmosphere similar to the United States. Those amendments were rejected. Only two amendments, one about modernization of the nuclear weapons complex and one stating that missile defense will proceed, were accepted by unanimous consent. The other amendments were either not considered or failed. It is now up to the Russian Duma to consider the suggested changes by the Senate's amendments and approve them or not. Both countries should be willing to work hard on this front and the best treaties, just like legislative bills, are those that are thoroughly considered by all involved with a willingness to comprehensively address all concerns and needs. Beyond the issues of Senate processes, I have concerns about certain provisions in this treaty. It is impossible to fully consider this treaty without being able to review the full negotiating record, which has not been provided to all senators. Summaries have been provided, but summaries do not include the specific information on how the full implementation of this treaty will be done. As a founding member of the Senate ICBM Coalition, I strongly believe that all three legs of the nuclear triad--missiles, submarines, and bombers--must be maintained in order to retain a highly reliable and credible deterrent nuclear force. This need is even greater as we potentially draw down some of our nuclear forces through the New START treaty. I have worked with other members in the ICBM Coalition and with the administration to encourage them to ensure the treaty does not harm the triad. I appreciated the information provided by the administration on the treaty and the opportunity to meet on this issue during the floor debate. However, I remain deeply concerned about the implications the treaty will have on our country's national security, particularly its potential effects on the current missile force structure. Without the specific information on how the administration is going to implement the treaty and concrete assurances that the current missile force structure of 450 deployed and nondeployed silos be maintained, I remain skeptical of this agreement. F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, WY, helps the United States maintain one leg of the triad by operating part of the ICBM force. It is my obligation as a Senator from Wyoming to know what effects this treaty will have on the missile defense missions in my home state. I also respect and watch out for the servicemembers in the 90th Space Command and 20th Missile Command who work hard to ensure our country has a strong missile defense. I have not yet been able to get a firm commitment from my Senate colleagues and the administration on a concrete number of missiles that will be maintained under this treaty. Furthermore, the treaty will require unilateral reductions from the United States with no similar requirements for Russia. Instead, the Russian government is actually given room to build up its nuclear forces with more modern capabilities. Regardless of this agreement, the United States has not thoroughly addressed the modernization of our country's nuclear capabilities. I have spoken with those involved in the treaty negotiations regarding U.S. modernization. I was told that the modernization efforts are in the works and the funding for these activities is planned. I support this more focused modernization approach. Part of the need for U.S. modernization is to address our Nation's tactical weapons capabilities. As currently written, the treaty will leave Russia in a 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. This is disconcerting and modernization must be a priority. I have concerns about verifiability as well. Former Secretary of State James Baker has described the treaty's verification regime as weaker than its predecessor. If the United States is going to make reductions to our capabilities under this treaty, we should ensure that Russia is doing the same and following the treaty as closely as our country will. We should not settle for some verification--we must require full verification. Second best will do the United States no good in terms of intelligence and response capabilities. Back in 2002, I traveled to Russia with the University of Georgia to talk about nonproliferation. At that time, I expressed serious concerns not only about Russia's capabilities to secure their nuclear complex, but also to ensure that their nuclear scientists and their knowledge did not become available to bad actors like al-Qaida. Ensuring that Russia continues to keep their capabilities and know-how secure is imperative and cannot be left to second best. Our two nations may approach nuclear agreements with different goals, but the fact that the United States and Russian governments maintain a dialogue is a highly positive fact. We need and want the cooperation of our counterparts in Russia in both bilateral and multilateral efforts. This is highlighted in the United Nations Security Council discussions on nuclear weapons development in Iran, North Korea, and other actors. We want and need to create a safer world while maintaining our defensive capabilities for ourselves and our allies. By forcing debate on this treaty during the lame duck session, I do not believe we were able to fully address all concerns in the detail that was warranted. We needed to be sure the treaty does what we expect it to do without any surprises. I am not convinced we will not see any surprises in the future. Thus, I voted against the New START treaty.