Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I think we can see what a terrible error it is to have this in the bill at all. I hope we will repeal it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be here today to speak about the passage of a bill that is a top priority for the disability community--Rosa's Law. As always, I have greatly appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Mikulski on this bill. I would like to thank her for her leadership and her commitment to this issue. The bill is simple in nature but profound in what it will do when it is enacted. Rosa's Law will change the phrase ``mentally retarded'' to ``an individual with an intellectual disability'' in all of the laws that fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, without negatively impinging or expanding upon the rights, services, benefits, or educational opportunities that people with this diagnosis are entitled to. It will make a greatly needed change that should have been made well before today. Some people will ask why this bill is so important and why it is needed. They will wonder if Congress has more important work to do than to change a few words in our laws for the sake of being politically correct. In response, I would share what Rosa's brother Nick said to the Maryland General Assembly. ``What you call people is how you treat them. What you call my sister is how you will treat her. If you believe she's `retarded' it invites taunting, stigma. It invites bullying and it also invites the slammed doors of being treated with respect and dignity.'' For far too long we have used hurtful words like ``mental retardation'' or ``MR'' in our Federal statutes to refer to those who are living with intellectual disabilities. While the way people feel is important, the way people are treated is equally important. When words such as ``MR'' are used to describe a person, it dehumanizes them, and as Nick said, it leads to a situation in which some people are not treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. This is not the first time Congress has taken similar action. Our laws once referred to people with intellectual disabilities with terms like ``feeble minded'' and other language that I cannot bear to say. Back then we thought that was the appropriate language to use until we switched to using the term ``MR.'' Forty years later, we are taking another big step and replacing ``MR'' with ``intellectual disability.'' This change is already taking place across the country with organizations like the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities which dropped the term ``MR'' from its name. Likewise, The Arc of the United States has stopped using this archaic terminology and dropped the term from their agency name. The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, has already voted to use the term ``Intellectual Disability'' in the next publication of their manual. Internationally, the World Health Organization uses the term ``intellectual disability.'' This bill will start the process of change in the Federal Government and make such terminology consistent. The President's Committee on Mental Retardation was changed by executive order so it is now the Committee on Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also uses the term ``intellectual disability.'' After the House passes this bill it will become law and begin a chain of events that I hope will lead to the Finance Committee's action on this matter so we can see similar changes in Medicaid and Social Security programs. In 1963, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, ``I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.'' That same concept rings true for people with intellectual disabilities--that they will also be judged by who they are and not by a label that has been forced upon them. That's the beauty and simplicity of this bill--and why it is so important. Finally, there are a number of people I would like to thank for their assistance with passing this bill out of the Senate. First, on my staff I would like to thank Frank Macchiarola, HELP Committee staff director, Greg Dean, HELP Committee general counsel, Beth Buehlmann, education office staff director, and Aaron Bishop, professional staff member on disability policy for their determination and hard work on this bill. I always say that I have the best staff in Congress and I couldn't have done it without them. I would also like to thank Mario Cardona with Senator Mikulski's office and Lee Perselay and Michael Gamel-McCormick, with Senator Harkin's office, for their leadership and effort to get this bill through the Senate, and for working with us in a true bipartisan fashion. I would also like to thank Pattie DeLoatche and Karen LaMontagne from Senator Hatch's office, Karen McCarthy from Senator Murkowski's office, and David Cleary from Senator Alexander's office for their assistance with putting this bill together, Liz King with Legislative Counsel for drafting the bill, and Cassandra Foley from the Congressional Research Service for her work. Next, the bill would not have been a success without the work of so many families and groups. We all need to thank Rosa Marcellino, her brother Nick and the entire Marcellino family for their strength, determination, and willingness to lead, teach and for not being afraid to voice their opinion and say that this just hasn't been right. While this bill may not change the whole world, it will make the world a little better, more hospitable place for us and for the entire disability community.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my concerns about a provision in the new health care law that will impose monumental burdens on small businesses, reduce wages and eliminate jobs. A provision that was included in the new health care law will require businesses to submit new tax forms every time they purchase more than $600 worth of goods. This new government mandate will impose significant new costs on 26 million businesses across America. Given the economic challenges that our Nation already faces, this is a burden that we cannot afford. If it is not fixed, this new mandate will slow economic growth and prevent the creation of new jobs. The Commerce Department reported last week that the pace of economic growth is slowing down. U.S. economic growth slowed to an annual rate of 2.4 percent in the second quarter, the weakest showing in nearly a year. According to the Labor Department, wages and salaries are also suffering and the unemployment rate still hovers around 9.5 percent. If these numbers are going to improve, it's going to be a result of the hard work and ingenuity of our Nation's small business owners. The entrepreneurial small business community has been the driver to pull us out of all recent recessions. They are the key to job creation that will pull us out of this economic downturn as well. Small businesses create 65 percent of all new jobs in America. In Wyoming, that number is a lot higher. We have 62,000 small businesses in Wyoming that employ nearly 70 percent of our workforce. We need to advance policies that encourage small businesses to grow and hire new workers. Unfortunately, buried in the new healthcare law is a provision that will have the opposite effect. It will cost every business, even the smallest of the small, more money to file their taxes. Because of the new healthcare law, beginning in 2012 businesses will have to send new tax forms to the IRS for every business to business transaction of $600 or more for both goods and services. This new requirement creates a punishing new paperwork mandate for small businesses. The new paperwork requirement means that a small business owner will have to file two forms--one to the vendor and one to the IRS--for almost every purchase his or her business makes. Imagine you're a freelance writer and you buy a new laptop. Well, now you have to send Form 1099 to Apple and the IRS or, be labeled a tax cheat. Oh, and you'll need Apple's Taxpayer Identification number too so don't forget to ask the salesman for that. Complying with the tax code is already one of the most expensive burdens placed upon small businesses. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the typical small business pays as much as $74 per hour to prepare and file various tax-related documents. Because they cannot afford to have their own finance departments, the costs of complying with the Federal tax code are 66 percent higher for small businesses as compared to their larger competitors. The new healthcare law will significantly increase these tax burdens and the costs that come with them. This new reporting requirement hits small businesses hardest because they typically don't have in house accounting departments and have to hire outside help. Every penny a small business spends on these services is money they can't 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 a small business. Before I came to the Senate, my wife and I started and owned several shoe stores back home. When you own a small business, you have to be the CEO, the bookkeeper, the salesman and the person who empties the trash and cleans the toilets. Every hour that I spent filling out government-mandated paperwork, was an hour I couldn't spend selling shoes. Government mandates, like the new 1099 requirement, have a real cost, and it is small businesses who end up having to pay them. The National Taxpayer Advocate, based inside the IRS, has already warned of the new reporting burden on small business. This new reporting requirement hurts small businesses at the same time our economy needs them to help our recovery. Small businesses across this country are still struggling to stay open. Rather than forcing these businesses to comply with burdensome new paperwork requirements, we should be finding ways to encourage them to reinvest their money in growing their businesses and hiring more workers. Our country has always relied on small businesses to grow the economy and create new jobs and they have always been the drivers to pull us out of economic downturns. Given the still difficult challenges facing our economy, the last thing we should be doing is piling on the paperwork that takes their time and precious resources away from creating jobs. I believe things like the 1099 requirement are causing our entrepreneurs to think twice about taking new risks for fear of more government burdens and regulations. That's the worst thing Washington should be doing right now. Instead, we need to be focused on creating an environment where small businesses can grow and aren't worried about what might be the next new burden thrown on them from Washington. It seems like a reoccurring bad dream around Washington over the past few years. Washington politicians tuck something into a giant bill that's rammed through Congress without fully understanding the impact in the real world. This 1099 reporting requirement is just one of the many things in the new health law that need to be re-examined. Our small businesses need to be focused on creating jobs and helping our economy recover, not on new paperwork burdens. When a business is considering making new long term investments in employees or equipment, they shouldn't have to be worried about the next new wrinkle to be uncovered in the health reform law. We can make a statement right now to America's small businesses that we want you out there creating jobs, hiring new employees and growing your business--not worrying about what Washington will require of you 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. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue important to us all--the safety of our food. Food safety is not a partisan issue--we all want to be confident that the food we eat and give to our children will not make us sick. That is why I have been working with my colleagues in a bipartisan way to pass S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. This bill goes a long way to bringing the regulation of food into the 21st century. No longer will outdated laws hold the FDA back from protecting us. This bill takes into account the changes in our food supply over the more than 100 years since food safety authorities were first granted to the agency. This bill provides real consumer safety improvements, while maintaining an appropriate balance between regulatory burden and food safety benefit. I want to thank Senators Gregg, Burr, and Durbin for their hard work and leadership in developing and introducing this bill. Their efforts to ensure that this was a bipartisan process, starting from a blank piece of paper, were critical to seeing this bill move. I also commend Senator Harkin, the chairman of the HELP Committee, for prioritizing this bill and moving it through committee. We, along with Senator Dodd, have continued to work together over the last few months, which resulted in only a few issues remaining to debate on the floor. That kind of cooperation is what the American people expect of us. It certainly wasn't easy at times, but this is how we are supposed to legislate, and I am glad we met our obligations. The House passed a food safety bill 1 year ago. There are significant differences between the House and Senate bills, and I hope we can bring this bill to the Senate floor as soon as possible so that there is sufficient time to conference the two bills and see legislation signed into law this year.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to bring to the Senate's attention a remarkable citizen of Wyoming and the United States on the occasion of her 107th birthday. Her name is Kay Siggins, and she is a resident of Cody, WY. Over the years, Kay has seen it all--the beginnings of aviation, the introduction of the automobile to everyday life, the Great Depression, two World Wars, the birth of the computer, the advent of television, the evolution of radio, the start of the space program, the landing on the Moon, and so much more. In a very real sense, for all she has seen and done, she is a walking history book. The great adventure of Kay's life began when she was born on August 12, 1903, in Medford, MA. After she had completed her school years, she took a job in the State's education system and soon became her school's acting principal, in charge of the education of about 3,000 students. It was right around then that she and a friend traveled west to stay as a guest at the Triangle X Dude Ranch in Wyoming. I believe that must have been the start of her great affection and regard for the West and Wyoming, for in the years to come she would often return there to visit and enjoy all that the West has to offer. Then, with the 1940s, the winds of war began to blow. Kay decided to join the Navy. She became a commissioned officer and was soon placed in charge of the WAVES Boot Camp. Later, as a lieutenant, she was assigned to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center and placed in charge of the Center's WAVES barracks. She stayed on Active Duty for several years, after which she joined the Reserves. She continued to serve in that capacity until she retired with the rank of commander. Anyone else would have been satisfied to call it a career at that point but not Kay. She was just getting started. Kay decided that the time had come to head West and see what life was like out there. Unfortunately, she must have had a problem with her compass for she wound up not in Wyoming but in Green Valley, AZ, where she made her home. Actually, Green Valley was more of her home base as she pursued her goal of visiting all the States. It seemed that she was always on the road heading to points north, south, east, or west. She would get her motor home ready, hop aboard, and hit the highway. It wasn't long before she had seen every State that way but Hawaii. She eventually made it there too. She also headed up north to visit Alaska not once but twice, just to experience what life was like up there. As the years continued to roll by, I have to think that the urge to come home to Wyoming and relive those days on the Dude ranch was just too strong. She was a young 70ish lady and full of adventure and a love of life. She caught the eye of Raymond Siggins, who lived there, and they were soon married. A check of the records shows that Kay is now believed to be the oldest female military veteran in America, the senior statesman of our Armed Forces. She may be the oldest veteran in terms of age, but she is the youngest in spirit--and she will always be so. That is why Kay has always been so successful. She has always led the best way--by example--at everything she did, and because that is the way she lived her life, she was able to blaze a trail and leave a path for others to follow. There are always lessons we can learn from how someone else has lived their life. Kay has taught us all the wisdom of the old adage attributed to Abraham Lincoln: It is not the years in your life, it is the life in your years. For Kay, both have been extraordinary. I have often said that there is something magical about living in Wyoming. The way I see it, although Kay is celebrating her 107th birthday, since she moved to Wyoming when she was in her seventies, she is only in her thirties in Wyoming years. Happy Birthday, Kay. Wyoming couldn't be more proud of you. Because of you and your service for so many years of a very wonderful and productive life, our Nation is a much better place to live--from coast to coast. You have made a difference wherever you have been, and we hope you continue to enjoy every day of your life in Wyoming.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in marking the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I am particularly proud of this legislation and the impact it has had on addressing the rights and needs of people with disabilities all across the country for the past 20 years. As we mark this great anniversary, I also want to express my great appreciation for the hard work and determined effort those with a vision of equality and justice put into seeing this bill through the legislative process. It was a courageous and heroic cause and it has made a difference in more lives than we will ever know. Just 20 years ago this month, on July 26, 1990, President George Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. It is without question the most important civil rights legislation that has been passed by the Congress since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was such a great achievement because it reflected our fundamental and growing concern for human rights by extending civil rights protections to all Americans with disabilities. Prior to the passage of the ADA, far too many of our fellow Americans with disabilities led isolated lives, artificially separated from the mainstream of society, denied the basic opportunity to pursue the American dream. Things had to change if we were to remain true to the ideals and principles upon which our Nation was founded that are enumerated so well in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. By any standard, those with disabilities did not have the chance to engage in all that life has to offer including their own pursuit of happiness. Fortunately, things are different now. Although there is still more to do we have every reason to be proud of what the ADA has been able to achieve thus far. We can see the vision of the ADA being carried out before our eyes as it enables our family members, friends, and neighbors to go about their daily lives, praying, going to school, and pursuing their goals in every area of their lives--on every level--in large part because of what the Americans with Disabilities Act has made possible. Twenty years ago, before the passage of this legislation, our country was a much different place for those with disabilities. It was difficult, if not impossible, for them to access the resources in their communities that we all take for granted. Minor barriers most of us could easily navigate had long been major obstacles for people with disabilities. We needed to do something to make it easier to access the places we all had long enjoyed with our friends. It wouldn't take a lot--just simple accommodations like curb cuts, ramps instead of stairs, more accessible stadium features, and better equipped telecommunications devices. Just these few simple changes would have made all the difference. Unfortunately, although easily done they were all too scarce and all too often impossible to find. Then the ADA came to pass and it raised our awareness of what needed to be done and our resolve to do it. When the ADA changed everything it meant a lot to people like Ellington Herring, a young man from Germantown, MD, who has an intellectual disability and uses a wheelchair. Thanks to the ADA and the efforts of people to get it implemented across the Nation, he has full access to all the resources of his community. Without the ADA Ellington wouldn't be able to spend the day doing what he enjoys most-- going to the mall, going places with his family and friends, getting his hair cut at the local barber shop, taking in a movie, and going to church. Twenty years ago while students with disabilities had to be included in the same school those without disabilities attended, they did not have to be placed with the others in a general education classroom. It was the ADA along with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that has subsequently guaranteed them access to the general education curriculum and we are all the beneficiaries of that. Let me introduce you to someone else--Ted Dawson of Buffalo, WY. Thanks to the ADA, he was able to