Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the Senator from New Hampshire as well. I have had the pleasure over the years of serving with him and watching him and learning from him, as we did once again today. It is always amazing at these going away speeches that we learn things we did not learn about them during the 18 years they served. So I appreciate Senator McConnell's comments and some new insights there. But I know Senator Gregg at one time moved from being the chair of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to being chair of the Budget Committee, and that gave me the opportunity to be the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. For that I will always be grateful, and I hope I have made good use of the things he taught me when he was in that position. Over the years as we have watched Senator Gregg in action in committee or on the floor we have all learned a lesson or two about how to be a more effective Senator. That is why when I look back on Senator Gregg's career, I will always think of him as one of the best of my Senate mentors. Over my 14 years in the Senate, I have learned more from him than almost anyone else. I know no one knows better how this Senate operates and the procedural details than the Senator does. If I were on the other side of an issue and I saw Senator Judd Gregg getting up to plead his case, I know I would feel a sense of grave concern as I listened to him that would only increase in strength and intensity. It is always a worry for either side when he unfolds, if he might be on the opposite side. But, on the other hand, if he is on the floor to express support for my position, I would sit back, relax, and watch him in action with great relish. He is a brilliant legislator and orator because he is always one to follow the admonition of Rudyard Kipling to ``keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you.'' Once he had determined the right thing to do and how to do it, he would very calmly come up with a plan of action that made it happen, and then follow his strategy step by step without ever wavering from his plan. In all my years of public life, as an observer and a participant, I do not think I have ever worked with anyone quite like him. No one speaks better off the cuff than he does. Even in a few casual remarks, his context and focus showcase his natural talent for the art. He knows the right words to say and how and when to say them for maximum impact. That means more often than not he knew how to present the perfect argument that could not be refuted. Year after year, that great talent has shown itself on the floor and in committee as he took a more and more active role in our deliberations on a long list of subjects, including but not limited to budget reform, education reform, and entitlement reform. He has, for instance, been a very strong supporter of the need for Congress to take action to address the problems currently facing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. This has been most recently evident as the ranking member of the Budget Committee and an active member of the President's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. To put it quite simply, during his service in the Senate, he has been the younger generation's best friend, as he has done everything he possibly could to ensure that our children and grandchildren would have it as good as we did--if not better. Senator Gregg has been a true leader on budget reform issues for his entire public service career. One of his greatest successes as the chairman of the Budget Committee was the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005. It was the first time in 8 years that the Congress took the necessary steps to curb entitlement spending and begin to put our country's fiscal house back in order. In his own words, Senator Gregg said the following on December 21, 2005: This bill represents a reduction in the federal deficit of nearly $40 billion over five years. Yes, there is more to be done, but it is a step in the right direction . . . It is my hope that the Congress will continue the hard work we have done here, by seeking to reduce the rate of growth of government at every opportunity. By focusing on how to make government programs work more effectively and at a lower cost. And by making fiscally responsible decisions about what kind of economic future we want to leave to our children and grandchildren. As an accountant, Senate colleague, and his friend, I could not have been more proud of the bold step Senator Gregg took in addressing our Nation's deficit by drafting, promoting, and ultimately enacting the Deficit Reduction Act. We will miss his leadership on the Budget Committee. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, it was good to have a chance to see how well he worked to get things done in committee. For example, he worked well with Senator Kennedy on creating and passing the No Child Left Behind Act. He was able to bring together Senator Kennedy and President Bush to work on a common goal for our Nation's children and our country's future. What he was able to accomplish during those days has made a difference and it will continue to do so for many years to come. Because of the work he has been such an important part of, countless Americans are living better, more rewarding, and more fulfilling lives all over the country. Needless to say, the people of New Hampshire were very fortunate he was willing to serve in so many posts over the years. I have no doubt his insights on the law and how it affects the people back home come from his experience on every level of our government. Since he first arrived in the Senate, with every trip home his constituents would tell him how the changes in the law were affecting them and their businesses and, if they are like the people of Wyoming, they also gave him some very valuable suggestions on what we could do in the Congress to address their concerns. I always tell my constituents to share their good ideas with me. It is my secret weapon and it really helps me to make a difference. I am sure it has been the same for him. I do not know what he has planned for the coming years, but one thing I feel certain about: We have not heard the last from Judd Gregg. That will be a good thing for all of us, as well as the younger generation who is very concerned about the legacy we are leaving behind for them. As he has pointed out repeatedly, it would not be fair for us to continue to spend their inheritance to such an extent that they will be left with a huge deficit and an economy so slow and weak that they will not have any possibility of paying it off without a great deal of pain and difficulty. They are counting on us to do the right thing to ensure they have the same advantages and ability to access the American dream we have had. There is an old Native American saying: We have not inherited the Earth from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our children. If we follow this lead and use that frame of reference as our guide, we will be able to ensure their future will be as promising as they have every right to expect and demand. As the end of the current session of Congress approaches, I know I am not the first, nor will I be the last to say thank you, Judd, for your willingness to serve the people of New Hampshire and the United States for so long and so well. Most of all, thank you for your friendship and for serving as such a great resource for us all during your service in the Senate. Before I close, I know I would be remiss if I did not also say a quick thank-you to your wife Kathy. As we both know from serving in the Senate, there are a lot of late nights, trips both home and abroad with little notice, and a lot of other things we have to deal with because they come with the job. Our wives never complain, but we both know they have every reason to do so. They probably do not because they know, as well as we do, we could not do what we do without them by our side. They are our greatest supporters, our best friends, our most trusted political advisers, and the ones who always make sure we are heading in the right direction. So while I am thanking you for your service, I think Kathy deserves a word of thanks too. Together you have been a remarkable team, and that is why New Hampshire is so proud to claim both of you as their own. In the days to come, Diana and I will not be the only ones who will miss you and Kathy. Fortunately, we know where to find you--right near the ocean. We had so much fun there when we had the chance to explore it with you both earlier this year. The fishing was pretty good and the scenery was just magnificent. Just let us know when the fish are biting, and we will be there. Come to Wyoming anytime. Good luck in your future. Thanks for all you have done for us. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I allocate to myself such time as I may need.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to voice my opposition to S. 3991, the so-called Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. I have a number of policy and constitutional concerns about this bill, and I have expressed them over the years, but I have never had the opportunity to work with the bill's supporters to address those concerns. Even though this legislation falls within the HELP Committee's jurisdiction, the committee has never held a hearing on the bill and has only marked it up without amendment or written report--and that was years ago--and this is not the same bill we are considering today. An objective consideration of this bill reveals it is based on poorly reasoned policy. Over the last 7 years, the proponents of this bill have only brought it directly to the floor and purposefully circumvented the regular order of the Senate and its committee processes, perhaps because the scrutiny of that process would expose the multiple flaws in this legislation. Rather than addressing this bill on its merits, its proponents have decided, once again, to play the sound bite game. Their calculation is simple: Since this bill involves unions that organize among police and firefighters, they will continue to simply claim that anyone who opposes this bill is against police and firefighters. Let us address that calculated untruth first. There is no one I know of--Republican or Democrat, supporter or opponent of this bill--who does not respect and value the work and dedication of our police, firefighters, first responders, and other public safety professionals. Their contributions to our communities are immeasurable, and our support of them is unwavering. However, this bill provides no direct benefit to any police officer, firefighter or first responder. It doesn't provide a dime in Federal money to any State, city or town to hire, to train or to equip any additional public safety personnel. In fact, it simply imposes costs that will make that result less likely. It is arguably one of the biggest and most dangerous unfunded mandates the Federal Government has ever imposed. In fact, there are a number of law enforcement groups opposing this bill: the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the Fraternal Order of Police have all come out against S. 3991. I think we have to ask: If all these law enforcement groups oppose the bill, is it a good idea to pass it in the last days of a lameduck Congress? Plain and simple, the only direct beneficiaries of this legislation are labor unions. You see, while unionization in the private sector has been on a historical down trend, unionization in the public sector has been increasing. In 2009, 37.4 percent of public sector employees were unionized compared to 7.2 percent in the private sector. Government workers are now five times more likely to belong to a union. For the first time in our country's history, the majority of union members are public sector employees, not private sector employees. Public sector unions have been the only area of growth for unions for many years, and as we all know, organizations need to grow to survive. Let me now turn for a moment to some of the serious and fundamental problems with this legislation. For over 70 years, a hallmark of our Nation's labor policy has been the principle that employment and labor relations between a State, city or town, and its own employees, should not be a matter of Federal law, but a matter of local law. That bedrock principle is not only rooted in our national labor policy, it is firmly fixed in our Constitution and our traditions of federalism. Yet today the proponents of this bill seek to overturn this hallmark principle and to radically change decades of unbroken Federal law and policy. The enormity of this change is only matched by the prospect that it could occur as a result of total disregard for processes of the Senate and the complete absence of any meaningful opportunity for modification. You would think the Senate would consider such a bill only after careful examination and due deliberation. Sadly, you would be wrong. This legislation has not had a Senate Committee hearing or markup this Congress or the two Congresses before this one. The HELP Committee has never held a hearing on this bill. The bill grants enormous power over States to a virtually unknown Federal agency. Yet we have never so much as asked a representative sampling of State officials for their views, nor have we ever even been informally asked the Federal agency involved if it feels up to the job we would impose on it. These shortcomings alone show that this bill is being pushed not because it is good policy, but because some see it as expedient politics. This bill would require that every State, city and town with more than 5,000 residents open its police, firefighters and first responders to unionization. It would impose this Federal mandate not in the absence of any State consideration of this issue, but in direct opposition to the legislative will of several States. Proponents of this legislation have attempted to maintain the fiction that it actually does little to disturb State laws. That is simply not the case. This bill would expressly overturn the law in 22 States. In fact, 16 States have specifically considered and rejected legislative proposals similar to the law that would be federally imposed under this bill in recent years. Some States, such as Wyoming, have chosen to either extend collective bargaining in a more limited manner than the bill before us would mandate, or not to extend it at all. In this second chart, proponents of this bill have told Senators from States that do have ``full'' public sector collective-bargaining laws that this bill would not change anything in their respective home States. However, labor experts have identified at least 12 of those States where the viability of one or more provisions of their own current State law would be in question if this bill were enacted. That is the yellow States. Supporters of the bill base their argument on a provision which allows the Federal Board that will be ruling over all these States to ignore instances where the State law is not as broad as the Federal mandate if ``both parties'' agree that it is sufficient. Make no mistake, this provision is completely hollow. First, there are hundreds of thousands of ``parties'' that will have the authority to agree or disagree about the sufficiency of a State's