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to share with you a story of Thanksgiving that touched my heart. I am doing it just before Christmas to have you think about the effect of holidays on people away from home and especially troops stationed away from home and something you might do on a very small scale. Two years ago, a barber in Cheyenne, WY, was cutting the hair of a young man from F. E. Warren Air Force Base and asked him what he was going to do for Thanksgiving. The airman guessed he would be spending it on the base. The barber, Glen Chavez said, Why don't you have Thanksgiving with my wife and I? Then Glen decided he better tell his wife. When he did she said, ``Glen, I know you. It won't be just one and it won't be limited to a dozen. I'll help, but we need to find someplace bigger than our home.'' So Glen asked the Masonic Lodge if he could use their building. They said yes and Glen with the help of some friends fed 300 people from the base. Yes, the base serves a Thanksgiving dinner, but it is not the same if you eat it in the same mess hall you eat in every day. Chavez said he started the event to combat the loneliness that many members of the military feel when they are away from their families during the holidays The dinner was such a success that Glen decided to invite even more for the next year and to have more of the community involved. I am sure there is not a base and city anywhere that has the degree of cooperation and concern as Cheyenne and Warren Air Force Base. For example, people from the base help construct Habitat for Humanity homes. The school district built a new school on the base that also has kids attend who do not live on the base and have no military connection. The mix benefits everyone. Glen spent the year getting ready for this event speaking and enlisting the Chamber of Commerce and speaking at Lions, Rotary, and Kiwanis, to name a few. So this year was the Second Annual Salute to our Troops. Steve Sears of Cheyenne Stitch donated T-shirts for the volunteers. The fire department cooked turkeys. They deep fried seven an hour for the 24 hours before the meal. A service club cooked 750 pounds of potatoes and mashed them. People from all over the community baked pies and cakes. Dozens of other volunteers helped out. Businesses donated door prizes. One prize was a 40-inch HD TV. This Thanksgiving they served over 500 people. This year there was publicity to be sure all were invited. Posters went up all over the base and town. Some of that publicity made it to the blogosphere nationally. Glen got calls from 14 States commenting on the good idea and checking to see if they could duplicate it. Many who called told of personal difficulties, some with tragic endings, that this kind of an event can perhaps prevent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an article about the event from the Wyoming Tribune Eagle to be printed in the Record. I want to thank Glen Chavez, the barber, for his idea and his ability to turn a dream into reality. Thanks also to all who made the dinner and appreciation of our troops possible.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Joe Moore to serve as the U.S. marshal for the district of Wyoming. I was pleased to see that the Senate has given this nomination full and fair consideration. I support Joe Moore's nomination for this important position for Wyoming and am confident that he will do a great service in his capacities as U.S. marshal. Joe Moore is currently the director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security--a position he has served in since it was created in 2003. During his time with the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security, he worked closely with State, local, and Federal officials to respond to and coordinate responses to several major natural disasters. Director Moore has also bolstered Wyoming's homeland security efforts and improved State and local law enforcement activities statewide. Director Moore is a graduate of Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, and prior to his service with the State of Wyoming, he spent 32 years serving in Federal law enforcement. I would like to thank my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for advancing this nomination. The U.S. Marshals Service has a long, distinguished history in our State, and I applaud Director Moore's confirmation to head this agency in Wyoming.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. It is a great pleasure for me to be able to make an announcement from the floor of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to share my joy as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I got an early Christmas present on the day it was expected! On Wednesday, December 15, Allison Quinn McGrady was born to my daughter Emily and husband Mike. I have been able to hold each grandchild on the day they were born. This baby, Allison, was a bit more difficult. I voted in committee and four times on the floor and made a mad dash for Dulles Airport. I flew to Denver. I rented a car and drove to Cheyenne, WY. I got to the hospital. It was late enough all the desks were shut down. I found my way to the maternity ward and got help to find the right room and once again got to hold another grandchild on the day she was born. There is no greater feeling of wonder and awe and appreciation