Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, while I am waiting for another speaker to come, I will make some additional comments.

Mr. ENZI. Folks all over the country are just like Jim. Insurance agents are explaining to small businesses that they will be forced to choose either to absorb premium increases in excess of 15 percent or lose their grandfathered health plan status. By the administration's own estimate, up to 80 percent of small businesses will lose the right to keep what they have. Lots of companies pay 90 percent of the cost of their employees' and families' insurance. They were hoping to be grandfathered at least until 2014, to see exactly how damaging the whole bill would be. But we are experiencing 2014 now, with no help in cost cutting. The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council says it pretty succinctly. In a letter they wrote to me supporting S.J. Res. 39, they write: Rather than helping small business owners and their workforce keep their plans, it appears the rule has been rigged to force most small businesses and their employers out of grandfathered status. The letter also reads: The rule, as written, is in clear violation of President Obama's promise that Americans would be able to keep the health plans they currently have upon passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. As the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Retail Federation, and other business groups supporting this resolution have said: This rule will make it harder for employers to make changes that will hold down their health care costs. Large and small businesses will have few options for both keeping costs in check and maintaining the grandfathered status. If employers do almost anything to help slow the growth in their health insurance costs, they will lose the limited protections against the expensive new mandates in the bill. It is worth noting that two pages in the law that create the grandfathered plans give infinite leeway to the bureaucrats who are writing the rule, and they took it. The law doesn't say anything about cost-sharing requirements or coinsurance rates. The administration made up all of these provisions and requirements. They didn't have to write these rules in a way that precludes half of Americans from keeping what they have. Our economy is already struggling. It doesn't need more job killing. It doesn't need 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. It is about the jobs. We need to create more jobs, not write more regulations that lead to less jobs. This bill was sold as letting people keep what they have. But the devil is in the details. Do a little digging and 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. I even have letters from people who have individual situations, and they are concerned as well. That means more than half of Americans who like what they have would not be able to keep it. The final result of the new regulation will be that all Americans will eventually be forced to buy the kind of health insurance the Federal Government thinks they should have. Never mind they can't afford it. Never mind that employers will be less likely to hire new workers and probably even lay off workers. Simply put, this rule states: Washington knows best. This new rule is pretty clear. If you like what you have, you can't keep it. Later today, the Senate will have the opportunity to vote on the resolution that will help small businesses actually keep what they have. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and keep the promise that if Americans like the insurance they have, then they can keep it. That should be the bare minimum until at least 2014, so businesses and employers can assess the damage from all the regulations combined--and there is a pile of them coming. Help is not in the bill until 2014, but the rule is for now. The big question is, Why weren't the cost-cutting measures included in the regulation? I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments by both of the leaders on health care from the other side, but you can't have your own facts. You can't show significant changes as being the only thing that eliminates grandfathering. If you look at the Federal Register, page 34,568, the last few paragraphs say: Any increase in a percentage cost-sharing requirement causes a group health plan or health insurance to cease to be a grandfathered health plan. Another part says: Any increase in a fixed-amount, cost-sharing requirement other than a copayment--any increase in a fixed amount copayment. It doesn't say significant changes, it says any change. I yield up to 10 minutes to my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso.

Mr. ENZI. I am about out of time.