law. Every public safety officer and his or her employer will have this authority. The term ``public safety officer'' is so broadly defined in this bill that many employee groups that may surprise you meet the definition, such as paramedics, lifeguards, security guards and more. What are the odds of all of these groups agreeing to look the other way? Further, anyone who has ever been a party to negotiation knows about leverage. The ability to place one phone call and have an entire State's law on a subject overturned and taken over by the Federal Government is some of the most powerful leverage I have ever heard of. Let's be completely clear about what this legislation would do. A vote for this bill is a vote to overturn the law and the democratic will of the citizens of many of our States, and to invalidate the democratic action of their voters and legislators. This is very important. That is why mayors of major U.S. cities that already provide collective bargaining rights also oppose the bill. New York City Mayor Bloomberg, along with the mayors of Boston, Cleveland, Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Philadelphia and Mesa, AZ, all wrote to the Senate yesterday asking us not to enact this poorly thought out bill. And it is not just the chief executives objecting. Major newspapers across the country such as the Denver Post, the Richmond-Times Dispatch and the Washington Post have editorialized against this proposal. I ask unanimous consent that these materials be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. ENZI. I formerly served as the mayor of Gillette, WY, a city of 20,000 people. As I look around this Chamber there are too few here that have any experience with trying to balance a budget for a city or town, which may explain why this unfunded mandate proposal is being brought up with so little attention given to how it will increase the dire financial situation of States and municipalities. A recent report by the National League of Cities found that municipalities will face a shortfall between $56 billion and $83 billion from 2010 to 2012. Headlines across the country confirm that city leaders are responding to deficits with layoffs, furloughs, payroll deductions and cutting city services, all of which will impact police, fire and emergency services departments. This week it was Camden, NJ, laying off 383 employees, including 67 firefighters and up to 180 police officers. Another survey found 87 percent of city finance officers said that they were less able to meet the city's fiscal needs in 2010, than a year before. The outlook for States is just as dire, especially considering that Federal stimulus dollars, which many States have used to partially fund budget gaps, will run out after 2012. States will face an estimated $300 billion budget shortfall for 2011 and 2012. And the extent to which States and municipalities are facing underfunded public employee pensions is truly staggering. A PEW Center on the States report out this year pegs it at a $1 trillion gap. During this downturn cities across America are struggling to maintain solvency. Unlike the Federal Government, they cannot print money--they have to actually balance their budgets. Here is the reality. Without regard to pay or benefits, just the administrative costs alone of collective bargaining represent a very significant line item that Congress now proposes to force on States, cities and towns. Towns, particularly small towns, that currently do not have the resources to negotiate and administer multiple collective-bargaining agreements would have to now hire and pay for these additional services. Towns and cities that do not devote the long hours of municipal time to the complicated process of bargaining, and overseeing multiple union contracts, and to administering contract provisions and resolving disputes under a collective-bargaining system will be required to spend that time. Nobody should be fooled. Those additional, manpower and man- hour requirements are enormously costly and burdensome. This bill would impose those costs by Federal mandate, but would not provide a single penny of Federal money to help offset those costs. As a former mayor, and as the only accountant here in the Senate, I would remind my colleagues about the cold realities of municipal finance. If you increase municipal costs you have only two ways to meet those additional costs--either increase revenues, or decrease services. This bill will unquestionably place many municipalities in the difficult position of choosing between raising State and local taxes, or decreasing and eliminating local municipal services. Mere consideration of this bill today reveals that many in this body remain sadly out of touch with the real needs of our constituents and the real fiscal problems that their cities and towns face every day. With stagnant or declining property values and an endless parade of increasing fixed costs, don't our cities and towns already have enough on their plate without the Federal Government imposing more new costs through this mandate? Since the legislation before us has not gone through committee process, I have a number of amendments I will have to offer here on the floor. I always like having this type of legislation go through the committee, so we can discuss the bill and amendments in a smaller group. I always like doing it in committee. It is a smaller group, more understanding of what the different issues are. It also gives you the chance to kind of grow an idea, to get the germ of an idea and grow it between several people who are interested. That doesn't happen on the floor, it is all up or down. But I will have a number of amendments I will have to offer. These amendments are directed toward protecting the fiscal health of our communities that fall under this mandate, ensuring the integrity of public safety and service organizations, and preventing union abuse of public sector employees, among other issues. But these problems represent only the tip of the iceberg. If this body decides to take this issue up today and spend the next week debating it, you will hear more detail on my concerns and those that will be raised by other Senators opposed to this proposal who have also never had any chance in the process for amendments. I urge my colleagues to oppose the motion on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, S. 3991. Exhibit 1 December 7, 2010. Hon. Harry Reid, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Reid and McConnell: As mayors of cities who oversee large public safety agencies and who collectively bargain with our public safety unions, we are concerned about the lack of examination of the Public Safety Employer- Employee Cooperation Act of 2010 (PSEECA). We believe that this bill, like other versions in previous years, could have a profound impact on public sector collective bargaining negotiations and on state and local taxpayers throughout the country, yet there have been no Senate committee hearings on PSEECA since its first introduction in 2001. The uncertainty caused by the PSEECA will certainly lead to litigation at a time when our cities can least afford such expenses. More broadly, the entire collective bargaining structure under which law enforcement and emergency response personnel operate in our cities could be placed in jeopardy. For example, in New York City, the decision to discipline a police officer involved in a shooting incident, or to determine the circumstances in which drug testing must be performed, resides with the Police Commissioner and is not subject to the bargaining process; this ensures full accountability of the head of the police force to the public. It is of grave concern to all of our cities that important local decisions such as these would be lost as a result of an improper federal finding. PSEECA also undermines settled law in jurisdictions that have negotiated with unions for decades. In cities like Cleveland and Minneapolis, where there is a strong history of public employee collective bargaining, this legislation runs counter to long established principles of local control over the operations of municipal government. PSEECA risks too much for our cities and adds legal and fiscal strain during especially difficult economic times. In light of how little has been done to assess the impact of this bill nationwide, we urge you not to proceed with this disappointing and potentially far-reaching maneuver. Sincerely, Thomas M. Menino, Mayor, City of Boston. Frank G. Jackson, Mayor, City of Cleveland. John W. Hickenlooper, Mayor, City of Denver. Scott Smith, Mayor, City of Mesa. R.T. Rybak, Mayor, City of Minneapolis. Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York. Michael A. Nutter, Mayor, City of Philadelphia. Jerry Sanders, Mayor, City of San Diego.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the Johanns amendment that would repeal a provision in the health care reform law that, if not repealed today, will impose significant burdens on small businesses across this country. Repealing this provision has the support of many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Even the President has commented that this provision is onerous on small businesses and warrants immediate adjustment. Starting in 2012, the new health care law will require that all businesses purchasing $600 or more in property or services from another entity, including corporations, must provide the vendor and the Internal Revenue Service with a tax information return. This new government mandate will impose significant burdens on both small and large businesses, and taxpayers' costs will increase as a result of accumulating the information and preparing the tax forms necessary to comply with this expanded mandate. Imagine if you are a freelance writer and you buy a new laptop. Well, now you have to send form 1099 to Apple and to the IRS or be labeled a tax cheat. Oh, and you will need the Apple taxpayer identification number too, so do not forget to ask the salesman for that. This new reporting requirement hits small businesses hardest because they typically do not have in-house accounting departments and have to hire outside help. Every penny a small business spends on these services is money they cannot spend on hiring new workers and expanding their business. Every hour a small business owner spends filling out these new tax forms is time he or she is not making a sale, manufacturing a product, or working with a customer. I understand the challenges this can create for small business. Before I came to the Senate, my wife and I owned shoe stores in Wyoming. When you own a small business, you have to be the CEO, the bookkeeper, the salesman, and the person who cleans the bathroom. Every hour I spent filling out government-mandated paperwork was an hour I could not spend selling shoes. Government mandates such as the new 1099 requirement have a real cost, and it is small businesses that will end up having to pay them. This new 1099 reporting requirement is just one of many things in the new health care reform law that need to be reexamined immediately. Our small businesses need to be focused on creating jobs and helping our economy recover, not spending countless hours on new government paperwork burdens. We all would do well to remember the claims of the sponsors of the health care reform law who said this new law would actually reduce the Federal deficit. Most Americans didn't believe those claims when they were made, and today they are seeing the first evidence of their falsity. Today, when confronted with the nationwide opposition to this ill- conceived expanded information reporting policy, one of the leading proponents of the new health care law in the Senate is offering an amendment that will eliminate it, but it eliminates the revenues it produces. More importantly, his amendment makes no attempt to pay for the lost revenues. That means his amendment will further increase the Federal deficit. While this may be the first time we see this, it certainly will not be the last. The funding for the entire health care law was built on a fiction of cost estimates and actuarial assumptions. As each of these provisions confronts the harsh reality of the light of day, we will see more and more of these provisions undone in the coming years. When millions of seniors across the country lose existing Medicare benefits and face escalating out-of-pocket costs, there will be an urgent push to restore these benefits. When hospitals, nursing homes, and home health agencies begin to close their doors because Medicare payment rates cause them to operate at a loss, Congress will move to undo those cuts, at a cost to the deficit. When the new insurance benefits are slashed as a result of formula gimmicks that will force automatic reductions in benefits, I suspect many of the supporters of the new law will argue for the urgent necessity of delaying these cuts. We can make a statement right now to America's small businesses that we want them creating more jobs, hiring new employees, and growing their businesses--not worrying about what Washington will require of them next. Let's tell our small business men and women that we stand behind them, not on top of their backs, and let's repeal this new tax paperwork burden in a fiscally responsible way. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Senate is close to passing legislation that includes three water settlements as well as funding to settle the Cobell and Pigford claims. I want to briefly discuss the Crow Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act, which is included in the larger bill. The Crow Tribe has water related claims against the United States and those claims need to be settled. While I believe it is necessary to solve legitimate water claims, I want to make clear that I do not support backdoor efforts to steal water from my home state of Wyoming. In the West, we know that water is worth fighting for. It is a precious commodity, and there isn't enough of it to meet all of our State's needs. Just as other Western members work hard to protect their state's water rights, Senator Barrasso and I work to protect Wyoming's water rights. Some have suggested that Wyoming water users will be harmed by this bill. That is not the intention of the legislation. It is in place to settle water claims from the Crow Tribe. It is not intended to be a hidden effort to harm Wyoming water users. Senator Barrasso worked closely with the Wyoming Attorney General's Office and the Wyoming State engineer to negotiate substantial changes to this bill to guard against unreasonable takings of Wyoming's water. My staff participated in some of the meetings where those changes were made, and after numerous discussions with water experts in Wyoming and here in Washington, I am convinced that this legislation will hold Wyoming's water users harmless. While I remain concerned about the cost of this legislation and the fact that the proponents have bundled together distinctly different bills, on the specific issue of protecting Wyoming's water rights, there are numerous protections in the bill to ensure Wyoming's water users will not be harmed if this bill becomes law. Because of that, I am not objecting to the bill today.