on this planet than to hold another generation in my hands. To welcome a new life to this Earth is always breathtaking--but the thrill a grampa feels is indescribable--it is a feeling--it is incredible love and is only known to those who are also grandparents. As I hold her and she tests this new world with eyes that recognize little, but absorb sights by the moment; as mouth and tongue explore a new atmosphere; as a tiny hand with small fingers opens and closes in a new freedom; I watch changing expressions as tiny ears hear sounds that have been muted before. I now have some instant replay memories of that little face and a moving hand and all those blankets and the tiny stocking cap to hold body heat, locked in my mind. She was 6 pounds 12.5 ounces and 19 inches long. Oh, to see such a miniature person and such a huge miracle! The wonder of life!!! My own first child came into the world almost 3 months early. We didn't get to hold her for over 2 months. We could only watch as she struggled for life. and I am often doing little instant replays in my mind and thanking God for that and the other opportunities he's given me--from finding Diana who became my wife, to learning about prayer with our first child--the daughter who was born premature, who showed us how worthwhile fighting for life is--then the birth of our son, then the birth of our youngest daughter, who just had this baby. And to the birth of my grandson, Trey, and then his sister Lilly--both born to son Brad and his wife, Danielle--followed closely by Mike and Emily's Megan, who just became ``the big sister'' of Allison. The call to let me know I was a grampa again came from 3-year-old Megan Riley McGrady, who enthusiastically said, ``I'm a big sister.'' Gramma wanted the phone to give me some details, but big sister said, ``No, I'm talking to grampa.'' About 6 weeks ago Megan started pointing to her mom's tummy and saying, ``That's my sister Allison.'' They are not sure where Megan came up with the name, but she stuck with the same name all the time-- and the new baby looked like an Allison, so Mike and Emily named her Allison and gave her a good Irish middle name of Quinn. Shortly after our first grandchild was born I found a message on my answer-phone from our youngest daughter who simply said, ``Remember me? I used to be the baby of the family!'' So, now, Diana's and my youngest child, the ``baby of the family'' has had another baby! Emily and her husband, Mike McGrady met at the University of Wyoming. Mike fortunately broke his family's Florida University Gator tradition to come to the University of Wyoming, but it was part of God's plan. Emily and Mike fell in love and got married. Emily worked for the university while Mike went to law school. He clerked for Federal Circuit Judge Terry O'brien and now works in a private practice. Three years ago they called to ask what we were planning for Memorial Day and suggested we might want to be near them for the birth of a grandchild. The Senate was on recess and we were nearby. We were in Wyoming when each of the other two grandchildren were born. This time I wasn't so lucky. I was a nation away, but got back to hold Allison that first day too. I ask to be called Grampa! That is not Grandfather--that would be too stilted for me. The name is also not Grandpa. That's a great title, but still too elevated. Grampa is spelled with an M and no D--Grampa. My grampa was a most memorable person to me. My Grampa Bradley took me on some wonderful adventures. He taught me a lot--fishing, hunting, and work. He believed in work. When I was 4, he ``let'' me help him plant and water trees. He showed me how to chop sagebrush and make flagstone walks. He covered up holes he encouraged me to dig--he covered them so people wouldn't drive a car into them. That was when I was 7. Later he taught me how to spade a garden and mow and trim a lawn ``properly.'' When I was a teenager, he even showed me the point in life when you are supposed to start carrying ``the heavy end of the log.'' He liked to be called Grampa--and I am now delighted to have the opportunity to earn that name. In my opinion, Grampa is the greatest title anyone can have! And I wish I could adequately share with you the joy in my heart! Allison, I want to pass on to you your Great Gramma's admonition: ``Do what is right. Do your best. Treat others as they want to be treated.'' I use that guideline every day and expect everyone on my staff to measure legislation and case work requests by it too. Now, because of you and Trey and Lilly and Megan, I have an additional measure for myself. I don't ever want my grandkids to say, ``My Grampa could have fixed that, but he didn't.'' Allison, I hope I am around to see a lot more of you, to listen to you, to watch as you discover, learn, play, and grow--to get to know you--and especially to visit with you, to hear your dreams, your ideas, your puzzlements, to comfort you through difficulties, and to encourage you in whatever you try. But in case I am not around I have a few things to pass on to you that I hope you will remember and, hopefully, pass on to your children. Be proud of your reputation. That is really all you have that is really yours--although you borrow part of it from those who went before--and you have a debt to those who follow. Learn from the mistakes you make, but, more importantly, learn from the mistakes of others. You don't have time to make them all