Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of preserving the Heart Mountain World War II Internment Camp in Powell, Wyoming. My good friend and colleague Senator John Barrasso and I are introducing a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of adding the Heart Mountain Relocation Center as a unit of the National Park System. Heart Mountain, WY, was 1 of 10 relocation centers created during World War II to house Japanese and Japanese-Americans who were forcibly relocated inland from the west coast. The current site contains the most existing structures of any site in the country. To memorialize this history, the Heart Mountain, Wyoming Foundation is working to develop a Learning Center on the site of the Internment Camp. The Foundation is a well-established and creditable organization serving 2,800 on its mailing list, with notable Board and Advisory Board members including former Senator Alan Simpson and former U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Senator Simpson and Secretary Mineta first met as Boy Scouts when Senator Simpson's Cody, WY, Scout Troop visited Secretary Mineta's troop while he was interned as a young man in the Heart Mountain camp. They developed a bond that would last for decades and eventually served in Congress together. Private and public entities alike strongly believe that Heart Mountain, WY, should be preserved for future generations. I, too, believe preservation of one of our country's landmarks from World War II should be saved so our children and grandchildren have another tool to learn about our country's history. In 2000, I secured Federal funding from the Economic Development Initiative Grant Program, EDI, under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Heart Mountain, Wyoming Foundation. The foundation used this funding to acquire land and conduct environmental assessment of the land in order to build an interactive learning facility at Heart Mountain's World War II Internment Camp in Powell, WY. The facility educates tourists and Wyomingites about the camp's history and effects on the Japanese American population. In the past 9 years, private individuals, non-profit organizations, and the Federal Government have issued additional dollars to the Heart Mountain, Wyoming Foundation in order to achieve its goal of preserving the land, remaining structures, and building the Learning Center. The next step in this journey is the bill Senator Barrasso and I are introducing today. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of adding the Heart Mountain Relocation Center as a unit of the National Park System. When conducting the study, the Secretary of the Interior will be looking at various factors including, but not limited to, evaluating the national significance of Heart Mountain, WY; identifying the cost estimates for any Federal acquisition, development, operation and maintenance of the area; and identifying any potential impacts of designation of site as a unit of the National Park System on private landowners. Once funds are made available for the study, the Secretary of the Interior has 3 years to study the issue and issue a report about next steps to the appropriate House and Senate committees of jurisdiction. Simply because we are introducing this legislation does not guarantee that Heart Mountain will become a part of the National Park System. The bill we are introducing will allow the Secretary to study that question and to make a recommendation based on the merits of Heart Mountain and how it would fit within the entire National Park System. Heart Mountain Camp internees want to leave a legacy of learning through this Center to future generations such that abridgements of freedoms and lack of ethnic understanding not occur again in this great country. Preserving the land and structures and building the Learning Center will do just that. This bill is the next step forward in making their dream a reality.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the importance of preserving the Heart Mountain World War II Internment Camp in Powell, Wyoming. My good friend and colleague Senator John Barrasso and I are introducing a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of adding the Heart Mountain Relocation Center as a unit of the National Park System. Heart Mountain, WY, was 1 of 10 relocation centers created during World War II to house Japanese and Japanese-Americans who were forcibly relocated inland from the west coast. The current site contains the most existing structures of any site in the country. To memorialize this history, the Heart Mountain, Wyoming Foundation is working to develop a Learning Center on the site of the Internment Camp. The Foundation is a well-established and creditable organization serving 2,800 on its mailing list, with notable Board and Advisory Board members including former Senator Alan Simpson and former U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Senator Simpson and Secretary Mineta first met as Boy Scouts when Senator Simpson's Cody, WY, Scout Troop visited Secretary Mineta's troop while he was interned as a young man in the Heart Mountain camp. They developed a bond that would last for decades and eventually served in Congress together. Private and public entities alike strongly believe that Heart Mountain, WY, should be preserved for future generations. I, too, believe preservation of one of our country's landmarks from World War II should be saved so our children and grandchildren have another tool to learn about our country's history. In 2000, I secured Federal funding from the Economic Development Initiative Grant Program, EDI, under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Heart Mountain, Wyoming Foundation. The foundation used this funding to acquire land and conduct environmental assessment of the land in order to build an interactive learning facility at Heart Mountain's World War II Internment Camp in Powell, WY. The facility educates tourists and Wyomingites about the camp's history and effects on the Japanese American population. In the past 9 years, private individuals, non-profit organizations, and the Federal Government have issued additional dollars to the Heart Mountain, Wyoming Foundation in order to achieve its goal of preserving the land, remaining structures, and building the Learning Center. The next step in this journey is the bill Senator Barrasso and I are introducing today. The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of adding the Heart Mountain Relocation Center as a unit of the National Park System. When conducting the study, the Secretary of the Interior will be looking at various factors including, but not limited to, evaluating the national significance of Heart Mountain, WY; identifying the cost estimates for any Federal acquisition, development, operation and maintenance of the area; and identifying any potential impacts of designation of site as a unit of the National Park System on private landowners. Once funds are made available for the study, the Secretary of the Interior has 3 years to study the issue and issue a report about next steps to the appropriate House and Senate committees of jurisdiction. Simply because we are introducing this legislation does not guarantee that Heart Mountain will become a part of the National Park System. The bill we are introducing will allow the Secretary to study that question and to make a recommendation based on the merits of Heart Mountain and how it would fit within the entire National Park System. Heart Mountain Camp internees want to leave a legacy of learning through this Center to future generations such that abridgements of freedoms and lack of ethnic understanding not occur again in this great country. Preserving the land and structures and building the Learning Center will do just that. This bill is the next step forward in making their dream a reality.