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the United States has one of the best food safety systems in the world. However, even the best of systems have room for improvement. That is why my colleagues and I worked together over the past year to produce a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Food safety is not a partisan issue. We all want the safest food supply possible and the Food Safety Modernization Act makes significant improvements in that direction. This is not a perfect bill. If it were solely up to me, there are several provisions that I would have done differently. However, this bill provides real improvements for our food system by placing a greater emphasis on prevention and targeting government involvement to the areas of greatest need. The American food industry is made up of hundreds of thousands of processors, distributers, and retailers of all sizes, both foreign and domestic. When you say ``food industry'' many think of the Nations largest food processors that carry the brand names with which we are familiar. In truth, ``industry'' also consists of tens of thousands of small businesses across the country. It also includes over 2 million farmers, both large and small, in the United States that provide the food that we consume at our tables. This bill recognizes the diversity of all these individuals and organizations and protects their ability to continue to grow safe food for our families. The bill also recognizes the vital role played by State and local officials. Our State officials are on the front lines when it comes to responding to food safety concerns and this bill makes sure that they will have the resources they need to do their jobs. Specifically, the bill provides training and education of State, local, and tribal authorities to facilitate the implementation of new standards under the law. My colleagues, including Senators Harkin, Gregg, Durbin, Burr and Dodd, have recognized all these challenges in this process and have worked together to prepare a bill that makes improvements to all aspects of our food system. I am particularly pleased with the efforts the group has made in the managers' package that focus on providing flexibility for small and very small food processors. This bill provides small processors additional time to comply with new food safety practices and guidelines. The bill also requires the FDA to publish user-friendly small entity compliance guides to assist firms with the implementation of new practices. This way, small businesses in the food system, know exactly how to plan to adopt any new practices that could apply to them. This bill also protects farms. Farmers remain exempt from registration under the Bioterrorism Act and any new produce safety standards must consider the unique practices that farmers use to grow or market their food. This includes consideration for farmers that use specific conservation practices or grow organic foods under the Organic Foods Production Act. Small entities that produce food for their own consumption or market directly to consumers are also not subject to registration under this bill. This ensures that individuals can continue to provide food to their communities through farmers markets, bake sales, public events and organizational fundraisers. Some have confused this bill with provisions in other food related bills and it is not true that S. 510 regulates backyard gardens or potluck dinners. All across Wyoming, people grow their own food and contribute dishes to organizational fundraisers and this bill continues the practice of making sure those individuals aren't subject to federal regulation. However, if the amendment tree is filled so amendments cannot be submitted, I will likely oppose any further cloture. I want to again recognize and thank my colleagues who have worked on this bill. I look forward to considering this bill on the floor and appreciate those Members that have helped make this bill a bipartisan effort.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to talk about the paycheck unfairness bill that is before us. A better title for this bill should be the ``jobs for trial lawyers act.'' I am confident that there is no Member of this Senate who would tolerate paying a woman less for the same work simply because she is a woman. As husbands, fathers, and mothers of working women, I believe we all recognize the gross inequity of discrimination in pay based on gender. Congress has put two laws on the books to combat such discrimination--Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. These are both good laws that have been well utilized to combat discrimination where it exists, and I support the full enforcement of these laws. Businesses that discriminate against a female employee because of her gender must be corrected and penalized. But what the majority is trying to push through here today is of a very different nature. The so-called Paycheck Fairness Act is actually a ``jobs for trial lawyers act.'' The primary beneficiary of this legislation will be trial lawyers. They will be able to bring bigger class action lawsuits--which usually result in coupons for the people that were disadvantaged--without even getting the consent of the plaintiffs, and they will have the weapon of uncapped damages to force employers to settle lawsuits even when they know they have done nothing wrong. The litigation bonanza this bill would create would extend even to the smallest of small businesses, only further hampering our economic recovery. There are a number of other concerning provisions of this legislation, such as authorizing government to require reporting of every employer's wage data by sex, race, and national origin. Had this bill gone through committee markup under regular Senate order, we may have been able to address some of these concerns. But this bill--like so many other labor bills in the HELP Committee jurisdiction of this Congress--has circumvented regular order. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list of letters from a total of 44 groups opposing this legislation and 4 newspaper op eds.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the newspaper articles I have submitted for the Record were written by the editorial boards of the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post, while the other op ed, written by a guest columnist, appeared in the New York Times. I don't think any of these would be considered to be conservative newspapers, but they have taken a strong stand in the same direction and position that I have been speaking here. The bottom line is that this legislation will insert the Federal Government into workplace management decisions like never before. This intrusion will benefit trial lawyers and harm job growth and employment, which will affect both women and men. Supporters of this bill cite wage data that the Bureau of Labor Statistics itself says ``do not control for many factors that can be significant in explaining earning differences.'' In fact, studies show that if you factor in observable choices, such as part-time work, seniority, and occupational choice, the pay gap stands between 5 to 7 percent. Let me repeat: Part-time work, seniority, and occupational choice reduces the pay gap to between 5 and 7 percent. Some of these choices are certainly personal prerogatives, and I would not question the choices anyone makes with regard to family obligations or job security and the quality of fringe benefits, such as health, retirement, and child care. But to a large extent, this remaining gap is due to occupational choice. It is unfortunate that this Congress has not done more to foster a job growth environment and improve job training programs, such as the Workforce Investment Act, which could train 100,000 people to be hired in skilled jobs--sometimes in the nontraditional roles. So instead of being a waitress, they might be a brick mason. We have heard that example in hearings. Such training under the Workforce Investment Act produces significantly higher wages, and that would prepare more women to enter higher earning occupational fields. Surely this would be a more reasonable solution than a trial lawyer bonanza sure to disadvantage all employers and depress job growth to the disadvantage of all employees, which results in disadvantaged employees getting coupons while the trial lawyers keep most of the money. I urge my colleagues to oppose this cloture vote. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum be equally divided between the two sides.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 39.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the resolution we are debating today is about keeping a promise. The authors of the new health care law promised the American people that if they liked their current health insurance, they could keep it. On at least 47 separate occasions, President Obama promised: ``If you like what you have, you can keep it.'' Unfortunately, the Obama administration has broken that promise. Earlier this year, the administration published a regulation that will fundamentally change the health insurance plans of millions of Americans. The reality of this new regulation is, if you like what you have, you can't keep it. The new regulation implemented the grandfathered health plan section of the new health care law. It specified how existing health plans could avoid the most onerous new rules and redtape included in the 2,700 pages of the new health care law. This provision was a critical part of the new law. It allowed supporters to argue that current health insurance plans would be exempt from all of the rules and regulations created by the new law. Employers and health plans were told that the grandfathered protections would mean if you have coverage on the day the law passed, you could keep that coverage without having to make any major changes. Employers and employees thought the bill would have cost-cutting measures, but now they find only cost increases. The new law will provide no relief to increasing costs until at least 2014. But this rule and its higher costs kick in now. Unfortunately, the regulation writers at the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services broke all those promises. The regulation is crystal clear. Most businesses--the administration estimates between 39 and 69 percent--will not be able to keep the coverage they have. Under the new regulation, once a business loses grandfathered status, they will have to comply with all of the new mandates in the law. This means these businesses will have to change their current plans and purchase more expensive ones that meet all of the new Federal minimum requirements. For the 80 percent of small businesses that will lose their grandfathered status because of this regulation, the net result is clear: They will pay more for their health insurance. The Wall Street Journal recently reported costs as going up between 1 and 9 percent because of the mandates included in the new health care law. Couple this increase with inflation, and small businesses are looking at a 20-percent cost increase. I actually know something about small business; I used to run one. I ran a shoe store in Wyoming. I stocked the shelves, worked the customers to fit shoes, ran the cash register. I placed the orders with suppliers. I did the accounting, I swept the sidewalk, I cleaned the toilets. I knew what it was like to worry about making payroll at the end of the month. I know firsthand about the struggles and challenges America's small businesses face. I understand what this regulation will do to small businesses across the country. Small businesses are struggling every day to find the resources to provide health insurance to their employees. Rather than making it easier for those businesses to continue to provide this coverage, the new regulation will mean that employers will simply drop their health coverage altogether. That is why I am so concerned about this grandfathered health plan regulation, and that is why I introduced the resolution we are debating today. My resolution would force the administration to actually keep their promises. The resolution would overturn this grandfathered health plan regulation and allow tens of thousands of businesses across the country to keep their current plans. If we pass the resolution, millions of Americans will be spared from paying higher health care costs as a result of new Federal mandates. If we pass the resolution, small businesses across the country will not have to drop health insurance for their workers. Congress created the Congressional Review Act we are using today specifically to overturn Federal regulations such as the one we are discussing. The sponsors of the Review Act recognized that too often Washington bureaucrats impose sweeping new regulations with little thought to the impact these changes will have in the real world. In particular, the Review Act was intended to protect small businesses across the country that are often most vulnerable to new government mandates and regulations. That is precisely what happened with the grandfathered health plan regulation. The regulation writers went above and beyond what the law said and came up with a whole slew of requirements businesses must comply with if they want to keep what they have. The regulation includes a long list of things that will disqualify businesses from being able to keep what they have. If a business does anything to try to keep costs under control, they lose their grandfathered status. Earlier this year, when the grandfathered regulation was first published by the administration, I came to the Senate floor and warned of the negative impact this regulation would have on small businesses. This new regulation appears to ignore the impact it will have in the real world. It will drive up costs and reduce the number of people who have insurance. I recently heard from Jim, an insurance agent in Illinois, who wrote to me and said: My experience in the last few months is--maintaining grandfather status to my group plans is all but impossible. All my clients' renewal rates in September and October are in excess of thirty percent. To keep grandfather status, the group is limited in deductible changes and contribution levels. The only option is for the employer to accept the premium increase at the worst economic time in forty years. They can't afford to keep the grandfather status and soon won't be able to afford insurance at all. In my opinion, the legislative goal was to make maintaining grandfather status so restrictive, companies are forced out. It's working. I have a whole slew of similar stories and I ask unanimous consent to have some of them printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I just wish to get a few things read into the Record. I have a list of 54 organizations that are supporting my resolution. They include the Latino Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition of Affordable Health Coverage, the Health Care Leadership Council, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, to name just a few of the 54. I ask unanimous consent to have printed letters of support from the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Health Underwriters, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Retail Federation, the Small Business Entrepreneurship Council, and the Associated Builders and Contractors, all of which are in support of this and I suspect will be key voting this particular resolution.