yourself, and it will save you a lot of grief. When you see something wrong say, ``I hope I never do that!'' and file away a plan to avoid it. And don't do anything you wouldn't want to read about on the front page of the newspaper. Learn everything you can. Read everything you can. See everything you can. Listen for new ideas. Watch for things you can change. Everything can be improved ideas and thoughts as well as things. So while you are at it, invent something that will improve the world or that will help those around you. The most important decision you will make in your life is marriage. My hope is that you will find someone who can be your best friend-- someone you miss when away and enjoy waking up with every morning, someone different enough to cover your weaknesses and strong enough to rely on you for your strengths, someone who shares your faith and someone mutually faithful. Finally and most importantly, find faith in God. There will be times that will try you. With faith you can pray for help through the suffering, and with faith, God will always answer that prayer. No matter what you may have done, or what may have happened to you or to someone you love, there is always a way through the crisis. Don't try to live life on your own strength. No one has ever been that strong. I thank God for helping me through open heart surgery 15 years ago so I might have this chance to hold you in my hands. I think of the Prayer of Jabez in Chronicles where he says, ``Lord, please continue to bless me, indeed,'' and to that I add my thanks for all the blessings, noticed and unnoticed, but especially for this new life. Allison Quinn McGrady, Granddaughter, welcome to this world of promise and hope and faith and love! I am excited to have you in our lives!! I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, At the end of each session of Congress it has long been a tradition in the Senate to take a moment to express our appreciation and say goodbye to those who will not be returning in January for the beginning of the next Congress. One of those I know we will all miss in the months to come is Kit Bond. I still remember the first time Kit Bond was drawn to our attention on a national basis. It was 1974 and then Governor Kit Bond was being honored for his work in state and municipal affairs by the Jaycees as one of the Ten Outstanding Young Americans of that year. He was in his thirties and he was already making his mark in the day to day life of his home State at a time when most people his age were still trying to find the ``right'' career to focus their energies on that would be both challenging and rewarding. After seeing him so recognized and realizing what it meant, I was inspired myself. I have been in awe of him ever since. That honor that Kit received so many years ago proved to be one of the first to come his way during a four-decade career that now includes his service to the people of Missouri on the State and the Federal level. Over the years he has been a champion for the people of his home State and that is why they have elected and reelected him numerous times. Simply put, he has been an outstanding and highly effective legislator. It is no secret. Kit has an amazing resume. Actually, it is more a record of success that lists what he has achieved and the results he has been able to obtain that reflect the work he has been a part of that has helped to make our country a better place for us all to live. Looking back, Kit had already begun to make a name for himself when he graduated from the University of Virginia's law school. He was first in his class and had a number of opportunities awaiting him, some of which he explored, before he returned home to Missouri. Once there he began his career of public service as the State's assistant attorney general under former Senator John Danforth. Soon thereafter Kit won his first statewide race when he was elected to serve as State Auditor. Two years after that, he became the State's first Republican to serve as Governor since the days of World War II. He was also the youngest Governor the State had ever had. As Governor he learned a lot of lessons that stemmed from being a Republican Governor with a general assembly with 70 percent Democratic majorities in both Houses. He has commented that those days taught him a great deal about the meaning of bipartisanship. That is why, when he ran for and won a Senate seat, he soon became known for his ability to work with all of his colleagues on a long list of issues. Over the years, for example, he has been a tireless supporter of our Nation's military. He has also been a fighter for our veterans and their right to the benefits they have earned through their service. Another issue close to his heart has been the need to increase the availability of safe and affordable housing and improve the infrastructure of Missouri and the rest of the Nation. These and many other issues that Kit has taken up during his career reflect his belief in the importance of doing everything we can today to make our tomorrows better for our children and our grandchildren-- since their future is ours, too. I know I am not the only one who will have a moment from time to time next year when I will wish Kit was still around here, walking around with that trademark smile of his, caught up in yet another battle for something he believed in, something he knew would be important to the people of Missouri and