Mr. ENZI. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield up to 8 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. ENZI. That is not only a correct statement, the estimate is a little low, according to the administration.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

Mr. ENZI. In one of the instances, that is correct.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the Senator from West Virginia notes, the only change in mine safety law that was made was with his and my leadership and several others. That was the first change in 30 years. I know he is aware that in the area of OSHA, the only legislative changes that have been made in the 28 years the law has existed were under my chairmanship, with me as a major sponsor. So I am interested in safety. The Republicans weren't invited to work on a bipartisan bill until 2 weeks before the August recess. We had our staffs work through the entire recess. There were numerous meetings. We were making great process. I think we had agreed on 14 different parts or so. We still had six or so provisions that were in the process of negotiation, but very close, and seven or so that the Senators themselves would have to work out. So I am disappointed that was called off. It was not called off by my staff. I think we could have had a bipartisan bill that would wind up unanimous on this side like the last one, with only a few objections on the House side. So I am disappointed my colleague is attempting to bring up a bill with no bipartisan support at this late stage of the Senate schedule. They went back to the original one, not the one we have been negotiating. If the majority truly wanted to pass a bill on this issue, we would have continued those bipartisan negotiations, or they could have taken this bill through the Senate procedure and allowed a hearing and a markup on the bill. As I stated last week on the floor, if this were to be brought up this way, I would have to object, and I do object.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, having objected, I would like to take a moment to clear up some confusion about what caused the breakdown of bipartisan negotiations on mine safety legislation last week. The terrible tragedy that occurred in West Virginia this past April has focused us again on the strength of our Federal mine safety laws and regulations. As a Senator from a State that leads the Nation in coal production, I have always considered workplace safety as one of the most important missions of the HELP Committee and I have been pleased to work across the aisle to improve safety. That is exactly what I have tried to do this year as well with my colleagues from West Virginia and members of the committee. As my colleagues well know, negotiations had been making significant progress until we ran into a stumbling block known as the election cycle. The staffs of seven Senators had been meeting several times a week for over 2 months and all throughout the recess period. Agreements had been formed on over a dozen important proposals, and several more important ones were right on the brink of compromise when the talks were abruptly called off until after the election. Despite what has been said in the press and on this floor, the simple fact is that we might well have had an agreement by now if the majority hadn't decided they would rather have an election issue. Certainly, it is not for me to consult on the political calculations of my colleagues. But it seems to me that political theatre and failing to work together to get important things like this done are exactly what the American people are so frustrated by this year. We are serving this Nation best when we work together to accomplish the people's business. The formula is not that complicated and, really, anyone can do it: Bring both sides together for discussions, Establish agreed upon goals and work toward agreement on those goals, Consult with stakeholders that will be affected by the changes being discussed, Once substantial agreement has been reached, determine which issues the sides will never be able to agree upon, and set those aside for another day's debate. This is what I call the 80-20 rule. This formula has worked in the past for the very issue we are discussing today--mine safety. In 2006, when I was chairman of the HELP Committee, we were faced with a string of tragic mine accidents in West Virginia. In response to the first one, Senator Rockefeller and Senator Kennedy organized a trip to Sago, WV, to meet with miners, victims' families and investigators. The three of us, along with Senators Isakson, Murray, and Byrd, then began negotiations and were able to come up with an agreement in less than 2 months--the MINER Act, which was the first major revision of the Mine Safety and Health Act since 1977. This bill made important improvements to the emergency preparedness of underground mines and has fostered tremendous improvements in communications technology adaptability to the underground environment. One of the reasons I am so proud of the MINER Act is that we wrote it in the way I believe all legislation should be drafted. We brought in all of the stakeholders--the union, the industry, the safety experts, the Mine Safety and Health Administration--MSHA--and we sat them all around the table and worked through the biggest safety concerns and the best way to approach them. Because of the bipartisan nature of the bill, it sailed through a committee markup, was passed by the Senate unanimously a week later, and passed the House 2 weeks later with just 37 House Members opposing. One more week later it was signed into law. That is how it was done. During my tenure as the chairman of the HELP Committee, we were able to move 27 bills to enactment this way. In total, we reported 35 bills out of committee and, of those, 25 passed the Senate. This is the kind of cooperation and accomplishment Americans are demanding, especially on an issue as important and timely as workplace safety. Every day, thousands of Americans