Mr. ENZI. The Chamber of Commerce, for instance, says: The administration released an extremely complex regulation that makes it virtually impossible for plans to maintain grandfathered status, instead subjecting them to many expenses and burdensome new requirements. In our view, this regulation violates Congressional intent, and does not live up to the promises of proponents of the new law. NFIB, a small part of their letter says: If required to comply with the administration's interim final rule, millions of small businesses will be forced out of the plans they know and like-- Which means their employees lose the plans they know and like. The Associated Builders and Contractors say: The grandfathered rule demonstrates a fundamental failure of the Federal Government to understand the needs of small businesses. With the current unemployment rate of 17 percent, the construction industry cannot endure another cost increase at the hands of the Federal Government. It is unfortunate that the Federal Government continues to fail to provide employers and their employees with health care solutions that are practical or affordable. Earlier, there were some mainstays of health care that--I think there was an aspersion I was getting rid of with my resolution. I want you to know that if the resolution passes, businesses will still be prohibited from discriminating against someone with preexisting conditions, businesses will still be prohibited from imposing annual limits on benefits, all plans will still be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits, all plans will still have to cover kids under the age of 26 on their parents' plan, all plans will still be prohibited from canceling coverage because of a paperwork error. All those things will exist when this resolution passes, and this resolution needs to pass. All those things that I mentioned, preexisting conditions, annual limits, lifetime limits, children under the age of 26, and canceling coverage for paperwork errors, all those cost money. That is why the price is going up at the present time. The price is going up at the present time. This was supposed to be cutting costs. Help does not arrive until 2014. But small businesses, particularly small businesses, are going to be required to meet this grandfathering rule now. They cannot afford the grandfathering rule now. Another thing I am objecting to is watching television and seeing an old favorite of mine, Andy Griffith, getting paid, at taxpayer expense, to tell us that this whole deal is excellent. You saw the stack of regulations over there. They estimate there will be 100 pages of regulation for each page of that bill. There are 2,700 pages in the bill. That means there are going to be 270,000 pages of regulations. We do not legislate that way. We try and fill in those blanks. You do not even know what those blanks are going to hold yet, neither does small business. They already know these are things that are going to drive up cost in the beginning, with no cost-cutting opportunity, and then the grandfathering rule kicking in right away, which means for 3 years, before they even know what some of those regulations are going to be, they are going to have to constrain everything in their organization within 15 points, as is pointed out, and we can expect the first year's increases to be even greater than the 15 points. But they will try and stay with that grandfathered plan because it is what they can afford and it is what their employees like. So we are trying to keep people in the insurance they like. It is an employee request. I also noticed one of the Senators mentioned the Marshall Plan that was not liked when it was first passed; and the Civil Rights Act that was not liked when it was first passed. I would like to point out those were both very bipartisan acts that were passed--bipartisan. It was not a partisan bill. You would have to notice that a lot of these people have been mentioning this was all passed by one side of the aisle, and there was a lot of warning before that if you do things in a hurry and you do it just partisan, that you do not devote the time that is necessary or put it in a small enough package that people can understand it. There are vast parts of this that people did not get to read before they passed it. It is particularly noted on the House side. That leads to the kinds of difficulties we have now. We also turn over to bureaucrats writing the rules, and this is one of the examples, and we have a chance to overturn that at this point. They can go back and rewrite it again. But, at this point, we can say: No, enough is enough. You cannot put all these things into place. You cannot kick people out of their insurance and let's see what happens in 2014 when we have all the regulation. So I think we have put a lot onto businesses that does increase cost. Because we do--even when this passes, we will still prohibit discriminating against someone with a preexisting condition, we will still prohibit imposing annual limits on benefits, we will still prohibit imposing lifetime limits on benefits. All plans will still have to cover kids under the age of 26. Although, I have noticed a whole bunch of the companies now are not going to write some of the plans that would do this, and they are getting out of the business. But all plans will still be prohibited from canceling coverage because of a paperwork error. Those drive up costs. Relief is not in sight until 2014. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. Exhibit 1 List of 54 Organizations Supporting S.J. Res 39 Aetna; American Council of Engineering Companies; American Osteopathic Association; American Rental Association; American Road & Transportation Builders Association; AMT--The Association For Manufacturing Technology; Associated Builders and Contractors; Association of Clinical Research Organizations; Assurant Health; Automotive Recyclers Association; Chamber of Commerce; Cigna; Coalition for Affordable Health Coverage; Communicating for America; Furniture Dealers Association; Health Equity; Healthcare Leadership Council; Independent Electrical Contractors; Inc; International Franchise Association; International Foodservice Distributors Association. International Housewares Association; Manufacturers' Agents Association for the Foodservice Industry; National Association for Printing Leadership; National Association of Health Underwriters; National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisories; National Association of Manufacturers; National Association of Mortgage Brokers; National Association for the Self-Employed; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors; National Club Association; National Federation of Independent Business; National Office Products Alliance; National Restaurants Association; National Retail Federation; National Roofing Contractors Association; National Tooling and Machining Association; Northeastern Retail Lumber Association; NPES The Association for Suppliers of Printing, Publishing and Converting Technologies; Office Furniture Dealers Alliance; Pediatrix. Pharmeceutical Research & Manufacturers Association; Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors--National Association; Precision Machined Products Association; Precision Metalforming Association; Printing Industries of America; Self-Insurance Institute of America; Service Station Dealers of America; Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council; Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care; Specialty Equipment Market Association; Textile Care Allied Trades Association; Tire Industry Association; Turfgrass Producers International; The Latino Coalition.