the future of our Nation. Fortunately, whenever we feel the need for a little of his advice or an observation or two we will know where to find him--just down the street, back home in Missouri. Now that this chapter of Kit's life has ended, I have no doubt another will soon begin. As Kit pointed out, ``there are many ways to serve'' and ``elective office is only one of them.'' As he leaves the Senate, I would like to thank him for his willingness to serve; his wife Linda for her support and encouragement along the way; his son Sam for his heroic service in our Armed Forces; and all the members of his family who stood behind him over the years. Diana and I send our best wishes and heartfelt appreciation to them all. We especially want to thank Kit and Linda for their friendship and for all they have meant to this Senate family of ours that extends from one corner of our Nation to the other. Keep in touch. We will always enjoy hearing from you with your thoughts about whatever we happen to be taking up on the Senate floor. Good luck and God bless.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, at the end of each session of Congress it has long been a tradition in the Senate to take a moment to express our appreciation and say goodbye to those who will not be returning in January for the beginning of the next Congress. One of those I know I will miss who will be heading home to North Dakota to begin the next chapter of his life is Byron Dorgan. Byron was raised in the ranching and wheat growing region of North Dakota in the town of Regent. Looking back, he has often said that he graduated in the top 10 of his high school class. ``There were nine of us,'' he then adds with a smile. Growing up in a community that was so heavily involved in agriculture gave him an early taste of what rural life is all about. He experienced firsthand the importance of farming to his home State and the hard work associated with taking good care of the land and the resources it provides. He saw the way people who live on farms schedule their days-- working from sunrise to sunset, going from task to task knowing there was always more work to be done than there were hours in the day. It was a lesson about the true meaning of hard work that would stay with him throughout his life and help direct his efforts and his service in the Senate. One issue we shared an interest in and worked together on for years has been sales tax fairness. Byron took his experience as a former tax administrator and I used my background as an accountant to focus our work on the issue. Byron's understanding of our tax system and how it must work efficiently to provide the government with the resources that are needed to fund its operations was very impressive. That should come as no surprise to anyone since he had been appointed the tax commissioner of North Dakota at the age of 26, which made him the youngest constitutional officer in the State's history. We also worked together on the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act. We hope to change our current policies there because for 40 years they have failed to bring about the results we hope to achieve. It was clear to us both that if we wanted to bring our democratic ideas to Cuba to effect the changes we wanted to achieve, we had to find another way to do it. Fortunately, Byron's leadership style and his speaking ability were again a great addition to the effort and helped to win us the support we needed to get things rolling. Looking back on these and other issues, it is clear that Byron's career has been guided by the lessons he learned as he was growing up about the importance of hard work and always giving your best to the task at hand every day. That is why you will always find him fighting for the needs of rural America and promoting a sense of fairness and equity in our tax system. There can be little doubt that he has accomplished a great deal during his service in the Senate. He has been a champion for rural America, and farmers and ranchers not only in North Dakota but all across the country have been grateful for his efforts and the results he has been able to achieve. I don't know what Byron has planned as he begins the next chapter of his life, but I am certain we have not heard the last from him and his wife Kim. They have been a team over the years as they have worked together for the people of North Dakota. They have made a difference, and they have a great deal to show for their efforts. In the coming session, I know we will all miss Byron's effective way of speaking and addressing the concerns of the people of his State. He has a great sense of humor, and his ability to present the case for ``his side'' has won many an argument--some of them before they had even begun. Good luck, Byron. Keep in touch. We will always be pleased to hear from you. George Voinovich Mr. President, at the end of each session of Congress, as is our tradition, we take a moment to say goodbye and express our appreciation to those Members who will be returning home at the end of the year. I know we will miss them and the contributions they have made over the years to the debates and deliberations they have participated in on the Senate floor and in committee. One retiring Member I know I will especially miss is George Voinovich. If ever it could be said of someone that they have never lost touch with their roots, it would be said of George. George was raised