go to work in the energy production industry. The work they do benefits every single one of us and underpins our entire economy. This year, major accidents in the energy- producing sector have taken the lives of 29 men in West Virginia, 6 in Connecticut, 7 in Washington State, 3 in Texas and 11 men off the coast of Louisiana. If there was ever a time to work together to actually enact legislation, as opposed to playing at political theatre, this should be it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it was just about two years ago that many of us came to the floor to say goodbye to one of our good friends. Ted Stevens was leaving the Senate and returning home to his beloved Alaska. He had earned his retirement many times over. At last there would be time to do the things that he always enjoyed-- fishing, spending more time with his family, and being with the people of Alaska who hold him in such high esteem and affection. He was known throughout the State as Uncle Ted. Now we are gathered again to reflect on Ted Stevens and his life, but this time we are here to say a final farewell as we mourn his loss. On reflection, nothing says more about the way he lived his life than to speak of his loss at the age of 86 with the feeling that he was taken from us all too soon. Ted's life was a great, grand and glorious adventure, and he filled every day of it to the brim as he pursued anything and everything that interested him or moved him to action. The strength of his character and his love of his country saw him through his military service. His determination to succeed and his commitment to getting a good education helped him through college and then through law school as he worked to obtain the skills and the knowledge he knew he would need to be successful in whatever he chose to do in life. For all who knew him, Ted's ultimate legacy can be summed up in one word--statehood. That was his first and most powerful calling, and his successful effort to make Alaska a State left its mark on our country and our flag--a distinction that will ensure that Ted will always be remembered. Although it was a remarkable achievement, the idea of making Alaska a State wasn't a new idea when Ted got a hold of it. It had been talked about for some time, but it wasn't going anywhere because the proposal needed something more to get the ball rolling--it needed a champion who would fight for it--someone who could develop a strategy that would make the impossible dream of the people of Alaska come true. That individual was Ted Stevens. Ted practically ran the effort from start to finish as soon as he arrived in Washington. He had a plan, and he put it into operation. It produced a groundswell of support that became so powerful there was just no stopping it. Soon President Eisenhower had signed the necessary legislation and Alaska had become our 49th State. For most people, that would have been enough. But it wasn't enough for Ted. Ted didn't know what life had in store for him, but he knew where he would be taking the next steps in his life--back home in Alaska. After a series of twists and turns, Ted became one of Alaska's Senators. He was a tremendously effective Senator, and his reputation grew over the years as a tireless worker who wouldn't take no for an answer when it involved one of his State's priorities. Ted and I were able to forge a good working relationship and a friendship that meant a lot to us both. We understood each other and more often than not, we supported each other's legislative priorities. Wyoming is a lot like Alaska, so that may explain why Ted and I got along so well. Wyoming is a large State with a relatively small population. So is Alaska. Wyoming is blessed with an abundance of natural beauty. So is Alaska. The people who call our States their home are strong, independent and proud--proud of their past, confident of their future, and well aware of how blessed they are to be Americans. I think that comes from the placement of our States. It took people with a sense of adventure and a willingness to put up with a great deal of difficulty and an abundance of hardship to travel the miles it took for them to get to Wyoming and later to travel North to Alaska. In the years to come, whenever I remember the days I spent with Ted, I will think of the words of the old adage that reminds us that the most important inheritance we receive from our friends, family and those we care about is found in the memories we will always carry with us of the special days we shared with them. For me, I will always remember the times I spent away from the Senate doing what Ted and I most loved to do: enjoying the great outdoors with a fishing rod in our hands. If you are from Wyoming or Alaska, I do not think you can find a bad fishing spot anywhere in those two States. That is how Ted got a lot of us to his beloved Alaska year after year. He was always talking about his Kenai Tournament and the chance it gave everyone to see the sights of Alaska and get a little break from the rigors of the Senate. It was a great fishing tournament, but it was also a chance for us to help Ted raise some needed funds that were used to improve the habitat of the salmon that had the good sense to live there. God must have needed a good man. I know we all miss Ted. When he wore his Hulk tie, you knew things were about to happen and happen fast. This memory makes it feel like he is never far away. Diana joins in sending our sympathy to Catherine and all his family. The Stevens family can be very proud of the difference they made together over the years and of the legacy they will proudly carry of service and an unwillingness to ever think any task is impossible, no matter how difficult the struggle. I cannot help but think God needed someone with Ted's abilities to have taken him from us. I take some comfort in the knowledge that Ted was doing those things he dearly loved right up to the end. He was flying around his beloved Alaska and heading to a lodge to catch up on a little fishing when his plane went down. In the days to come, whenever I am with my grandson and we both look up at the sky with the awe and wonder it inspires, I will remember the words of the Eskimo proverb that speaks to the reason why the beautiful lights in the sky shine so brightly at night. As legend goes: Perhaps they are not stars but, rather, openings in heaven, where the love of our lost ones pours through and shines down upon us to let us know that they are happy. I do not know if there is fishing in heaven, but if there is, I know Ted must be up there somewhere waiting patiently for a nibble and the chance to reel in another prize winner. I can almost see him there, fishing rod in hand and a smile on his face. If that is what heaven has brought to Ted, I have no doubt he will be happy forever because it does not get any better than that.