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Dr. Regina Benjamin to be Surgeon General. The vetting process for executive nominees is thorough, and Dr. Benjamin has successfully completed that process. Her nomination was approved unanimously by the HELP Committee on October 7 by a voice vote. The mission of the Surgeon General is to be America's ``top doctor,'' and to act as the chief medical educator and communicator on public health and safety issues. Dr. Benjamin has a distinguished career in providing health care to low-income individuals. We also share an understanding of the unique challenges facing people in rural and underserved areas. I am confident that Dr. Benjamin will be able to articulately inform Americans on matters of health safety. Dr. Benjamin will become Surgeon General at a key time during the H1N1 pandemic influenza epidemic and subsequent supply shortage of the H1N1 vaccine. I am pleased she will soon be able to assist with these efforts and play a role in updating the American people on the status of the epidemic. I was pleased to vote for Dr. Benjamin's nomination in the HELP Committee and look forward to her swift confirmation today.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this health plan being forced on America under phony, tight timelines bites off too much, fails to deliver on promises, and passes the costs on to hard-working Americans. When the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance hear the term ``health care reform,'' they expect Washington to do something that lowers the cost of their health insurance premiums. That reaction should not be surprising, since the President and congressional leaders have explicitly promised that reform would lower health care costs to the average American family. Unfortunately, the bills Congress has developed will do the exact opposite. These bills will increase health care costs. Several recent reports have highlighted what I and some of my colleagues have been saying for months. The combination of increased taxes, expensive mandates, and new regulations in these bills will actually increase the cost of health care for most Americans. Unemployment is higher than it has been in decades. The housing market is in distress. There is an out-of-control Federal debt and deficit. More and more middle-class Americans are feeling squeezed by irresponsible decisions being made here in Washington. Unfortunately, the health care bill being put together by the majority leader behind closed doors--and not on the Web yet--is another example of irresponsible policies. It is important for the American people to understand how these bills will actually increase their health care costs. I wish to highlight 10 specific ways these bills will increase premiums for Americans and individuals. Taken together, these provisions will increase costs, they will stifle competition, and they will take choices away from families, individual Americans, and small businesses. Here are the top 10 ways the bills before Congress increase health care costs: No. 1, the two committee bills rely on taxing the young to pay for the old is what the number crunchers call adjusted community rating. This means the premium charged to a healthy 22-year-old will have to increase to be much closer to the premiums charged to someone who is much older and sicker. This means young people will pay a lot more for health insurance premiums than they do today. Over 40 percent of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34, the same age group that will be hit the hardest, with the highest price increases, if this bill passes. Experts estimate that in most States, premiums for the youngest 30 percent of the population will increase by 69 percent under the tight age bands being considered in one of the Senate bills. These extreme price increases will force the young and healthy out of the market. Most young people will probably do the math and decide, let's see, I can pay the $750-a-year tax penalty rather than pay $5,000 a year more for health insurance. If they get sick later, they can enroll in health insurance later. No. 2, premiums will increase because of the new federally mandated requirements on health plans. The bill will mandate that most health care plans have to meet new, higher specified actuarial values. If you don't know the term ``actuarial value,'' you are not alone. Let me put this as simply as I can. Actuarial value is a technical term that describes the amount of total health care spending that is paid for by the health plan; in other words, all the benefits and enrollee cost- sharing provisions a health care plan covers. Typically, as actuarial values increase, premiums increase and the cost-sharing requirement decrease. If you are healthy, you cannot opt for lower premiums or for higher copays than your government will tell you or you will pay the penalty. The bottom line is, experts estimate that 50 percent of the individual market policies purchased today and about 20 percent of the policies purchased by small businesses today have actuarial values that are lower than what the Democrats think you should have, which means millions of Americans will be forced to buy more expensive plans. Compliance with these benefit requirements could cause premiums for the new purchasers to increase by about 10 percent for individuals and about 3 percent for small businesses. For small businesses, 3 percent is a high rate of profit. No. 3, premiums will increase because of the new federally mandated benefit packages. All plans must include a long list of benefits regardless of what Americans need or want. Why should a 30-year-old single man be required to pay for ovarian cancer screening? Additionally, at least every year the Secretary of Health and Human Services will be required to define and update--perhaps increase--the categories of covered treatments, items, and services. Not surprising, what this will mean is that the list of mandated benefits will inevitably get longer and further increase costs. If these bills are enacted, every disease advocacy group, drug manufacturer, and health care provider will hire more lobbyists to see that all health plans are required to cover their unique diseases, treatments, and procedures. That is no way to run a health care program. I believe consumers rather than lobbyists should decide the benefits package that best meets their needs. Otherwise, there will be more mandates and higher costs. If this bill becomes law, I would not be surprised if every plan in America is required to cover massages and acupuncture. I am not saying people should not get massages or acupuncture if they want to pay for them, but I don't think all Americans should be required to enroll in a plan that covers every single benefit. No. 4, premiums will increase because of new excise taxes on medical devices and drugs. The official scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have been clear in stating that these taxes will be passed on to patients. That means consumers will see the prices of everything from power wheelchairs to pacemakers to prescription drugs, such as Prilosec, significantly increase. These price increases will also ultimately increase health insurance premiums for the millions of Americans who already have health insurance. You don't use any of those? Remember, insurance is spreading the risks so you get to pay, too. No. 5, premiums will increase because of the new excise tax on health insurance providers. The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have said these taxes will be passed on to people in the form of higher premiums. This tax alone could raise premiums for a family by $487 a year. No. 6, premiums for health insurance will increase when 14 million more Americans are enrolled in the Medicaid Program. Several studies have highlighted how Medicaid's inadequate payments to doctors and hospitals directly increase costs to everybody else by forcing these providers to make up for their losses under Medicaid by shifting those costs on to private purchasers. The current health reform bills include the biggest expansions of the Medicaid Program since it was created in 1965, while doing nothing to address Medicaid's inadequate doctor and hospital payment rates. If someone cannot see a doctor, they do not have insurance. This will mean billions of dollars in additional costs would have to be shifted on to individuals who already have health insurance, thereby driving up their premiums. Nearly 40 percent of doctors will not see Medicaid patients because of the low reimbursement rates. As I said, if someone does