on Cleveland's east side, and he still lives there. His dad was an architect, and his mother was a schoolteacher. For his own part, until he was in his teens, George was determined to be a doctor. As he grew up, he found that he didn't get along very well with science, so right about then his direction and his focus changed. Fortunately for Cleveland and all of Ohio, George then decided that someday he would run for mayor and for Governor, which put him on the path that brought him years later to the U.S. Senate. Those were big dreams for someone who up until then had only his success as high school class president to show on his political resume. That was also the time when his fellow classmates voted him most likely to succeed. It must have served as his inspiration because he proved them right. Over the years George proved to be a success at just about everything he set his mind to. That helped him to accomplish just about all that he had predicted and much, much more. As any observer knows, one of the constant themes that runs through George's political career has been his determination to be a good steward of the resources we have been blessed to receive. It unsettles him to see waste of any kind, especially when it comes to our budget and the funds taxpayers all across the country send to Washington to run our government. At each post he has served--mayor, Governor, and now, in the Senate-- people have looked to him for his leadership and his willingness to make the tough choices that must be made if we are to provide our children with a fair chance to live their own version of the American dream. George has warned us more than once. If we continue to spend so much of our children's future resources, we will leave them with a huge debt and an economy so weak and sluggish as to offer them little hope of ever freeing themselves from it. We ought to listen to him and take his advice--for our sake and theirs. George has been a remarkable public servant, and he has served at many different levels of government throughout his career. I know he would be the first to say he wouldn't have been able to do all that without the person he calls the greatest blessing he has received in life by his side. That person is his wife Janet, who has been his greatest source of support and guidance for 48 years. Together they have made a difference wherever they have been. In the years to come, I will always remember and admire all you did as Governor of Ohio with such a perfect First Lady by your side. I have a hunch you were such a great vote-getter because you had an advantage--a lot of people voted for you because they were also voting for her. Looking back, we both served as mayors in our home States. When we did we had to find a way to pay for everything. That is why I always had an appreciation for the way you examined every detail of each issue through the lens of your background and how the people back home would feel about it. Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you both and our thanks and appreciation for all you have done for Ohio and the Nation during your many years of public service. Good luck in all your future endeavors. Keep in touch. You'll be missed. It just won't be the same around here without you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is always a bittersweet moment when the end of a session of Congress draws near and it becomes time for us to say goodbye to those of our colleagues who will be returning home at the end of the year. We know we will miss them when the next session of Congress begins not only for their many contributions to the day-to-day work of the Senate but for their friendship and the good advice they have provided to us for so long as we deliberated issue after issue on the Senate floor. I can't think of anyone who better fits that description than Bob Bennett. Bob was born in Utah, a member of a family who was very active in their community and the government. Bob was therefore blessed with some great role models early on in his life. He soon found he had a talent for business and a great understanding of the needs of businesspeople all over the State and around the Nation. Because of his insights and his ability to promote his good ideas and products, he took his company from a 4-person shop in 1984 to an $82 million company just a few years later with more than 700 newly created staff. With today's economy we can really appreciate that--that is a lot of jobs. From there he decided to take on the challenge of a run for the Senate. As we all know, that first run for the Senate is never easy as it takes more than the vote of a community to make it happen. You have to take your case to every corner of the entire State. That means putting a lot of miles on your car and getting to know people from every city, town, and neighborhood. It wasn't an easy bid for office that brought Bob to Washington. But, in the end, he proved to have what it takes to be a successful candidate. He had a vision for the future of Utah and the United States, a willingness to work hard, and a sense of humor. He took his job and the position he holds of Senator very seriously, but he was never one to take himself too seriously. In fact, he sees his job principally in terms of what he can do to help the people of Utah who elected him. That is why, when he arrived in Washington, he immediately established a reputation as one of the Senate's most