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, the majority has known this program was going to expire at the end of this month all year and has taken no steps to reauthorize this important social safety net program. We are also in the position of having to pass an extension of TANF. I am not sure the Senator from Illinois is aware that the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee have put together a bipartisan 1-year extension of TANF. I object.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will object, the majority has known this program was going to expire at the end of this month all year and has taken no steps to reauthorize this important social safety net program. We are also in the position of having to pass an extension of TANF. I am not sure the Senator from Illinois is aware that the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee have put together a bipartisan 1-year extension of TANF. I object.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this joint resolution disapproving the National Mediation Board rule that will deprive railway and airline employees of a voice in their representation elections. For 75 years, the Board's procedure for voting on union representation properly reflected the geographically broad workforce of the rail and airline industries. Under this time-tested procedure, the workforce would become unionized if the majority of all the workers in a class voted to join a union. The new rule has changed the way employees' votes are counted in order to favor the union. For 75 years, not voting at all has counted as a no vote. Now, employees who do not vote or cannot vote will lose any chance to weigh in on the question of union representation. In fact, a minority of workers in a class could determine the fate of the entire workforce. This new rule conflicts with the plain language of the statute. The method for selecting a union is expressly described in the Railway Labor Act: ``The majority of any craft or class of employees shall have the right to determine who shall be the representatives of the craft or class for the purposes of this Act.'' No matter what the Board's policy justifications for this rule are, the law is clear. Supporting this resolution will send a message to those who want to change this 75-year-old rule to favor unions in an industry that is already majority unionized. The only appropriate manner to create new policy here is to amend the statute. Proponents of the new rule say the election procedure under the Railway Labor Act should mirror the procedure used under the National Labor Relations Act. While this procedure may work fine with smaller units of workers, typically working within the same workplace, it is not an equitable method for workers in the railway or airline industries. The classes of railway and airline workers were intentionally created to be systemwide in order to allow uniform workplace rules and prevent the shutdown of an entire carrier should there be a strike in one local. With workers geographically spread out across the country and working on different shifts, it is difficult for transportation industry employees to communicate their views with coworkers and voice their opinions during a union election. For 75 years, abstaining has been a way of saying ``not sure'' or ``need more information,'' as well as ``no.'' In many companies, unions try year after year to gain the backing of a majority of employees through elections. This rule change silences those who do not vote because they don't feel like they have gotten enough information to decide. Instead of requiring a union to convince the workforce to support the union, the Board is seeking to allow unions to force their way in. This is a matter of deep concern because once a union is certified, there is no way to decertify it. Currently, the Board does not have a specific decertification process. This makes it nearly impossible for employees unhappy with their union to organize their fellow employees and vote the union out of their workplace. It seems logical that since the Board acted to make it easier for employees to join a union, it would have also simplified the process for employees to get rid of their union. But, despite requests to do so during the notice and comment period for the rule, they did not. In fact, employees stuck in unions they do not support because of this rule will also not have the benefit of State right to work laws, which would allow an employee to opt out of full union membership and dues obligations. The Railway Labor Act preempts the 22 States that have adopted right to work laws. The Board has acknowledged that its primary duty in resolving representative disputes is ``to determine the clear, uncoerced choice of the affected employees.'' I could not agree more. But that important duty needs to apply equally when employees seek to vote a union out of their workplace. The fact that the new rule fails to include a decertification process based on the majority of votes cast, is not only troubling, but evidences the true intent of the Board and this administration to tilt the playing field to favor unions over individual