not see a doctor, they do not have health care. No. 7, premiums will increase for so-called Cadillac plans because of the new 40-percent excise tax. Companies will respond to this new tax by shifting the costs on to individuals who are the insured or by reducing the value of the health care benefits they provide. Eventually, this tax will start hitting the Chevys and the Buicks, not just the Cadillacs. Experts estimate that in many metropolitan areas the lowest option bronze plan--that is what we require--under the Finance Committee bill will be considered a so-called Cadillac plan as early as 2016. This does not even go into effect until 2013. No. 8, premiums will increase because of the new fee to sell plans in the mandated exchanges. The Congressional Budget Office estimates plans would have to pay a surcharge to sell on the exchange, which would add about 3 percent to premiums. No. 9, premiums will increase because of the new reinsurance program. This new program will cost Americans $20 billion, and those costs will be passed on to someone, most like the healthy enrollees. No. 10, premiums will increase because of the new tax for comparative effectiveness research. Washington bureaucrats will tax patients so the government can decide which treatments are acceptable and which treatments are denied. Rationing? We have seen this story before in other countries such as England. We know this will lead to the delay and denial of care for our seniors. It is no wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll noted that 59 percent of our Nation's seniors oppose the current legislation. Taken together, the 10 policies I just described will cumulatively increase health insurance premiums for millions of Americans who currently have health insurance. It is another squeeze on our Nation's middle class. In my home State of Wyoming, a healthy 35-year-old man can currently buy a high-deductible policy for about $90 a month. The scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office estimate the silver plan under the Finance Committee bill will be $392 a month.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. ENZI. I ask for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. ENZI. The scorekeepers at the Congressional Budget Office estimate the silver plan under the Finance Committee bill will increase to $392 a month. That is over a 300-percent increase. None of the folks I talked with from Wyoming can afford to pay 300 percent or more for their health insurance. In another economic time, this policy would be bad enough. In today's climate, it is irresponsible. We all agree the health insurance market is broken and needs to be fixed. Everyone who wants health insurance should be able to get it, and they should not have to spend their hard-earned dollars to get it. No American should be denied health insurance because they have cancer, diabetes, acne, or some other preexisting condition. No one should lose their health insurance because they forgot about an old injury when they filled out a form. No one should be denied health insurance, period. These reforms are very important and long overdue. However, we can do better. These goals should be implemented in a way that drives down costs for the majority of Americans who already have health insurance. Congress needs to learn from the experiences of the States that have already enacted these types of reforms. The States did not pass reforms with the goal of increasing costs for a majority of their residents, but that is precisely what has happened over time. We need to enact reforms that will actually reduce costs and make health insurance more affordable. That is what the American people want but, unfortunately, that is not what the current bills do. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Barrasso and I be permitted to speak as in morning business to offer some comments about Senator Cliff Hansen, who passed away last night, and to agree to a resolution.

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is with a great deal of sadness that Senator Barrasso and Representative Lummis and I inform our colleagues that we have lost one of our good friends and a former Member of this body, Clifford P. Hansen. Cliff Hansen passed away on Tuesday night at the age of 97. His was, in every sense, a truly remarkable life. He was a man to match his mountains. He came from the shadow of the Tetons. If you have ever been there, you know that when God made the Alps he had a couple left over and he took the biggest ones and he put them in Wyoming, and that is where Jackson Hole is. Times such as these always draw me to the words of the Bible which remind us that ``to everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven.'' So it is with all of us. Each role we play, each task we are called to perform is another time for us, another season in our lives. As has often been said, Cliff Hansen was Wyoming through and through, a favorite son of the West who knew and understood our western way of life better than anyone else. He knew it because he lived it and he lived it each and every day. Cliff Hansen lived most of his life in the Jackson Hole area--all of his life, except the time he was providing public service. He was born at the base of the Tetons and he lived a life in which he stood as tall and as proud in his support of Wyoming as those magnificent mountains. His parents were homesteaders and from them he learned the importance of working hard for what you believe in and always giving it your best. It was a philosophy that suited him well. A lot of people don't know that as a child he was a stutterer, but he had a phenomenal teacher who worked with him, put rocks in his mouth. He attributed his success at oratory to her help through those years. A rancher by profession, Cliff spent the early part of his life working the land and learning to appreciate what a tremendously important resource it was. For him, the land was a precious gift, a legacy that helped him establish himself as a rancher. As he tended the land, he also was working at the local level to address the issues of the day. But that kind of success wasn't enough for him. Determined to find something else he could do to help make a difference, he soon found his way to run for public office. He was a county commissioner and, as a part of that season, he served as Wyoming's Governor. There was a lot to be done, so Cliff rolled up his sleeves and got right to the tasks at hand. To help the people of our State, Cliff worked to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. To make life a little easier for our senior citizens, he supported increasing retirement pay for State employees. To help the next generation of our State's leaders, he helped increase funding for our schools and our education system. At that point, Cliff could have called it a day and returned to the ranch to sit back and enjoy reminiscing about all he had accomplished. Once again, it wasn't enough for Cliff. He still had some good ideas and an interest in getting things done. That great heart of his wouldn't let him quit. So it was back to the campaign trail and an offer he once again made to the people of Wyoming to serve them again and began another season in his life. This one resulted in a run for the Senate and a defeat of a very popular Democrat on the way, Teno Roncalio. In the Senate, Cliff served on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging. At each post, amid every opportunity, Cliff always had his eye on Wyoming and how he could best be of service to the people back home. He focused on issues such as reservoir projects, recreation and wilderness areas, and making sure we were good stewards of the Federal Treasury. He kept spending under control. He also made a major change for Wyoming. In the early days, the States got about 37.5 percent royalty on minerals and he was able to raise that, with the help of a lot of his fellow Senators, working across the aisle, to 50 percent. When he got that passed, it was at the time that Gerald Ford was the President and the Chief of Staff was a Wyoming boy named Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney had to initiate a call to Cliff Hansen and let him know the President had