influential and sought after conservatives. Like me, he learned at a very young age that it was better to be a workhorse than a showhorse because there is no limit to what you can do if you don't care who gets the credit. Bob never cared about getting his share of the credit; he was always too busy working on the next issue and helping to form another compromise agreement to make sure things continued to get done. Bob has left quite a legacy of achievement during his service in the Senate and a big pair of shoes for those who will follow him to fill. The media knows him not for an assortment of catchy one liners but for his ability to provide easily understood, readily accessible explanations about what was going on in the Senate--and why. No one has a better, clearer understanding of the inner workings of the Senate than Bob does. He has been such a valued resource, in fact, that many of us have sought him out more than a time or two just to get his take on things. One of the things I will most remember about Bob is his love of gadgets. He was the first Senator to drive a high-mileage, low- emissions, gasoline-electric hybrid car. His interest stemmed from his awareness of the importance of conserving energy and the need to pursue solutions to our transportation problems that would make good and wise use of our resources. He was also a leader in encouraging the Senate to tackle a very thorny issue--Social Security. Social Security is a lot like the weather: we all complain about it, we all know something needs to be done about it, and we are all sure we will know the right solution when it appears magically on the Senate doorstep. That wasn't what we should do, as Bob saw it. Then again, he was never one to shy away from getting the conversation started on just about anything. In addition, as fellow small businessmen, we both took a great interest in proposals that were offered by both sides that would have caused problems for other small businessmen who were trying to do what they do best--make a profit and create more jobs. Thanks to Bob, our small business community had a champion in the Senate who was willing to take a stand against efforts to make owning and running your own business more difficult than it already is. Those are just a few short snippets of Bob's record and the great success he has been able to achieve for his constituents and for our great Nation. During his service in the Senate, Bob was not only a part of our Nation's history, he helped to write a new chapter of it every day. Before I close, I want to thank Bob for the great gift of his friendship. It has meant a great deal to me ever since that first day that Diana and I drove our van into Washington from Wyoming, unsure of what the future held for us but excited to begin this great new adventure in our lives. Bob made a difference for us from the first time we met him and Joyce, and we will always be grateful for that. We are very proud of them both and the difference they have made over the years in our lives and so many more. Thanks to their efforts together, the future will be a lot better and a more hopeful place for our children and our grandchildren. I don't know what you have planned for the years to come, but one thing I am certain of--we haven't heard the last from you. That is a good thing. You have proven to be a great success at so many things. You have always been an important addition to our debates and deliberations, and you will be missed. It is good to know you will never be more than a phone call away. Good luck in all your future endeavors, my friend. Keep in touch with us, and we will keep in touch with you. God bless. evan bayh Mr. President, soon the current session of Congress will be gaveled to a close. When that happens, it will also bring to a close the Senate careers of several of our colleagues. I know we will miss them and their spirited participation in our deliberations both in committee and on the floor. I have always said that every Member who comes to the Senate has something to teach us--a message that only they could bring. Evan Bayh, who will be retiring at the end of this session is such an individual. I will always remember him as the young Governor who was able to serve in the Senate without losing sight of his ideals and principles both as a Hoosier and a parent and devoted and loving father. Evan's career in politics began after he had clerked for a judge and practiced law for a while. An opportunity presented itself for him to run for office, and he did, winning an election that made him the secretary of state at the age of 30. In just 2 years he then became the youngest Governor in the Nation. He served in that capacity for 8 years, during which he made a strong reputation for himself as someone who was able to get things done. Then, when term limits prohibited his run for reelection, he set his sights on a Senate seat and again found success. He ran a good campaign, took his case to the people, and they liked what they heard. They also knew him and what he stood for from his previous service to the State. They knew they could send him to Washington to the Senate, and he would champion what they believed in and fight for what was needed during his service there. During his Senate career, you could always find him in the political center looking for a compromise agreement that would benefit everyone involved. I have always thought he would agree that it