graduate with a high school diploma-- not a certificate of achievement--but a high school diploma. There is a difference and it meant a lot to him and his parents, teachers, school administrators, and his friends. They all had high expectations for him--and he delivered! It wasn't easy. In Wyoming you have to be proficient in at least 5 of 9 common core areas in order to graduate. Ted, who has Down's syndrome, stepped up and met the challenge because that was what was expected of him. More importantly--it was what he expected from himself. He is an important example of what can happen if people are valued and included instead of being segregated into special classrooms and regarded as less capable. Thanks to the ADA, Ted is 24 now and living and working in his community. Twenty years ago it was not well understood that people with disabilities wanted to work and pursue a career, go to school, be a part of the activities in their communities, and be treated just like everyone else. Let me introduce you to George Garcia of Cheyenne, WY. He is a 53-year-old gentleman who works part time at a meaningful job, sits on multiple boards, volunteers with several organizations and just so happens to have an intellectual disability. Mr. Garcia, as the Governor of Wyoming calls him, knows everything about the city he calls home and the State of Wyoming. In fact, he knows just about everyone who lives in Wyoming because he has spent years traveling the roads of our State sharing his story and his message about the importance of choice, freedom and independence. Without the ADA George, and thousands of people just like him, would not have had the opportunity to hold meaningful jobs, live where they choose, and go anywhere they want to in their communities. That was so because 20 years ago people with disabilities were destined to live in an institution--community based services and support were not an option. Now families have choices and many of them have chosen community living. That brings me to Owen Johnson. Let me share Owen's story with you. He was born with spinal muscular atrophy in January of 2008 at Primary Children's Hospital in Utah. When he was born doctors told his dad, Lenn and his mom, Gayle, that Owen's life expectancy would be a mere 2 years. Lenn and Gayle wanted to bring Owen home to Wyoming to be with his family. Unfortunately they were informed that Cokeville, WY, was ``too rural'' and they would not be able to find the services and support they would need to do so. Some doctors were even suggesting they place Owen in a nursing home in Utah. With the support of multiple State agencies and local organizations, after 6 months Owen Johnson went home to live with his parents on their rural ranch. Today he is 2\1/2\ and he and his family are thriving in their community and Owen is going strong--defying the odds of his doctors who are amazed and thrilled by his progress. While it is true that we all have our own struggles in life to deal with, it is also true that some face more difficult challenges that they have to work to overcome just to do the things that are part of our own daily routine. Such an individual is Cindy Bentley from Milwaukee, WI. Cindy is an articulate, engaging, upbeat, and charismatic individual. She is a world traveler, and a national speaker and spokesperson for millions of people with disabilities. People have no idea about her history. Cindy was born with fetal alcohol syndrome with cocaine, alcohol, and heroin in her bloodstream, resulting in lifelong intellectual disabilities, seizures, and some motor control problems. She then received severe burns when she was placed in foster care at the age of 2\1/2\ and her foster mother set her shirt on fire. Shortly thereafter she was placed in the Southern Wisconsin Center for people with developmental disabilities. Cindy now lives independently in her own apartment in Glendale, WI. She was chosen as 1 of 12 Special Olympics Global Messengers from 2000-2002, and she is an active member of two statewide Governor-appointed councils. Twenty years ago people with disabilities could not access public transportation and those that lived in the community couldn't go anywhere because they lacked the means to easily travel on their own. The ADA changed all that by removing the barriers that faced those with disabilities when they tried to travel. Such was the case for Richard Leslie, the founder and executive director of the Wyoming Epilepsy Association that is located in Cheyenne, WY. Richard himself has epilepsy and he does not have the ability to drive because of his disability. He has used his disability to empower himself and others by becoming an advocate for people with disabilities. The ADA has assisted him and others like him by creating public transit systems that are usable and accessible, much like the Cheyenne Transit Program. The Cheyenne Transit Program offers accessible bus rides at reasonable fares as well as curb-to-curb services which not only allows for mobility within the city but makes the opportunity for employment better as well because the service is tailored to the individual's needs. These are just a few of the remarkable stories that can be told because of the Americans with Disabilities Act which is still making a difference throughout the United States. While no one would ever say that the lives of these people has been easy, the Americans with Disabilities Act has helped to make things easier by making the things people with disabilities do every day a somewhat smaller mountain for them to climb. The ADA opened the world to people with disabilities by guaranteeing their independence, freedom of choice, ability to control their lives, and the opportunity to completely, fully, and equally participate in the American mainstream. No law is perfect and some problems still arise with this one. As recently as 2008 Congress had to revisit the ADA. After negotiating together through the committee process in the Senate, we acted with overwhelming bipartisan support to pass the ADA Amendments Act, which restored ADA protections that had been complicated by judicial decisions narrowing the scope of the law. While Congress has continued to address the issue the Capitol complex is not fully accessible yet. When I served as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions I routinely heard from people with disabilities about inaccessible hearing and conference rooms on Capitol Hill, the use of offensive terminology by Members and staff and a lack of understanding and awareness about disability issues. That was when I took it upon myself to write a manual to help congressional offices prepare for visitors, interns, and staff who may have accessibility needs. As elected officials it is our role to ensure that everyone who comes to visit the Nation's Capitol or our home offices, including people with accessibility needs, are included in our daily dialogue. The manual contains all disability specific resources offered by the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services, the Sergeant at Arms, the Capitol Police, the Office of Security and Emergency Preparedness, the Architect of the Capitol, and other offices in the Capitol Hill complex in an easily available and easy to read format so that if a constituent who is deaf arrives at a meeting and a sign language interpreter was not reserved the office can easily determine who to call for assistance. Just as the Architect of the Capitol is improving signage for people who are blind, and ensuring that all restrooms are accessible by wheelchair users I am currently updating the manual to account for such changes and the addition of the Capitol Visitor Center. Today, we recognize and celebrate the anniversary of a law that brought freedom, choice, and independence to many Americans. It is a constant reminder of who we are as a people, and what we stand for as a nation. As President Bush noted when he signed the ADA into law: ``This Act is powerful in its simplicity. It will ensure that people with disabilities are given the basic guarantees for which they have worked so long and so hard: independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, the opportunity to blend fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the American mainstream.'' This law makes it clear that all Americans are entitled to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As we continue to make this law more responsive to the needs of those with disabilities, we will continue to ensure that the chance to live the American dream is an avenue of opportunity that is available to everyone--without exception.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as under the previous order, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am here today to pay respects to Senator Byrd, whose desk is now adorned with a black cloth and flowers. I know we will all long remember Monday as the day we received some very sad news, for on that day, as the morning began, we each learned in our own way that our good friend and colleague Robert Byrd had passed away just a few hours earlier. It should not have been a sudden shock. We all had time to prepare for this moment. We knew he had been having a period of ill health, but it still seemed as if he would be here forever. That is the kind of man Robert Byrd was. A man of great gifts, he loved the written word and could recite his favorite poems from memory--at length. It was amazing how many speeches, reflections, and famous quotations were there at his command, in his quiver, ever ready and waiting for him to recite so he could emphasize an important point about an issue that needed to be made. That is the kind of man Robert Byrd was. While it is true he was the longest serving Member of Congress in history, he was so much more than that. He was the historian of the Senate who knew more about our roots as a legislative body than anyone else. He was a master legislative craftsman, and whenever he spoke, we all listened carefully to see what he had to say about the matter we had taken up for deliberation. That is the kind of man Robert Byrd was. No one had more respect and regard for the Senate and our legislative traditions and procedures than he did. He knew the rules, he knew why they were crafted that way, and he knew how to make good use of them to further the agenda he believed to be in the best interests of the people of our Nation. Once again, that is the kind of man Robert Byrd was. That is why it is so difficult to sum up his life in just a few well-chosen words. There is no greater tribute we can pay to Robert Byrd than for the spirit of friendship and camaraderie, which were staples of his Senate service, to bring us all to the Senate floor to express our regrets and send our condolences to his family. It will also give us a chance