some bad news for him. At that point Dick Cheney put President Ford on the phone and the President said, I have some bad news for you, Cliff. I am going to have to veto that bill. Cliff Hansen said, I have some bad news for you. I am going to find the votes to override it, and he did. It has been a great boon to our State. While Cliff was serving in the Senate, I was serving as president of the Wyoming Jaycees. Diana and I were in Washington to meet with him. He invited us to the Senate dining room for breakfast. It was a great thrill for Diana and me to have a chance to meet with a Senator. We will never forget how it was to be in that dining room with this good person who turned out to be a trusted and valued friend. It was also my first encounter with grits. I found they taste as the name suggests. Although Cliff had every reason to be proud of what he had achieved at every stage of his life, he would always be the first to say that he could never have done it alone. Fortunately, he didn't have to, for when he returned to Jackson Hole after graduating from college he married a very special woman, Martha. I have to tell you, her dad was a little bit skeptical. He said, This guy comes from the valley that is known as the safe harbor for horse thieves. Well, it happened, it stuck, and they started a wonderful love story that would last forever. It is an adage that love is stronger than anything that comes to us in life. Cliff and Martha will be forever great examples of that and their story of life and love that lasted 75 years. Diana and I always enjoyed seeing them together for they were the epitome of a great marriage. Cliff had a warm, engaging personality, he was full of life, and he had a smile that reflected the genuine happiness and contentment that he found in his life and in his family. Martha, by his side, was a kind and gracious woman. With her support and encouragement, Cliff had a tremendous asset in his life and in his political career. She also helped to keep him grounded. I remember one of the stories he often told of coming back from one of the Washington- type gala events where he had been presented an award as legislator of the year, one of 535 people to receive this award. As he was driving home he was reflecting and saying, Martha, how many truly recognized people are there in this world, she quickly said, One less than you think. It is a lesson that he always kept. I am pleased with the number of calls and e-mails we have had from former staff members. His staff counsel mentioned the kindness he always had, knowing the people who worked at the doors and the elevators, and at that time there were a lot of them who worked in the elevators. But one time he was waiting outside the Chamber door for him to come for a vote and he was getting a little worried that the vote was going to run out, so he went looking for him and found that he was helping a lady in a wheelchair up some of the steps so she could get into the building. It was just the kind of thing he would do, go out of his way to help out. When I arrived in the Senate, Cliff and Martha became role models for Diana and me. They blazed a trail together and we learned a good deal from watching how they did it. Diana and I weren't the only ones to learn from Cliff. One thing that so many of us will always remember about him was his love for teaching the next generation about Wyoming's heritage and our land, our agricultural industry, an aspect so important to our State's economy that it is noted on our State seal. Cliff was very proud of the training arena that was established at his alma mater, the University of Wyoming, in his name. He went there often to visit the College of Agriculture and to meet with the students. Cliff knew full well that the future of our State could be measured by how well we took care of our State's land and he was determined that those who were to follow would have a sense of great responsibility with which they had been entrusted. Cliff understood the importance of everything he had been given in life, from the greatest of resources to the smallest of everyday things. I remember hearing a story from his grandson that I can't tell as well as his grandson, but I am going to make an attempt at anyway. He was doing something called straightening nails with his grandson and some of his grandson's friends. For those of you who don't know about straightening a nail, you take a nail that is bent that you pull out of some piece of wood and as you pull it, you bend it. He had a coffee can full of those and he had an empty coffee can, and he would take one of the bent nails, put it on a board and tap it with a hammer and then examine it to see if it was straight. His grandson and the other boys who were there said, Why are you going to all that work? Why don't you just go buy some new nails? He said, How much is this costing me? The answer was, Nothing. While he was doing this, this tapping away on these nails, Martha came to the door of their house and said, You have a call, Cliff. You have a call on the telephone here. Well, he kept tapping away on the nails, tapping away on the nails. Pretty quickly she came back and she said, Cliff, it is the President of the United States. So he got up and he went in the house and took the phone call. A few minutes later he was back out there tapping away on the nails, tapping away on the nails. His grandson was excited and wanted to know what that was all about and asked him: What did the President want? Cliff said, The President wanted me to be the Secretary of Interior; tap, tap, tap; tap, tap, tap. I said, No; tap, tap, tap; tap, tap, tap. He was a man who knew what he wanted to do and what he needed to do and could be totally absorbed in whatever he was doing. There are a lot of stories like that one. Cliff cherished the simpler days and the simpler ways of life. He also appreciated the benefits that would come from technology and innovation and how they would improve cattle and crop production. Technology and innovation, however, could never replace the basic ideals of working hard, being of good character, and always keeping your word. Those were things that could never be compromised. He has left us all with a great legacy that will continue to inspire and encourage others to follow the path he leaves behind. With the passing of Cliff Hansen, the political landscape and everyday life in Jackson Hole, WY, the West, and the United States has changed. Wyoming has been blessed to have enjoyed a great history full of remarkable and colorful leaders in every sense of the word who have helped to settle this Nation, tame the West, and bring the United States to the position of greatness and power it enjoys today. We owe a lot to the great people of our past such as Cliff Hansen. Thanks to them, our Nation and the world is a better place for us all to live. Now this season of his life has come to an end. The season he was born has led to this season when he has died. Everyone who knew him will carry with them a special memory of his life and how the experience of knowing Cliff changed them forever for the better. He was a great gift in our lives and the lives of people all across the country who may never have known him but enjoyed the benefits of his labors. His great calling was to be a teacher and he taught us all a great deal about life by how he lived his own. So much of my State bears his mark for his having passed by. He will be greatly missed for who and what he was. He will never be forgotten for what he accomplished during his 97 years of life. Diana and all the Enzis and our delegation send our deepest sympathy, our great appreciation, and our love to Martha and all the family. You will be in our thoughts and prayers. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on behalf of our entire delegation, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 315, submitted earlier today.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague for his outstanding comments.