is better to get a half of the loaf than none at all, especially when the available half was the part that was needed the most. We also agree on something else. When a Democratic win at the polls helped them to obtain control of the Senate, Bayh joined a breakfast group of Senators that was designed to get Republicans and Democrats more involved in a regular dialogue. He understood that by getting both groups to talk more and to get to know each other better in a context that was separate from our legislative duties, the Senate would be more productive and it would be easier to create and promote compromises between the two parties. Now that Evan's Senate career has come to a close, he will be able to do something he has always looked forward to--spend more time with his family. In the end, I think that is one of the things that Evan will always be known for--his great love of his own family and his understanding of the great love all of his constituents have for theirs. He believes everyone deserves their shot at the American dream, no matter their age, and the best way to do that is to be careful and cautious in our approach to any sweeping legislation and to ensure that we do everything we can so our children and grandchildren will have the same chance we have had to reach their goals and live their dreams. Diana joins me in sending our best wishes for a happy and healthy retirement to Evan and his wife Susan. We wish them the best. I don't know what Evan has planned for the future, but one thing I feel certain of--we haven't heard the last from him. Good luck in all your future endeavors and in whatever you decide to do. Keep in touch. George LeMieux Mr. President, each year that brings a session of Congress to an end, it has long been a tradition for the Senate to take a moment to say goodbye to those who will not be returning in January for the beginning of the next session of Congress. One of those I know I will miss who will be heading home to Florida as his term concludes is George LeMieux. It may surprise a lot of people to learn what a powerful presence George has been in the Senate. Although he did not serve a full term of 6 years, the months he has spent representing Florida have been very productive. Simply put, George is an impressive individual who understands the importance of the work we must do to control spending in the years to come and, if we fail to do that, the impact it will have on our Nation and our children as they try to pursue their goals and live the American dream. George grew up in Florida and, like me, he came to Washington, D.C., for his college studies. I graduated from George Washington University, and George graduated from Georgetown University. When he returned home to begin his career, his attendance at a high school reunion proved to be a turning point in his life when he met a former classmate named Meike who soon became his wife. Years later, when an individual of George's talents and abilities was needed to complete the Senate term of Mel Martinez, the Governor knew who would be the right person for the job--George LeMieux. Soon, George was on his way back to Washington, looking forward to the opportunity to use his knowledge, skills, abilities, and professional experience to serve the people of his home State. There were some eyebrows raised when he arrived. Some people thought he wasn't the best candidate for the job. Others thought he didn't have the background necessary to be a productive Senator. It didn't take him long before he proved them all wrong. George not only hit the ground running, but he proved to be a natural and effective legislator. I don't think I have ever seen anyone who has had such an impact on the Senate after such a short time in office. Over the past months, George has not only fulfilled his duties as a Senator, he has taken them to another level as he came up with good ideas for legislation, especially on the need to control spending and reduce the deficit which he has referred to as the ``single greatest threat'' to our future and the prosperity of our people. That is the kind of Senator that George has been--strong, spirited, focused, and determined to speak out about the consequences that will come from not being good stewards of our Nation's financial resources. His concern about our debt and the world we will leave behind for our children and grandchildren means even more to him today now that his Washington experience includes the addition of a fourth child--his first daughter. I don't know what the future holds for you, George, but I do know that we will all be watching with great interest and expectation. You have already established a reputation for hard work that has earned you the friendship of your colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Whatever you decide to do, I am sure you know you can count on us to support and encourage you as you begin the next great adventure of your life. I am hoping it will be as the elected Senator from Florida. You can certainly run on experience. You have done more in months than some do in a career. Diana joins in sending our best wishes to you and Meike. You have made a difference in just a few months, and we are sure there is more to come. Keep in touch when you return home. We will always be pleased to hear from you with your thoughts and suggestions about the legislation being considered by the Senate and what we can do to make it better.