to share our memories of someone we will never forget. I will always remember the orientation he organized for the incoming class of new Senators each session for as long as he was able. Besides a strong historical welcome, he presented each of us with one volume of his four-volume history of the Senate. If we read it and were able to answer questions about it, then--and only then--would we get the other three volumes. I remember asking him how he wrote them. He said he presented all of it as a series of floor speeches delivered without any notes, with most corrections made simply to clear up what the floor reporters thought they heard. He had a photographic memory, and that made it all possible. Perhaps it came from his years of study of the violin. In any event, it made him a better speaker because he spoke slowly and deliberately, carefully editing his sentences as he spoke. His style created a natural bond between himself and the listener, and that is what made him such a styled and gifted communicator. It may be a cliche, but he was a southern gentleman through and through. He had no tolerance for any rude or impolite conduct on the floor. He instructed and expected all of us to be courteous and respectful--not because of politics but because of the great institution of which we are a part. He knew what a great honor and a privilege it is to serve in the Senate, and he expected everyone else to realize it as well and to act accordingly. When you presided over the Senate, he expected you to pay attention to each speaker. Sometimes, the Presiding Officer is the only one in the Chamber. There was a time when there was a telephone under the Presiding Officer's desk. As the story goes, Senator Byrd was speaking when the phone under the desk rang. When the Presiding Officer answered it, Senator Byrd made sure to make him aware of the importance of courtesy in such a situation. The Presiding Officer then said: ``Senator Byrd, the phone is for you.'' That is when the phone was taken out and a rule went into effect that no electronic devices were to be used on the Senate floor. Then there were his special speeches. He always commemorated each holiday the evening before a recess would begin. Each speech was very poetic and, in fact, usually had some poem he had memorized years before that would come to mind and be recited from memory. He was good at it, so good that we looked forward to his poetic observations on the passing of time. That unique speaking style of his also helped him to build a good relationship with our pages. His ``going away'' speech for each graduating class often left many of them in tears. Their fondness for him only grew when they learned that if the Senate was in session after 10 p.m., they had no early morning classes the next day. They were always delighted, therefore, when the hour grew late and Senator Byrd rose to speak. They knew he could easily add the 10 or 15 or even 30 minutes needed to get them past 10 o'clock and a welcome reprieve from the early morning classes. My favorite speech Senator Byrd gave happened when I was presiding. Over the previous weekend, he had visited some of his grandkids and asked about their studies. He was a firm believer in education and was an example of lifelong learning himself. One of his grandkids had shared a math experience with him. He was so surprised, he asked to see the math book. He brought the book to the floor to read parts of it to us. He was distressed at how math had migrated into a social textbook. He pointed out that you had to get to page 187 to find anything that resembled the math he had learned. The parts prior to that were social discourse. Anyone who heard the speech would remember his indignation. I remember being at an interparliamentary trip held in West Virginia hosting the British Parliament. We went to a mountain retreat for dinner. Senator Byrd welcomed them and then got out his violin and shared some fiddle music he thought was appropriate for the occasion. He was very good. Senator Byrd was an expert on the rules of the Senate. At our orientation, he encouraged us to learn the rules. Because of his encouragement and as a way to learn the rules, I volunteered often to chair the Senate floor. Following his instructions, I brought a list of questions with me since during the quorum calls you can ask questions of the captive-audience Parliamentarian. I once saw a Senator come to the floor to debate an amendment, and Senator Byrd was there to debate against it. The Senator wanted to revise his amendment. For half an hour, the Senator tried different tactics to change his amendment, and Senator Byrd thwarted every attempt. The Senator was frustrated. He asked for a quorum call, and he left the floor. At that point, I asked the Parliamentarian if there was any way the Senator could have changed his amendment. The Parliamentarian explained that all he had to do was declare his right to revise his amendment. I asked why the Parliamentarian did not tell him that. What I learned is the Parliamentarian can only give advice when asked. My first stop at the Senate floor often is at the Parliamentarian as a result. During much of Senator Byrd's career, he was either the chairman of the Appropriations Committee or the ranking member. He was very good about taking care of orphan miners. Those are primarily coal miners whose companies have gone out of business owing benefits. After a couple of lessons from the Senator, I worked with him to take care of the orphan miner health problem in a bill that speeded up mine reclamation in many States, extended an expiring tax on coal companies with their guarded permission, and then released impounded trust fund money promised by law to the States for the impacts the States put up to produce the Nation's energy, as well as take care of the orphan miners. At another time, Senator Isakson and I worked with Senators Byrd, Rockefeller, and Kennedy to make the first changes in mine safety law in 28 years. He was very proud of the difference he was able to make in the lives of coal miners back home, and he never forgot them whenever we were debating an issue that might have an impact on their lives. In the days and weeks to come, I can think of no greater compliment we could pay another Senator or greater tribute we can pay to Senator Byrd than to watch someone in action on the Senate floor who develops and implements a well-drawn strategy and say: That is the way Robert Byrd would have done it. For my part, I will always remember the great love Senator Byrd had for our Constitution. I do not think anyone knew it better or more detailed than he did. When I was mayor of Gillette, I began a habit of carrying around a copy of the Constitution with me. I discovered that a lot of us knew what it said but not too many of us had a grasp for the details. It had a lot of meaning for me right from the start because it represents the blueprint from which our Nation and system of government were constructed. Then when I came to the Senate, I came to know the Constitution in a completely different way. It was now my job description, as Senator Byrd put it. So I always kept it handy. I have no doubt that Senator Byrd had a similar reaction years before my own. I am sure he knew the better he understood our Constitution and the procedures of the Senate, the more effective he would be as a Senator. He knew the importance of understanding the rules of our legislative process in every detail. The better he became at mastering the process by which our laws were made, the better he knew he would be at producing the outcome he was committed to achieving for the people of West Virginia and the Nation. I am sure that is why he always carried a copy with him. The line-item veto was passed before I got to the Senate, but Senator Byrd had sued to have it stricken. Most of his Senate career had been as chairman of the Appropriations Committee or the ranking member. He pointed out that Congress, according to the Constitution, is supposed to make spending decisions, not the President. He always pointed out that we do not work for the President of the United States; we work with the President as a separate but equal branch of government. He would guard us against infringement by the President using the third branch of government, and he was successful. Although his life was marked by many triumphs, he was not without his personal tragedies. I have always believed that the work we do begins at home, and that is why I will never forget the strength of his marriage and what a tremendous loss it was for him when his wife passed away. No one knew Robert Byrd better than she did, and without her by his side life became ever more difficult. His health began to fail. I remember going to his wife's funeral. It was very well done. When my wife and I were on our way home, we commented that the endearing and astounding thing about the funeral was that it was about her. He made sure her achievements, her family, her efforts and successes were the focus. As famous as Senator Byrd was, the comments that were made that day were about her and not about him. That says a lot about the relationship they had. Although his health was declining, he was here as often as he was able, an active part of the day-to-day workings of the Senate. He would not and could not take it easy, no matter what anyone told him. His heart was in the Senate; his soul was in West Virginia. To stop what he loved to do was for him and the people back home unthinkable. One of Senator Byrd's favorite quotations comes to mind today. He loved the Bible and quoted from it often. When going through a difficult time in his life, he remembered the words from the Book of Ecclesiastes: To everything there is a season and a time for every purpose under heaven. Now Senator Byrd has come to another time, as he has reached the end of his seasons on God's green Earth. He will be greatly missed, and he will never be forgotten. I cannot conclude my remarks without paying a final tribute to Senator Byrd by recalling his love of poetry and the written word. We can all remember the way he would enjoy sharing a favorite verse with us, much like this one. Although the author is unknown, I am certain Senator Byrd would not only recall it but know it well: Life is but a stopping place, A pause in what's to be, A resting place along the road, To sweet eternity. We all have different journeys, Different paths along the way, We all were meant to learn some things, But never meant to stay. Our destination is a place, Far greater than we know. For some the journey's quicker, For some the journey's slow. And when the journey finally ends, We'll claim a great reward, And find an everlasting peace, Together with the Lord. My wife Diana joins in sending our heartfelt sympathy to his family and many friends and for all the people who worked for him and with him over the years. We will miss him--the knowledge he had, the institutional memory he had, the experiences and history he had been a part of and in many instances was the main participant--the leader. Probably only once in the history of a country does someone like this come along. If he were here, he would deny it but be pleased if we noted the similarity of what he had done to what had been done in the ancient Roman Senate about which he often talked. In the end for Senator Byrd it was never about how much time he spent in the Senate or on Earth but how well he used the time he was given. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank the Senator from Delaware for those comments in his weekly update on Federal employees and the great job they are doing. In the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, we know quite a few of them who are doing outstanding work, even something that would surprise America; that is, cooperation between agencies that is outstanding. So I thank the Senator for his efforts.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Spencer Suffling and Casey O'Neill of Senator Bingaman's office be granted the privilege of the floor for today, June 29, 2010.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, before coming to Washington, I ran a shoestore in Gillette, WY. I stocked the shelves. I worked with customers to fit them with shoes. I ran the cash register. I placed the orders with suppliers. I swept the floors. I cleaned the toilets. I did the bookkeeping. In short, I was a one-man show. That is not quite accurate. My wife was there, and we had a couple of clerks. We all had the same responsibilities. My wife helped and actually grew the business while I was mayor of Gillette. We were a one-family show. I know firsthand the struggles and challenges America's small businesses face. We faced them on a daily basis. That is why I am so concerned about the recent action by the Obama administration. Earlier this week, the administration published a 121-page interim final rule that will have a major negative impact on millions of small businesses across the country. This new rule, which implements just two pages of the health care law pertaining to grandfathered health plans, will increase the costs these businesses will pay for health insurance. This new rule violates the President's repeated promises from last year and the year before that under the new health care law, if you like what you have, you can keep it. A chart on page 54 of the rule states that the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services estimate that between 39 and 69 percent of the businesses will lose their grandfathered health plan status. This means these businesses' health plans will not be able to keep their current plans but, rather, will be required to comply with one of the expensive mandates included in the new law. This will, in turn, drive up the costs for these plans, making them even more unaffordable for small businesses. As a former small business owner, I understand how small businesses are struggling every day to find the resources to provide health insurance to their employees. Rather than making it easier for these businesses to continue to provide this coverage, the new regulation will actually make it more likely that employers will simply drop their health insurance coverage altogether. I have a copy of the chart to show the folks back home. This chart shows the administration's own estimates, which indicate that only about half of Americans will be able to keep what they have. The picture, of course, is even worse for small businesses. Health and Human Services estimates that by 2013, up to 80 percent of small businesses could lose their grandfather status. The plans that do lose their grandfather status will have to abide by a whole slew of new Federal mandates, many of which have not even been written yet. These are the low estimates of how many people are going to take it again. This is a midrange estimate by the administration and then a high estimate for small employer plans, large employer plans, and all employer plans. The low-end estimate is 49 percent of them will have to go to something different if they cannot be grandfathered, the midrange estimate is 66 percent, while the high-end estimate is 80 percent of small employer plans will have to give up what they have right now because there are more federally mandated requirements they have not been meeting. In my home State, more than 50 percent of the people will have to change to a different insurance. I have to tell you, almost all of them who have insurance are happy with the insurance they have and really thought they could keep what they have if they like what they have. This chart shows that is not going to be the case. During my days as a shoestore owner, I would not have had the luxury to read a 121-page interim final rule and try to determine what I needed to do to keep my health insurance plan. And if my small business was one of the 80 percent of small businesses that the administration thinks will lose their current status, then I would be forced to pay for a lot more coverage. One of the most disturbing aspects of this new rule is it will actually make it harder for employers to make changes that could hold down the cost of their health care. Once this interim final rule becomes effective, which will be July 12 of this year--less than a month from now--large and small businesses will have few options for both keeping costs in check and maintaining their grandfather status. If an employer does any one of the following things to manage their costs, they lose the health care they have: If they eliminate any benefits, they lose their grandfather status. If they increase coinsurance rates, they lose their grandfather status. If they increase deductibles or out-of-pocket limits beyond minimum levels, they lose their grandfather status. If they increase copayments beyond minimum levels, they lose their grandfather status. If they decrease the employer share of the premium by more than 5 percent, they lose grandfather status. If they add an annual limit or decrease the lifetime or annual limit, they lose grandfather status. If they change their health insurance carrier, they lose their grandfather status. Which is the most important one of those? The very last one. If they change their health insurance carrier, they lose their grandfather status. The only way you have a chance of holding those costs down is to bid out the insurance. It made a huge difference in our business. The first time we bid it out--and we were several years staying with the same company and having very huge increases--the first time we bid it out, we found out we could save very substantially, and so we bought the lower bid insurance. Then the company we had been dealing with for several years came to us and said: Why did you change? I said: We got a much lower price. They said: Why didn't you come back to us and ask for a lower price? I said: That is not the way we sell shoes; that is not the way you should sell insurance. If they change their health insurance carrier, they will lose their grandfather status even if they provide the same things the other one was providing, which is what you do in a bid. In an attempt to keep health care costs down and avoid having to do the other things we mentioned, you would lose your grandfather status. In short, if employers do anything to help slow the growth of their health insurance costs, they will lose the limited protections against the expensive new mandates in the bill. It is worth noting that 2 pages in the law--just 2 pages; it was 2,700 pages, but 2 pages are causing all this--that create the grandfathered plans are a blank slate. The law does not say anything about cost-sharing requirements or coinsurance rates. The administration made up all these provisions and requirements. They did not have to write these rules that preclude half of Americans from keeping what they have. The reality is that the administration does not want you to keep what you have. They certainly like that talking point--it keeps people from getting very nervous--but they do not actually want you to keep what you have. They do not want grandfathered plans to exist. They want to force all Americans to buy only insurance plans that are defined and approved in Washington. It is just one more Washington takeover. Throughout the rule, the administration makes the assumption that a large number of plans will place a high value on the remaining grandfathered plans. Why do they make this assumption? Because the administration recognizes that employers realize the mandates and burdens included in the health care bill will drive up premiums and drive up costs for large businesses, small businesses, and individuals. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that costs will increase 10 to 13 percent for Americans purchasing coverage on their own. That represents a $2,100 increase for families purchasing coverage. Page 112 of the rule lists the 13 new mandates included in the health care law that do not apply to grandfathered plans. However, based on the administration's own calculations, it looks as if 39 to 69 percent of employers will now be forced to comply with these new 13 mandates when they lose their grandfather status. Even for the small number of plans that manage to keep their grandfather status, the reality is that the new law will still impose expensive new mandates that will increase their costs. The new health care law requires all plans, including grandfathered health plans, to comply with certain provisions in the new health care law. Page 112 of the interim final rule has five sections detailing the new mandates that apply to grandfathered health plans for plan years beginning on or after September 23 this year. Another section becomes effective in 2014. This bill was sold as letting people keep what they have, but the devil is always in the details. Do a little digging and it is clear that Americans will not be able to keep what they have. I would like to read a paragraph from page 112 of the regulation. It says: Provisions applicable to all grandfathered health plans. The provisions of Public Health Service Act section 2711 insofar as it relates to lifetime limits, and the provisions of Public Health Service Act-- And it lists several of them-- apply to grandfathered health plans for plan years on or after September 23, 2010. The provisions of Public Health Service Act section 2708 apply to grandfathered health plans for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. This means health plans are now prohibited from having lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary. Even though this section becomes effective