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my great appreciation to Senators Harkin, Dodd, and Coburn for working in a bipartisan manner to reauthorize the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. I am also thankful to all of the members on the HELP Committee for their efforts to ensure that we passed this bill in a timely manner so that individuals receiving care under the Ryan White program would not see an interruption in their services. This bill continues policies that seek to accomplish the goal of ensuring that Ryan White funding follows the patient. The bill, which will pass by unanimous consent, updates funding formulas and requires more accurate and reliable data reporting from the States, which will ensure that funds are allocated to the areas with the greatest need. It encourages aggressive testing strategies and establishes a national HIV/AIDS testing goal of 5 million tests per year. The bill also provides more flexibility to allow grantees to spend funds effectively. Over the years we have seen a dramatic change in the geographic location of the HIV/AIDS epidemic from northern, metropolitan areas, to southern--and in many instances--rural areas. Today, more persons living with AIDS reside in the South than in any other area of the country. Of the 26,347 new HIV cases, 51.2 percent were diagnosed in the 17 Southern States and of the top 20 metropolitan areas with the highest AIDS case rates, 14 were in the South. Thanks to the bipartisan efforts of the HELP Committee this reauthorization will ensure that funding is distributed in an equitable manner, reaching individuals with the greatest need. The Ryan White program provides care for millions of Americans in need of medical care. Unfortunately we have also seen abuses, where these funds are misspent and patients do not receive the care they need. As the ranking member of the HELP Committee, I will continue to work to prevent these abuses and guarantee that funding is distributed to legitimate organizations that provide real services. It is a travesty that so many millions of dollars have been wasted due to poor oversight and corruption. As Congress continues to authorize and provide funding for services under the Ryan White program, we must also commit to conduct proper oversight, so that these dollars actually reach the patients who need assistance, rather than being pocketed by criminals. I close by again expressing my great appreciation to my colleagues for their hours of hard work and dedication to extend the Ryan White HIV/AIDS program. I also thank the HIV/AIDS community for their tireless efforts to provide care to individuals with HIV/AIDS. Many Americans with HIV/AIDS will continue to receive access to vital care because of the compassion and dedication of HIV/AIDS organizations receiving Ryan White dollars. Finally, I also thank my staff members Greg Dean, Chuck Clapton and Hayden Rhudy, as well as the staff members of Senator Harkin's office, Connie Gardner and Jenelle Krishnamoorthy, for their hard work on this important bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is always a bittersweet moment when we have to say goodbye to a colleague who is retiring from the Senate. We are sorry to see them go, but we are also very appreciative of all they have brought to our deliberations during their years of service to the people of their home State and the Nation. Mel Martinez is such a person--the kind who makes the Senate the great deliberative body that it is, for Mel has a great story to tell of his life and how he came to the United States to pursue his own version of the American dream. If you would have told Mel when he was young that he would someday serve as an elected official in the U.S. Government, I am not sure he would have believed you. He began his life in a small city in Cuba, under the repressive regime of Fidel Castro. At the age of 15 he escaped and began to pursue his destiny in the United States. At every stage of his life he was determined to do everything he could to make a difference. Looking back, I think it's clear he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. From the time he first arrived in the United States, Mel was grateful for the opportunities that were available to him, and he was determined to give something back to show his appreciation for them. He began in his own backyard when he served as mayor of Orange County. As a former mayor myself, I know how difficult a job that can be. For Mel, it was a chance to make the lives of his neighbors and fellow citizens better and that became his focus and his top priority. He did a good job and quickly earned the respect and support of his fellow townspeople. He also caught the attention of then President- elect George Bush who was looking for someone to serve in his Cabinet who had experience dealing with housing issues and the problems that were facing our cities and towns. That is something that Mel had been dealing with in Florida, so he became the first Cuban American appointed to a President's Cabinet when he was named to serve as our Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Soon after Mel was sworn in he found himself in the middle of a challenge as great as any that had ever been faced by a Cabinet Secretary before. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, Mel was assigned the responsibility of working on the reconstruction of lower Manhattan. Then, having served on both the local and national level, Mel then decided to take on another challenge--representing the people of Florida in the Senate. Mel proved to more than up to the task as he has taken on a variety of issues and served on several different committees. Through it all, he has worked hard to put his principles and values into practice every day and he has a great deal to show for his service to the people of Florida in the Senate. In the years to come, I will always remember Mel's remarkable life story that stems from the years he spent in Cuba living under a dictatorship. They were a matter of great interest to me when I was a student, but for him, it was his life. While I had only read about and watched the drama unfold during my years at George Washington University, Mel had lived it. It was a time that helped to shape his character and mold his destiny and make him appreciate the great gift of citizenship that far too many of us take for granted. Mel has also impressed me as a man of great faith who takes his relationship with God very seriously. He shared his belief with us at one of our Prayer Breakfasts and he impressed us all with his great sincerity and his unshakeable belief that God had placed him where He needed him and that was why he was in the Senate. He saw it as an opportunity to serve God and the people back home in Florida, as well as those he left behind in Cuba and many more just like them all over the world. Too often when we say goodbye to one of our fellow members, we forget that there is just as much life outside of the beltway as there is inside it. Our focus on Washington and our work in the Senate sometimes makes us think that this is the only place where we can pursue our dreams and make a difference in the world around us. Mel is proof positive that there are many ways that we can make this a better world and in the years to come, as this chapter in his life ends and another begins, I have no doubt we will see Mel continue his efforts to address the problems of this world to ensure that those who have lived for too long in fear and oppression in Cuba and all over the world will someday claim the rights and freedoms we all cherish as their own. Good Luck, Mel. I hope you and Kitty enjoy the years to come. Together you have made a great team and we know there is still much more to come in this great adventure of your lives. Good luck and God bless.