workers' rights. Last year this body unanimously confirmed two nominees to the National Mediation Board. Several members of the HELP Committee, including my office, specifically asked each of them about their position on changing the way a majority in a unionization election is measured. In reply these nominees stated that they had no preconceived agenda to alter election rules that have been in place for 75 years. Yet, practically before the ink had dried on their confirmations, these two nominees began pushing through this regulation which is a wholesale reversal of those rules to the benefit of labor unions. It is not as uncommon as it should be for nominees to say one thing in their confirmation hearings and act differently once in office, but this example may be one of the most concerning because of the way it was done. In their haste, the majority NMB members thoroughly disregarded the rights of the single minority member. The minority member was given no notice about the other Board members' plans, including even the fact that there was a rulemaking effort underway. Instead, she was presented with the proposed rule to be published and given 1\1/2\ hours to review and determine if she would support it. They even tried to stop her from publishing a dissent to the rule proposal. Silencing dissenting views appears to be an alarming trend at the Board. And unfortunately, it has gone beyond the National Mediations Board. Over at the National Labor Relations Board, workers' rights and freedoms are similarly at risk. Just recently, at the end of August, the NLRB chose to revisit a 2007 ruling known as Dana Corp. that protected workers' rights to a secret ballot vote. In that 2007 ruling, the Board held that card check was inferior to the use of secret ballot voting in union elections. The Board concluded that when an employer recognized a union in the workplace by card check, employees had the right to request a secret ballot vote to show whether they actually wanted union representation. This was an important ruling to protect workers from union coercion and intimidation that can occur in the card check process. The ruling gave employees a voice in whether they actually wanted union representation, instead of having their employer and a union decide for them. Now fast forward to August 2010. The NLRB has just decided to revisit that 2007 ruling. Why? There has not been a major shift in management- labor relations that warrants such a change. In fact, the 2007 ruling has served as an important oversight mechanism. According, to the Wall Street Journal, since the 2007 ruling, 1,111 workplaces have become union by the card check process, of which 54 of those have demanded a vote. Only 15 of the 54, voted against the union. So clearly, the 2007 ruling has not led to huge losses for the unions. But it did give employees a say in their workplace. This Congress should be very concerned about the current state of these administrative boards that were intended to be independent. Concealed agendas cannot become the norm for Senate confirmed positions. If it is then we will have difficulty confirming anyone whose former employer would fall under the nominee's jurisdiction. I thank the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Isakson, for offering this resolution to send a message to the National Mediation Board that when they seek a change in policy, they must do so within their constitutional and legal authority. I also note that every member of our caucus has cosponsored Senator Isakson's resolution and joins him in sending this message. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, for his kind words and also for his great leadership on the HELP Committee. We have a big area we cover--health, education, labor, and pensions--and we have a lot of bills we are working on. I am pleased at the bipartisan way we are able to work on them, his staff and my staff. Actually, the members of the committee are very engaged on the issues we are covering, and they are very important issues for America.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, one reason I am proud to be from the great State of Wyoming is that our State is the land of many firsts. We have the first national park, which is Yellowstone National Park. We have the first national monument, which is Devils Tower, and we have the first national forest, which is the Shoshone National Forest, just to name a very few. But another huge milestone and important first for our State is that we were the first State to give women the right to vote. We are pioneers in more ways than one out West. That is how Wyoming got its nickname, the Equality State. I rise to talk about an important anniversary that our country recently celebrated. August 26 was Women's Equality Day, marking the 90th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote. Of course, that is 50 years after Wyoming's special vote. We just celebrated 140 years since Louisa Swain became the first woman in the world to vote. When the Wyoming territory was being considered to be a State, we were told to repeal women's right to vote. Our legislators said: No thanks. It is not worth that to be a State. Wyoming stood first and, of course, the rest of the country followed suit five decades later. The ratification of the 19th amendment to our Constitution was a landmark in our need to recognize the voices of women and welcome their contributions to our country. Women have always offered a wealth of knowledge and spirit, and the 19th amendment showed our commitment to continually fight for women's equality. In Wyoming alone, we have been graced by women's accomplishments from past to present. Wyoming had the first female justice of the peace in the United States, Esther Hobart Morris. We had the first woman to head up the mint. In fact, she is one of the few female statues displayed in the U.S. Capitol today. Wyoming also welcomed the first woman to serve as Governor of a U.S. State, Nellie Tayloe Ross. Today, we are continually