after September 23 of this year, the Department has not issued any regulations or guidance telling plans how to implement this new requirement. Section 2712 says that health plans shall not rescind such plan or coverage, except that this section shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact. We have not seen any guidance or regulations on that section either. Section 2714 says that all kids under the age of 26 can stay on their parents' health insurance policy. This popular provision got a lot of attention from the media and the administration. Because of the popularity, this is one area where the administration has actually written an interim final rule which becomes effective July 12 this year even though the comments are not due until August 11 of this year. The final rule goes into effect July 12, but the comments are not due until August 11. In other words, they are not going to read any of the comments before that goes into effect. In the rule, the administration includes an analysis saying that this provision is expected to increase premiums by 1 percent. That might not sound like a lot on its own, but remember that this is only one of the six provisions with which all health plans, even grandfathered plans, will be forced to comply. If each of the other five provisions also drives up premiums by similar amounts, that would equal a 6-percent increase on top of whatever increase results from normal medical inflation. Section 2715 says all plans must give enrollees a government-approved summary of benefits and coverage explanation describing the benefits included in the plan. The interesting thing about this section is that Secretary Sebelius has until next March to publish the standards the plans have to use when they draft these documents, but the plans have to give their enrollees the documents this September. How is that possible? If plans do not have these documents ready, they can be fined up to $1,000 per enrollee. The standards will not be ready until next year, but the plans have to comply this year or face a $1,000-per-enrollee fine. Common sense rode a horse right out of Washington. Maybe it was never here to begin with. Section 2718 says all plans for big businesses have to spend at least 85 cents out of every premium dollar they get paying claims, and plans for small businesses and individuals have to spend at least 80 cents out of every premium dollar they get paying claims. This may sound like a good idea, but, again, the devil is in the details. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners is responsible for defining the terms used in these calculations and coming up with some recommendations about how to implement this section. The Secretary asked them to make these recommendations earlier than when the law says, but they have been having some difficulty. The difficulty is that States know that implementing these provisions will put health plans out of business--out of business. When the plans go out of business, the Americans enrolled in these plans will lose their coverage. This is a real problem with which the insurance commissioners are grappling. Unfortunately, Republicans warned our colleagues on the other side about this problem last December but we were ignored. Section 2708 becomes effective in 2014 and says that plans cannot apply waiting periods that exceed 90 days. Again, this provision sounds like a great idea, and some States are already doing this, but this is one more thing that will drive up costs. No single raindrop thinks it is responsible for the flood. These provisions may sound like good ideas when looked at by themselves but, when taken together, they drive up premiums to the point health care is unaffordable. All these sections I have been talking about are mandates that apply to all plans, even grandfathered plans. There is a whole list of mandates that do not apply to grandfathered plans but apply to the new plans. Page 112 of the rule. I would refer you to that. I won't read it here. It has a lot of references again, and even though these sections aren't supposed to apply to grandfathered plans, as this rule points out, about half of all Americans will lose their grandfathered plan and they will be forced to buy a plan that includes the additional mandates. But if you are enrolled in a union health plan, have no fear. Different rules apply to you. The administration's favorite special interest group gets special treatment under this rule. This is exactly the kind of political cynicism this administration campaigned against 2 years ago. Page 48 of the rule says: This estimate does not take into account collectively bargained plans, which can change issuers during the period of collective bargaining agreement without loss of grandfather status. Keep reading, because page 50 says: For fully insured group health plans, another change that would require a plan to relinquish grandfather status is a change in issuer. The bottom line: Big labor can change issuers, but small businesses cannot change issuers. The ability to change issuers is something that keeps insurance companies competing against each other to see who can offer the best product at the lowest price.

Mr. ENZI. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 more minutes.

Mr. ENZI. I thank my colleagues. The ability to change issuers is something that keeps insurance companies competing against each other to see who can offer the best product at the lowest price. Take that competition away, and prices will go up--for everyone but union plans. The simple truth is, because this new rule will drastically tie the hands of employers, few employers are expected to pursue grandfather status. That means more than half of Americans who like what they have won't be able to keep it. As I said earlier, this is not a mistake. This is exactly what the President and the majority controlling Congress want. They want all Americans to be forced to buy the kind of health insurance they think you should have. Never mind that you can't afford it. Never mind that employers faced with the choice of either paying for health insurance or paying a new penalty will be less likely to hire new workers and will probably even lay off workers. Simply put, this rule States: Washington knows best. Never mind the President promised Americans who like what they have can keep it. This new rule is pretty clear: If you like what you have, you can't keep it. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business until 5 p.m. with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Reid-Baucus tax extenders bill before the Senate includes several provisions that, to my knowledge, have never been vetted by congressional tax writers either in the Senate Finance Committee or in the House Ways and Means Committee. As an accountant with practical expertise in tax matters, this disturbs me greatly. It should also disturb the small business owners because there is a provision in this bill that would slap them in the face with a 15- percent tax increase. I am talking about the provision that would apply a 15.3-percent self-employment tax to the distributions of certain subchapter S corporations. Those are the small business corporations. This self-employment tax would apply when 80 percent of the gross income of the small business is attributable to three or fewer professionals in a professional services corporation. We are talking about the smallest of the small businesses. This is a $9.1 billion hit on a small subset of small businesses engaged in a service trade. I wonder, the next time an offset is needed, will the Senate go after all the small businesses, changing the Tax Code this same way? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle call this a ``loophole closer'' or an ``anti-fraud provision.'' I assure my colleagues this is neither. These words are convenient labels my colleagues use to defend tax-and-spend policies. The small business corporation provision is, however, a massive tax increase on small business. This new payroll tax on nonwage income would hurt the ability of small businesses to reinvest and to create jobs. At nearly 10 percent unemployment, I don't think the Federal Government is in any position to pursue job-killing tax increases. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. It is imperative that we nurture their growth, not hinder it, so they can create jobs and get our economy back on track. None of us is in favor of fraud, but that is not really what we are talking about. If the IRS wants to improve compliance with the self-employment tax, they have the right tools. They just need to use them. For example, the IRS Revenue Ruling 74-44 that specifically addresses the tax treatment of dividends in lieu of compensation gives them all they need. I ask unanimous consent to have the IRS revenue ruling printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. ENZI. I also have pages and pages of case law of which the IRS has successfully litigated the issue of dividends in lieu of compensation and the applicability of employment taxes. Plus, Congress has codified the economic substance doctrine which says a transaction must have an economic purpose aside from the reduction of tax liability in order to be considered valid. In my opinion, this is the IRS's ace-in-the-hole card. The IRS can close any loophole--real or imagined--with the power of the new law. Why can't the IRS do its job with the volumes of legislative regulatory and judicial tools it already has? For example, the IRS revenue ruling could be codified somehow, but then it wouldn't provide an offset for new programs, would it? Nor would it permit my colleagues across the aisle to reduce the tax on venture capitalists for their carried interest. I don't like the carried interest provision, but to soften the impact of that policy on the backs of small businesses is just plain wrong. Even the Government Accountability Office agrees the IRS should be doing more with what it has to crack down on fraud. In a 2009 report, the GAO stated: ``IRS efforts to enforce the rules on paying adequate wage compensation to small business shareholders have been limited,'' and the IRS provides only ``limited guidance in determining adequate compensation'' guidelines for taxpayers. A 2002 report by the Treasury's inspector general found that ``IRS agents did not always address officer compensation, even when little or no compensation was paid.'' Clearly, the IRS isn't doing its job. That is the loophole. The IRS can and should do more with what they already have. As a former accountant, I find this small business corporation payroll tax totally unworkable. For example, the tax would apply when 80 percent or more of gross income of the S corporation is attributable to three or fewer shareholders in the S corporation. How are