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the 20th Air Force as the U.S. Air Force celebrates the 50th anniversary of the first nuclear-tipped inter-continental ballistic missile on alert. I join my colleague Senator Kent Conrad from North Dakota as cochair of the Senate ICBM Coalition to pay special tribute to a force that succeeds daily in its mission of providing safety and security for our great Nation. My first contact with F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming as an ICMB base was when I was in Boy Scouts. Our rocket troop visited an Atlas missile site near Cheyenne and we learned about the deterrent effect of this high technology. Even then, we knew this force was magnificent. From the first ICBM placed on alert in 1959 at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, our Nation's force has grown and adapted the delivery systems leading to today's force with three Missile Wings. Today's ICBM force has missile fields in Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, and Nebraska. The force partners with Hill Air Force Base in Utah and its command structure will soon transfer to Air Force Global Strike Command in Louisiana. We have a force whose direct domestic impact spans across seven States. America's dispersed and alert Minuteman III ICBM force is a critical element of the nuclear triad and represents our country's most responsive, stabilizing, and cost-effective strategic force. The strategic nuclear forces that deterred Soviet aggression and kept the limited conflicts of the Cold War era from escalating continue to play a critical role in deterring aggression and dissuading new near-peer competitors. The element that has unchanged in the last 50 years is the dedication of the men and women of the Air Force to safeguard and carry out this mission. This force of weapons and personnel has been deployed every hour of every day for the last 50 years. The hours on alert, being on patrol and maintaining and upgrading the missile systems are abundant. The 20th Air Force is home to the most powerful force in our entire military. The mission of safeguarding the Nation's ICBM force has been entrusted to the best military in existence. The mission has been successful and will continue to be. I know all Members of the Senate will join me in thanking the current and former members of the Air Force who have served in the missile fields over the last 50 years. I also thank my colleague, Senator Conrad, for his work on behalf of on the coalition and recognizing this historic anniversary.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate having this opportunity to join in the celebration of the life of Ted Kennedy. His loss was deeply personal to all of us because he was a strong and vital presence not only in the day-to-day work of the Senate but in our day-to-day lives as well. He was interested and concerned not only about his colleagues but our staffs and all those with whom he worked on a long list of issues that will continue to have an impact on our Nation for many generations to come. That was the kind of individual Ted was--active and completely involved in all things that had to do with the work of the Senate. For my part, I have lost a Senate colleague who was willing to work with me and with Senators on both sides of the aisle. He was my committee chairman and my good friend. For those across the country who mourn his passing, they have lost a trusted and treasured voice in the Senate, a champion who fought for them for almost 50 years. The political landscape of our country has now been permanently changed. I think we all sensed what his loss would mean to the country as we heard the news of his passing. Now we take this time to look back to the past and remember our favorite stories and instant replay memories of the Senator from Massachusetts. In the more than 12 years I have had the privilege of serving Wyoming in the Senate, I had the good fortune to come to know Ted on a number of levels. As a Senator, he was a tremendous force to be dealt with on the floor. If you were on his side, you knew you had a warrior fighting alongside you who went to battle without the slightest fear of failure or defeat. If you had to face him from the other side of the arena, you knew you had a tremendous battle on your hands because, when it came to the principles he believed in, no one said it better or with more passion or more depth of understanding of the issues involved. As a result, he was able to notch an impressive list of legislative victories. During his long and remarkable career, there were few initiatives that didn't attract his attention and his unique spirited touch that often turned them from faint hopes for change to dreams at long last come true. Whether it was an increase in the minimum wage, equal rights for all Americans or the effort to reform our Nation's health care system, which was his greatest dream, Ted operated at one speed and one direction--full speed ahead--and it always found him making progress on the task at hand. Over the years, I was fortunate to have an opportunity to work with him on a number of issues of great importance to us both. He knew what he had to have in a bill to get his side to agree on it, and I was fortunate to have a sense of what it would take to get votes from my side. So, together, we were able to craft several bills that we were able to move through committee and to the Senate floor. When I served as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the partnership we had forged over the years helped us to compile a record of which we were both very proud. We passed 35 bills out of committee, and 27 of them were signed into law by the President. Most of them passed unanimously. I remember attending a bill signing during which the President remarked, ``You are the only committee sending me anything.'' We checked, and he was right, and that was due, in large part, to Ted's willingness to work with us to get things done. I will always remember two stories about Ted. One was a time when we were working together on a mine safety law. Nothing had been done in that area for almost 30 years. The average bill takes about 6 years to pass around here. Thanks to Ted, we got that one done in 6 weeks, and it has made a difference. Another had to do with my first legislative initiative after I arrived as a newly sworn-in freshman Senator. I knew Ted had quite a good working relationship with my predecessor, Alan Simpson. So as I began to work on an OSHA safety bill, I started to discuss the bill with Ted and other colleagues and go through it section by section. I knew Ted's support would be instrumental if my efforts to pass the bill would be successful. So I arranged to meet with him. Ted opened our meeting by presenting me with some press clippings he had collected for me about my mother's award as ``Mother of the Year.'' That impressed me and showed me how he kept up on anything that was of importance to those people he worked with--members and staff. Then he spent a great deal of time going over the bill with me section by section. He helped me to make it a winner. Although the bill, as a whole, didn't pass, several sections made it into law. I found out later that this wasn't the way things are usually done around here, and in all the years Ted had been in the Senate, nobody had gone over a bill with him a section at a time. I probably didn't need to. That started a friendship and a good working relationship with him we both cherished. I tried to be a good sounding board for him, and he always did the same for me. Our friendship can best be summed up when Ted came to my office and presented me with a photo of a University of Wyoming football helmet next to a Harvard football helmet, with the inscription, ``The Cowboys and the Crimson make a great team.'' We did, and I will always remember his thoughtfulness and kindness in reaching out to me. Ted was one of those remarkable individuals who made all those he worked with more productive. He was a man of exceptional abilities, and he was blessed to have a truly remarkable helpmate by his side. Vicki is a woman of great strength, who brought a renewed focus and direction to Ted's life. She was his most trusted confidant, his best friend, and a wellspring of good advice and political counsel. He would have never been all that he was without her, and she will forever be a special part of his life's story. For the Enzis, we will always remember how thoughtful he was when my grandchildren were born. He was almost as excited as I was. He presented me with a gift for each of them that will always be a cherished reminder that Ted had a great appreciation for all of us, and he treated both Members and staff with the same kindness and concern. Actually, we got Irish Mist training pants for each of them as they were born. When Ted was asked, during an interview, what he wanted to be most remembered for, he said he wanted to make a difference for our country. He was able to do that and so much more. He will be missed by us all, and he will never be forgotten. All those who knew and loved him will always carry a special memory with them of how he touched their lives as he tried to make our Nation and the world a better place. Now he has been taken from us and it will always feel like it all happened too soon. He has a record of achievements and success that will probably not be matched for a long time to come. He was a special friend and a mentor who had a lot to teach about how to get things done in the Senate. I know I will miss him and his willingness to sit down and visit about how to get something through the Senate and passed into law. Now he is at peace and with God. May God bless and be with him and continue to watch over his family for years to come.