impacted and influenced by strong women in our State. I am honored to serve in Wyoming's congressional delegation alongside U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis, who took the reins from her predecessor, Barbara Cubin, and has been a remarkable leader for Wyoming. She has served Wyoming in a variety of roles, as a lawyer, a rancher, a legislator, and State treasurer, now U.S. Representative. Now in her role in the House, she continues to do an outstanding job serving her constituents and fighting for their interests in Congress. It is clear there is no shortage of women looking to stand and make a difference in this country. I am optimistic that we are continuing down a path that looks out for women's best interests and seeks to provide them with more and more venues to have their voices heard and resources known. Women serve as a pillar of strength in our country. I am proud to recognize the 140th year of Wyoming women voting, and this 90th anniversary of women in the rest of the United States gaining the right to vote and look forward to continually welcoming their contributions and achievements. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken.) The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kristen Leis of my personal office have floor privileges for today.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I just heard the discussion about this bill. I know in the health care bill we hired 16,000 more IRS agents. If we hired 16,000 more IRS agents, we should not need a whole bunch more paperwork for small businesses to do, to see if they are being honest. This is going to cost a fortune for small business, even if you go to the $5,000 level, because you have to keep track of how much you buy from every supplier. You have to see if you hit the $600 or $5,000 mark. That is a cost to business with no benefit. I do not think it is going to wind up with the kind of benefit they are talking about in raising revenue to finance health care. As far as the mandate to buy insurance, I am not in favor of the mandate to begin with. But it mandates that they spend 8 percent of their income on health insurance. This reduces it to 5 percent of their health care. I think that is a pretty big mandate all in itself. But during the last month, my wife and I traveled around Wyoming. We visited small businesses. We looked to see what their problems were. I do that to get a sense of what Federal legislation is going to do to help or hinder them. I want to see firsthand the struggles they deal with. Every business looks simple until you have to make the decisions that deal with that business. The last thing we want to do in Washington is hurt those businesses by passing legislation that takes resources away from growing businesses and puts it into more paperwork. We also should not be passing legislation using regulation that stymies new jobs and causes uncertainty about what will come out in the near future. Unfortunately, I think that is exactly what happened in the health care reform law that was enacted earlier this year. Today, we have a chance to fix it. Although the health care reform battle may be in the rearview mirror for some of you, it is the small businesspeople in our hometowns who continue to bleed from it. The provision I am referring to will require business owners to submit onerous and duplicative 1099 forms for every single business-to- business transaction over $600. Even $5,000 does not solve the problem. This includes anything from utilities, office supplies, construction materials. There are ways to audit that anyway. This is just trying to do an easy thing and putting a whole burden on businesses. So everybody on Main Street will have to do 200 to 2,000 of these 1099s depending on which one of these forms you go with. Repealing it is the best way to do it. Something else that is not mentioned is they have to get the taxpayer's ID number. If you are a small businessman, a really small businessman, your taxpayer ID is your Social Security number. How willing are you going to be to give your Social Security number to some kid that bought $600 worth of gas so he could mow lawns over the summer? If he does not get the taxpayer number, he is supposed to withhold 28 percent of the payment. Most businesses don't have personal accountants on hand to file these forms so they will need to hire someone just to file paperwork. This is the kind of onerous paperwork burden that will distract small businesses from doing day-to-day business, providing much-needed jobs and stimulating the economy. Many of my colleagues have joined me in co-sponsoring the Small Business Paperwork Mandate Eliminate Act to fix this problem, and today I urge them to join me in supporting Senator Johanns' amendment. The Johanns amendment eliminates the onerous section of the law and pays for it in a responsible way. While I appreciate the Senator from Florida would like to exempt businesses with under 25 employees, this exemption actually encourages businesses to stop growing so they aren't burdened with onerous bureaucratic regulations, and the method he uses to offset his amendment will lead to increased energy prices and fewer American energy jobs. My biggest surprise over the August recess was the number of businesses that have heard of this requirement. They know and they are mad. One more requirement that doesn't bring in a single dollar and has a huge cost! I urge all Senators to help the businesses in their State and make sure this section is repealed by supporting the Johanns amendment. You don't have to be a Republican and you don't have to be a Democrat to know that this is something we need to do. To know that, you just have to ask the business people you represent in your home State. Let's take a sandbag off the backs of the small business people. We know repeal will be better for them, our States and our country. Surely we can find a way together to do this one small thing that will make such a huge positive impact on those we serve.