taxpayers supposed to track the attribution of gross income? Let me give an example. My friend, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, has introduced S. 144 that would exempt cell phones from the recordkeeping requirements under the listed property rules. Why? Because the paperwork burden is too costly and time consuming for business. I think it is a good bill, and I am proud to be a cosponsor. In fact, the bill has 72 cosponsors. That is a supermajority of the Senate who agree it is a good bill. But if a supermajority of the Senate agrees the bookkeeping burden of parcelling out an itemized cell phone bill between business and personal use is too onerous, why would we think that itemizing the source of gross income across shareholders and employees in an S corporation would be any easier? This new payroll tax on small business was written without any input from the tax-writing committees, and it shows. Although I am sure it was unintended, this new law has the potential to reduce Social Security benefits. Since the new payroll tax would reclassify income from certain small businesses as wage income, it could trigger the earnings test for folks receiving early retirement benefits from Social Security. Even Senator Baucus admitted the payroll tax provision needs ``modifications.'' I remember it well because he made this statement during a Treasury hearing a few weeks ago when I raised this issue as an onerous tax increase. Not only is this a job-killing tax, but the manner in which it was concocted is appalling. The original tax extenders bill raised the taxes on Wall Street bankers, but when their lobbyists howled, lawmakers went looking someplace else--small businesses--for the revenue they needed. Small businesses aren't as able to defend themselves when the tax man cometh, and in the end it results in a new tax that robs David to pay Goliath. The outrageousness of this new tax led me and my colleague, Senator Snowe from Maine, to file an amendment that would strike the S corporation payroll tax from the underlying tax extenders bill. If my colleagues across the aisle seriously believe that noncompliance with the self-employment tax among S corporations is a problem, then the best, most workable solution is to codify the ``reasonable compensation'' standard into law. This S corporation ``attribution of gross income'' basis isn't workable. If you don't believe me, again, I refer you to the experts. I have a letter I wish to submit for the Record. It is a letter from the AICPA, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. In the letter they say: We are concerned that there may be unintended consequences that have not been fully aired and discussed. Accordingly, we strongly support the amendment being offered by Senators Snowe and Enzi which would strike Section 413. I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

Mr. ENZI. Again, this seemingly small provision in the tax extenders bill would have a $9 billion impact, and that is just on a subset of S corporations, these small businesses. This payroll tax provision ought to be stripped and sent back to the tax-writing committees where it can be addressed in the proper fashion. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Snowe-Enzi amendment in our efforts to remove this misguided, outrageous new tax. I think there is support on both sides of the aisle for doing that. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From taxanalysts] Federal Research Library: IRS Revenue Rulings (Rev. Rul. 74-44; 1974-1 C.B. 287) rev. rul. 74-44 Advice has been requested whether, under the circumstances described below, an electing small business corporation incurred liability for the taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and the Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages (chapters 21, 23, and 24, respectively, subtitle C, Internal Revenue Code of 1954). The corporation is a small business corporation with two shareholders, that has elected, pursuant to section 1371(a) of the Code, not to be subject to corporate income tax, but to have all its income taxed directly to its shareholders. In 1972, the shareholders performed services for the corporation. However, to avoid the payment of Federal employment taxes, they drew no salary from the corporation but arranged for the corporation to pay them ``dividends'' of 100x dollars, which is the amount they would have otherwise received as reasonable compensation for services performed. Sections 3121(a) and 3306(b) of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, respectively, define the term ``wages,'' with certain specific exceptions not material here, as ``all remuneration for employment.'' Section 3401(a) of the Code, relating to the withholding of income tax, contains a similar definition. In the instant case, the ``dividends'' paid to the shareholders in 1972 were in lieu of reasonable compensation for their services. Accordingly, the 100x dollars paid to each of the shareholders was reasonable compensation for services performed by him, rather than a distribution of the corporation's earnings and profits. Such compensation was ``wages'' and liability was incurred for the taxes imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, and the Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages.

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, this past week, Fremont County in my home State of Wyoming has been hit hard by flooding. I want to take this opportunity to commend the communities in Wyoming that have come together and worked so hard to respond to the flooding, to help protect each other's homes, and whose willingness to step up and volunteer to help their neighbors really shows the true Wyoming spirit. I want to thank the individuals who have been filling sandbags all week. Literally hundreds of thousands of sandbags have been filled to help hold back the floodwaters and protect homes and businesses. I am told that there are more sandbags if we need them and I know that people in my home State won't hesitate for a second to do the hard work that will help protect a neighbor's home or a community business. This truly is a community effort, and I am proud of the example that our small businesses, our community organizations, and Wyoming's volunteers are making. Nearly 240 Wyoming National Guard members are in Fremont County right now. Their service is critical to our communities in times like these, and I want to recognize and thank them for their hard work. They are making a huge difference in helping make sure that communities like Lander, Ethete, Fort Washakie, and many other places have the help they need. The extent of the damage from this disaster is still unclear, but our communities--both in Wyoming and in other States that have been hit by natural disasters--must have the resources to recover and put their towns and neighborhoods back together. For those agricultural producers affected by this flood, this is the very reason why I worked with my colleagues during the 2008 farm bill to enact a permanent disaster program--so funding would be available when it is most needed and would not require emergency congressional action. I know Senator Barrasso and Representative Lummis are working hard to make sure Fremont County can get the support it needs. Their energy and hard work have been critical to the teamwork that we do. Wyoming is a big State, so I am glad that we have always worked together to make sure we can get different jobs done in different places. I want to thank everyone who has helped respond to this disaster for their hard work and persistence. They have truly demonstrated what it means to part of the Wyoming community. Our prayers are with everyone at this difficult time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Murkowski's resolution that would ensure this Congress keeps its responsibility to establish our Nation's environmental regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency's move to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is an economic and bureaucratic nightmare in the making that is going to have a devastating effect on our economy and put a regulatory stranglehold on businesses and individuals across the country. The Congressional Review Act was passed in 1996 to make sure Congress could step in when Federal agencies got off track. It was a bipartisan bill because Senators and Representatives recognized we should not hand off our responsibility for setting Federal policy to Federal agencies. So when Federal agencies get off track, we have a way to bring them back to reality. We need to bring the EPA back to reality on the catastrophe that regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would create because if we don't, it will be consumers and businesses-- both small business and big business in every sector of our economy-- that will end up paying more than they can afford for these regulations. The consequences of allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act are tremendous. The EPA's rule that will go into effect if Senator Murkowski's resolution is not adopted would not just apply to big powerplants or industrial factories. More than 6 million businesses and residences will come under these new regulations at a cost of billions of dollars to our economy. The EPA is going to regulate small business and family farms, and those who can't afford to comply will go out of business. They will regulate office buildings and warehouses, and if you rent space in an office building or store your inventory in a warehouse, your costs will rise. Grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, residential buildings, and even individual homes will face complicated and expensive regulations. It is not just Members on my side of the aisle who believe the EPA is taking a disastrous approach. The White House and members of the President's party have said EPA's move to impose ``command and control'' regulation on greenhouse gases would be a step in the wrong direction. Where would the regulations stop? No one knows for sure. Cattle produce a lot of carbon dioxide and methane, so it is hard to imagine how the agricultural industry would not be impacted. What about people? In a big city, people are breathing out carbon dioxide all day long. Could that be subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act? Could breathing become a fineable violation or would there be a new tax as breathing isn't an option? There will be many unintended consequences if the EPA is allowed to move forward, and we have a chance to stop that from happening today by supporting Senator Murkowski's resolution disapproving the EPA's action. Our economy has lost 8 million jobs over the past 2 years, and unemployment is still almost 10 percent. Businesses that had to lay people