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has a long career as a jurist with many cases for Senators to review and determine how she may address cases brought before the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor is clearly an accomplished attorney and intelligent person who overcame many obstacles and came from a humble beginning to rise to this nomination. However, in that long record I have found a tendency to at times place more emphasis on personal experience than the most fundamental parts of our Constitution. I must oppose Judge Sotomayor's nomination. I am concerned about Judge Sotomayor's past rulings and statements during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings about the second amendment as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court's ruling in 2008 in the Heller case confirmed that the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms includes the right of American citizens to have weapons for personal self-defense. The Supreme Court has not yet reviewed an incorporation case involving the second amendment, but its second amendment opinion last year noted that a due process analysis is now required. Earlier this year, when Judge Sotomayor and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Maloney v. Cuomo determining that the second amendment is not a fundamental right, they relied on rulings from the 1800s rather than following the 2008 Supreme Court ruling. The second amendment of our Constitution guarantees the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms. This is clear to me and a clear legal precedent set by the Supreme Court. As a father and grandfather, who strongly believes in the rights of the unborn, I am also troubled by Judge Sotomayor's past affiliation and leadership of an organization, the Puerto Rican Defense and Education Fund, which has taken positions on abortion that I find unsettling. Judge Sotomayor's case record does not include direct rulings on abortion issues, so we must look at her history with this organization. The fund, while Judge Sotomayor served in a leadership capacity, filed briefs with the Supreme Court not only supporting abortion rights but in support of Federal funds for abortion services. I could not disagree more with these positions, and I cannot help but wonder how Judge Sotomayor would use her experiences with the fund to rule on a possible case before the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, she would not provide a satisfactory answer or position when my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, asked her direct questions during the Judiciary Committee process. The issue of international law is another area of concern. Judge Sotomayor has stated that ideas have no boundaries, but we must remember that nations do have boundaries as well as laws that govern actions within those boundaries. The U.S. Constitution is the highest law of our land and the basis of our Nation's sovereignty. It may be good and well for academics to discuss international laws, or even domestic laws of other countries, as they compare to the United States, but when making a ruling, a member of the U.S. judicial branch must rely on the laws of this Nation. Finally, I would like to address the issue of judicial impartiality. Judge Sotomayor's statements about her ability to judge cases better than others based on her background are certainly troublesome. These statements have been vetted in the Judiciary Committee and certainly through the media. The statements warrant further discussion, however. As public figures, I, and the rest of my colleagues, may be faced with situations where a comment can be taken out of context. A comment that is repeatedly used in prepared remarks, however, should be interpreted as showing the true thoughts and beliefs of the speaker. I believe the United States is a great nation because of the foundation of our government, one element of which is an independent judicial branch where we believe that justice is blind. This is a critical element of our system and a part of the judicial oath. I can agree that our personal backgrounds lead us to look at situations differently, but I cannot agree that judges should allow their backgrounds to determine a case. Judicial decisions must be based on facts. When the facts or the Constitution comes into conflict with Judge Sotomayor's feelings and past experiences, I am not confident which side she will ultimately take. I voted against Judge Sotomayor's nomination in 1998 to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. At that time, I shared the concern of many of my colleagues about Judge Sotomayor's positions and her view of the role of the Judiciary. While I hold Judge Sotomayor in the highest respect, I believe my concerns then are borne out by her record now. I have no reason to believe anything will change in the future. I understand that Judge Sotomayor has support from many of my colleagues, and I hope they will listen to the concerns I and others are raising. I hope they will take the time to fully consider the impact of Judge Sotomayor's positions on future decisions of the Supreme Court as the Court's decisions will affect our entire Nation.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate having this opportunity to join my colleagues in expressing our great appreciation of the many contributions Norm Coleman has made to the work of the Senate and the future of our country during his service here. He is quite a remarkable individual, and I know I am going to miss seeing him on the Senate floor and working with him on issues of concern to the people of Minnesota and my constituents in Wyoming. Ever since Norm's political career began, it was clear he had a mind of his own and, like the old adage about baseball umpires, he was going to call them as he saw them. That meant taking each issue as it came, carefully studying what was proposed and its consequences, and then making up his own mind on how he thought he should vote. His independent streak and his determination to be true to his principles, his commitment to the people of Minnesota, and his internal compass transcended party politics and kept both sides guessing as to how he would vote on any given issue. I remember the first time I met him, shortly after his election to the Senate. It turned out we had some things in common. For starters, early on in our political careers, Norm and I both served as mayors, so we had an appreciation for the demands that are made upon local officials. Norm was elected mayor of St. Paul. I was elected mayor in my hometown of Gillette, WY. We both had some tough challenges to deal with as our communities felt the aches and pains of growth and we were fortunate enough to put together a good team who helped us to deal with the needs of the people who were counting on us to solve some pretty vexing problems. Looking back, Norm was able to compile quite a record and he became a very popular mayor. His administration promoted policies that helped to spur an increase in the number of jobs in the St. Paul area. He also helped to oversee a downtown revitalization that came at a time when many other similar areas across the country were downsizing and becoming a shadow of their former selves. He also managed to help engineer the return of professional hockey to Minnesota. The presence of the Minnesota