Mr. ENZI. Certainly. The Senator from Iowa is not answering the same question the Senator from Illinois is asking. I did say that when the resolution passes, they would not be able to discriminate on preexisting, they would not be able to impose annual limits. They will not be imposing lifetime limits. They will have to keep people until age 26, and they will not be able to cancel it for paperwork error. I think that is the question the Senator from Illinois was asking, not the copays and those things.

Mr. ENZI. All plans, even if the grandfathering clause is taken out?

Mr. ENZI. According to the administration, in small businesses, 80 percent of the people--unless this is passed--will lose the insurance they have and like, and in all businesses 69 percent will. Those are not my numbers; those are the administration's numbers.

Mr. ENZI. That is correct. And so were the other parts that were done in order to buy the bill in a bipartisan way.

Mr. ENZI. It is a correct assessment in most of the parts. They will have to give up the insurance they have now, even if they like it, which the President did mention 47 times in public speeches. And there are some requirements on how much of a change there can be. But I have been talking to small businessmen traveling across Wyoming, talking to them and visiting them, because Congress thinks ``profit'' is a bad word, and a lot in Congress think every business is simple to run. But they have never been out there and scratched the surface a little bit to see just how tough it is. I have had businessman after businessman whom I have visited and ones who have come to Washington because they have been so concerned who have said: I am going to do everything I can to keep my plan just exactly the same because this regulation is so difficult to understand, and I am pretty busy anyway, so I don't think I dare make any changes. That is not true. They could make a few changes, but if they do, they will lose their status, and they will have to pay more.

Mr. ENZI. Yes, that is correct. That is correct. If they change the copay, they are no longer grandfathered.

Mr. ENZI. That is correct. The Federal bureaucrats have figured out what the minimum amount of insurance is that you ought to have and everybody else in America ought to have, and even if you like what you have, you are going to have to go to that if there are certain changes in your policy. The small businessmen are worried about any changes. Because this thing is so complicated, they do not even know what the rest of the rules are going to be. They have talked about this tax credit, but a number of them have looked at the requirements on the tax credit and said: How in the heck do I ever comply with that? So they are a little worried about being able to get that too.

Mr. ENZI. Yes, it will be dramatic. We have not begun to touch all of the regulations that have to be written on this yet. We looked at the Medicare bill and how many pages of regulations came out of that, and it was 100 per page, which would be 270,000 pages on this one. That is where that number came from.

Mr. ENZI. And the Senator from Arizona has not even mentioned the 1099 problem that is supposed to help pay for part of this bill.

Mr. ENZI. Right.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, when we talk about 121 pages, we are talking about what the small businessman has to access. He has to go on the Internet and print out the pages. There are 121 pages. Yes, if he could get it in the format of the Federal Register, he would have 34 pages. But you can't ignore everything but 1\1/2\ pages. You have to do the whole thing. Small business is upset about this. That is why I listed the 54 different organizations that are opposing this bill. I have gotten, and I am sure everybody has gotten--even though I only brought this resolution up last week, there are hundreds of letters coming in with examples of what this will do to them. From Fort Lauderdale, FL: They received such a large increase of people being grandfathered out of the plan, they will be forced to get a new plan because they made their current plan so expensive. Now the new plans have much higher deductibles, more out-of-pocket costs, and more affordable plans only offer to pay 50 percent coinsurance. So the options are limited. The options are limited to all of the businesses. I have letter after letter that shows how it isn't just the business that has to absorb these costs. The individuals who have the insurance who have been pleased with their insurance are going to have to go out on the open market because the company is going to say it can't afford to do it anymore. They are trying to keep the insurance, but that has been the problem for small businesses all along. Our economy is already struggling. It doesn't need more job-killing, cost-increasing government mandates. We are hearing from small businesses across the country which are already being forced to swallow large premium increases that will prevent them from hiring more workers. That is jobs. We need to create more jobs, not write regulations that lead to less jobs. The bill was sold as letting people keep what they have, but the devil is in the details. Do a little digging. It is clear. Americans would not be able to keep what they have. The simple truth is, because this new rule will drastically tie the hands of employers, few employers are expected to be able to pursue grandfathered status. The Enzi resolution is about protecting small business and the people who work there. Anytime an individual doesn't like what they are getting, they can go out on the open market and get something, but most of the help on getting that doesn't arrive until 2014. Where is the cost cutting they were promised in the bill? Now we are going to add this regulation to it, and small businesses are telling me they can't afford it. If this becomes the grandfathered thing, 80 percent of small businesses are going to have to change unless my resolution is passed. Sixty-nine percent of all businesses are going to change unless my resolution is passed. People out there who like what they have--listen to this. Help your small business and help get this grandfathered thing passed. As I mentioned, there are several organizations that are key voting on this one because it is so critical to their members and the people who work for them. I ask my colleagues to support the resolution. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.