off are still hurting. The last thing our economy needs and the last thing businesses can afford is an EPA choke hold. According to the EPA, the average cost of compliance for stationary sources that would be regulated is more than $125,000. That is an average cost. Some will be less, but many will be more than $125,000. It is just an average. That is $125,000 that could be used to hire new employees. It is $125,000 that will not be spent on business expansion. Right now, with our economy struggling, we need to be working to encourage businesses to hire more employees and to grow, but unless we stop the EPA's overreach, businesses across this country will be facing the harshest and most expensive regulations they have ever seen. Some people have suggested that EPA's decision to move forward with greenhouse gas regulation will pressure Congress into implementing a cap-and-tax proposal. They say: We don't want EPA to regulate, but we have to keep pressure on Congress or Congress would not act. I don't buy that argument because, as the old saying goes, ``two wrongs don't make a right.'' Senators are faced with a choice. If it is wrong for the EPA to regulate, they should stop it from happening, and supporting Senator Murkowski's resolution is the clearest way to do it. My colleagues who oppose this resolution are voting in favor of EPA action. They are voting to allow the EPA to set up complex regulations that will strangle our economy, kill economic recovery, and further squeeze consumers and businesses across the country. It is the start of a slippery slope. How much control will the EPA reach for after this if it isn't stopped now? The Clean Air Act is not the EPA's regulatory Swiss Army knife. Even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said that the Clean Air Act was not written to apply to greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gas is not one of the six categories of pollutants that the Clean Air Act covers and the list of 188 specific pollutants that are regulated under the Clean Air Act does not include carbon dioxide or methane. Even if Congress did decide that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be regulated, the Clean Air Act would be the wrong tool for the job. Greenhouse gases come from large and small sources, from major manufacturers and industrial plants and from community hospitals and small-town businesses. And yes, they come from animals, and yes, from people breathing in and out. Applying the Clean Air Act across the board to sources that emit a small amount of carbon dioxide--as the law requires--would be clumsy and harmful, and ultimately do tremendous economic harm to America's businesses and consumers. The Congressional Review Act was passed so that Congress could step in and prevent federal agencies like the EPA from implementing rules or regulations that don't make sense. I hope my colleagues will recognize the tremendous harm that allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act would do to our economy. While there are many disagreements about climate change legislation, we should all be able to recognize that the course the EPA is on now is the worst of all worlds. Their approach would stymie our chances of recovering from the recession and stifle economic development for businesses and consumers who are already struggling to make ends meet. Is there no end to the administration's approach of believing that any situation can be saved with more redtape, more regulations, and more fines? Is there any end to the power grabs of this administration, which has thrown every obstacle it can think of in the path of our small businesses? Supporting the Murkowski resolution would check the EPA and give our small businesses that make up the most important part of our economy a fighting chance. This is the last chance to stop the EPA's carbon overreach and the slippery slope that will ensue if we allow them to move forward with these harmful regulations. Please vote yes on the motion to proceed and yes on the motion for disapproval. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 10 minutes as in morning business. I will be speaking on the supplemental bill, however.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to express my opposition to the fiscal year 2010 Supplemental Appropriations Act. It represents what is reprehensible about the conduct of the Federal Government: unchecked, unpaid for, deficit spending. After a trillion dollar ``stimulus,'' a trillion dollar health care bill, and huge increases in the budgets of the bureaucracy, Americans are fed up with Congress's out-of-control spending. Our constituents have had enough, and they have asked us to rein in spending. Unfortunately, rather than listen to their cries, we have another appropriations bill that represents the same old, same old. Of the nearly $59 billion of spending in this bill, all but $103 million is designated ``emergency'' spending. What does ``emergency'' spending actually mean, and what are these emergencies the Nation is facing? Emergency spending means deficit spending. It means we are spending money that we as a nation do not have. An emergency designation relieves Congress of the burden and the responsibility of coming up with ways to pay for the spending. We are continuing to make purchases on the taxpayer's credit card, knowing full well we have no plans to pay back the loan. We have already maxed out the credit card. The company just has not found out yet. Some programs under this bill may be considered true emergencies. There are unforeseen disasters, such as flooding and oilspills. But there are also disasters that occurred years ago that would receive funding under this legislation. Funding may be needed for those programs, but the lack of funding was certainly not unexpected and should have been in last year's and this year's regular budget and appropriations process. But appropriations and budgeting have been so disfigured, contorted, abused, and ignored by lawmakers in recent years that the system is broken, and you have a series of omnibus and ``emergency'' or supplemental bills. It is not the way to do it. Even in the writeup of this legislation, the Senate Appropriations Committee noted that the $5.1 billion for the FEMA Disaster Relief Fund is necessary to pay for known costs for past disasters, such as Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Ike, and Gustav, the Midwest floods of 2008, and the California wildfires, as well as needs that emerge with new disasters. The bill also provides $13.4 billion in mandatory funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability compensation to Vietnam veterans to implement a recent decision by the VA to expand the number of illnesses presumed to be related to exposure to Agent Orange. There is no doubt Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange should be properly compensated, but Congress and the administration must find a way to pay for these programs without spending money we do not have and do not intend to pay back. There is no plan to pay back. I want to make very clear my strong support for our Nation's veterans and the current members of our Armed Forces and the vital work they are doing in the world every day. I have the greatest admiration for today's service members and veterans for their commitment to preserving our freedoms and maintaining our national security. I must question, however, using their sacrifices to justify irresponsible spending by this Congress. Congress must pass this bill to keep the necessary resources going to our military. America has deployed our young men and women to defend our Nation's interests, and they deserve no less than having the funding and equipment necessary to carry out their missions. But some in Congress do not see this as just about the military. They see it as an opportunity to add their pet programs to the shoulders of our Armed Forces. No one wants to leave our military operations unfunded, so our military needs are being used to leverage support for nonemergency, deficit spending. To be fair, the Appropriations Committee found some offsets for the spending in this bill. Unfortunately, the offsets only account for .17 of 1 percent of the total cost of the bill--not even a quarter of a percent of the cost of the bill: .17 of 1 percent of the bill. You would think we could at least hit the 1-percent mark. Mr. President, .17 percent is all that is offset in this bill. That is wrong. Senator Coburn and Senator McCain have offered amendments that would offset or pay for the larger costs of this legislation. Tomorrow morning we will get to vote on those, and I hope we will take them into consideration and make sure this is paid for. I hope all my colleagues will take a look at those amendments. The funding cut proposals are reasonable. They are well thought out. They are ideas that will help us responsibly address the serious spending problems this Congress has. It is time for Congress to step up and start making the hard decisions of prioritizing Federal spending. The American people have made it clear that Congress needs to be fiscally responsible. They have made it clear they do not support our spending billions of taxpayer dollars with little or no debate. We have been asking Americans to tighten their spending belts and take responsibility for their personal debt. It is about time the representatives of the people do the same. In April 2009, when making an emergency supplemental appropriations request, President Obama said: We should not label military costs as emergency funds so as to avoid our responsibility to abide by the spending limitations set forth by the Congress. After years of budget gimmicks and wasteful spending, it is time to end the era of irresponsibility in Washington. End of quote by the President. I could not agree more. Congress and the administration need to find a better way to fund current military operations. Most of these funds are expected and should be addressed in the regular budget process. Again, I want to provide our troops with the funding and the resources they need to be successful as they work to protect America. I do not, however, want the brave men and women of the Armed Forces nor the families of America who have been truly impacted by unforeseen disasters to be used as justification for unchecked and, in some cases, unrelated spending. The men and women of our armed services deserve better than this spending bill. The people of the United States deserve better. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there was a request made to me by the Senator from Delaware if he could have 1 minute to add his name to this discussion that has just been held. I ask unanimous consent that it not be taken out of my time, but that 1 minute be given to the Senator from Delaware.