Wild soon became a source of great pride to the people of his State. He was able to do all of that and so much more without increasing property taxes. That was the result of careful planning, and it understandably earned him the respect and admiration of his constituents. Then, with a key election approaching, Norm was giving some thought to his political future. There were a lot of rumors as to his next run for office, but the people of Minnesota made it clear that they wanted him to run for the Senate, so Norm began what was to become a very difficult and emotionally charged race. When it was all over, Norm Coleman had defeated a Minnesota political icon and was sworn in to represent the people of his home State in the Senate. Ever since that day, Norm has been working to serve the people of Minnesota and do whatever was in their best interests. Always focused on getting results, he supported the President when he agreed with him, and he never hesitated to speak up when he felt there was another way to get things done that ought to be taken up as part of the mix. Of all his accomplishments during his service here in the Senate, there are two that I will always remember. The first was a factfinding mission we took along with several of our colleagues to Africa to determine what we could do as a nation to help combat the AIDS epidemic there. For both of us our visit turned out to be a great cultural shock. There were barriers of all kinds we had to deal with--language, customs, and technology. All of the things we take for granted here are virtually nonexistent there. The lack of any regular distribution of the written word, like a community newspaper, makes getting the most basic of information to the people an incredible challenge. When we returned to the United States we joined with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to develop a program that has been producing tremendous results for the past few years. The great strides that have been made have not eliminated the disease, but they have greatly increased the quality of life there. Our efforts have also helped to make people more aware of what they can do to ensure they don't get AIDS, or if they are already infected, what they must do to avoid transmitting the disease to anyone else. We both learned from that experience the truth of the old adage--you may not be able to save the whole world, but you can always make a good effort to save part of it, and the results we have achieved in Africa and the lives we have saved will be part of Norm Coleman's legacy of service in the Senate. Another part of the change he brought that will be felt for many years to come is the leadership he showed as the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. In 2006, Norm led the effort to determine how safe and secure our Nation's ports were. The results of his investigations were unsettling and soon became the subject of headlines across the country. Norm wasn't looking for headlines, however. He was looking to craft a workable solution to the problem, and he did when the Senate approved a program that authorized the use of pilot technology to screen incoming cargo containers for their contents. As a result of his efforts, people all across the country will be better protected from those who might wish to do us harm. Thanks to Norm, that once open door has now been closed. Norm will not be a part of this current Congress, but his impact will continue to be felt for some time to come. He was a tireless worker for Minnesota, and although I don't know what the future holds for him, I have every confidence that we haven't heard the last of Norm Coleman. He has been and will always be an individual of vision and action. That is a combination that can't help but produce results, and I am certain he will continue to set new goals in his life and achieve them--one after the other. Good luck, my friend, and keep in touch. We will always be interested to hear from you and to benefit from your take on our work in the Congress to make Minnesota and the rest of the Nation a better place for us all to live.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I would echo my colleague's remarks, and I share his concern about a reduction in the current ICBM force. The current force of 3 missile wings of 150 missiles is appropriate for our national needs. America's dispersed and alert Minuteman III ICBM force is a critical element of the nuclear triad and represents our most responsive, stabilizing, and cost-effective strategic force. The strategic nuclear forces that deterred Soviet aggression and kept the limited conflicts of the Cold War era from escalating continue to play a critical role in deterring aggression and dissuading new near- peer competitors. At its present size, our ICBM force represents a nearly insurmountable hedge against strategic surprise. That force, because of its broad dispersion and high survivability, is nearly impossible to preempt or disarm. Additionally, the current ICBM force offers a high level of crisis stability. This capability also helps to reduce the risk of regional arms races that could encourage friends and allies to develop their own nuclear capabilities. As our Nation proceeds to analyze and make decisions on future strategic posture and U.S. nuclear policy, I believe that ICBMs will continue to be the most responsive and stabilizing element of the nuclear triad. Minuteman III is a robust, cost-effective, and highly capable system. I also thank my colleague, Senator Conrad, for his work on behalf of the coalition on this issue.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we need clean energy. We need cheap energy. We need abundant energy from right here at home. Why not concentrate some of our efforts on hitting a triple play? Coal is our Nation's most abundant energy source. It provides more than 50 percent of our Nation's electricity today and makes electricity more affordable for millions of Americans. It provides for thousands of well paying American jobs and is an essential part of my home State's economy. Unfortunately, in the discussions surrounding climate change, some have suggested that we should end our Nation's use of coal. Because of the abundant, cost-effective nature of this resource, that doesn't make sense. Instead of talking about eliminating one of our country's most important energy sources, we should be talking about how we can make coal cleaner. An essential element of the effort to make coal cleaner will be the development of carbon capture and storage, CCS, technology. There are many pieces to that effort, and today, Senator Casey and I have introduced The Carbon Storage Stewardship Trust Fund Act of 2009 to address one issue with CCS liability for the stored CO2. Our legislation sets up a framework that answers the question of who is responsible for the CO2 once it is placed underground. The Carbon Storage Stewardship Trust Fund Act of 2009 requires companies injecting CO2 into the ground to obtain private liability insurance for a period of time. After the CO2 is injected and the injection site is certified as closed by the Federal Government, liability for the CO2 is transferred to the Federal Government. To cover any claims that may arise from damages caused by the injected CO2, the bill sets up a Federal trust fund that is paid for through a small fee charged for each ton of CO2 that is injected. Additionally, it provides a method for compensation for those damages. While this legislation is far from everything we need to make commercial CCS a reality, it is an important step and answers an important question about long-term liability of CO2. I appreciate Senator Casey's leadership on this issue and look forward to working with him and other Members of the Senate to move this legislation forward.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we need clean energy. We need cheap energy. We need abundant energy from right here at home. Why not concentrate some of our efforts on hitting a triple play? Coal is our Nation's most abundant energy source. It provides more than 50 percent of our Nation's electricity today and makes electricity more affordable for millions of Americans. It provides for thousands of well paying American jobs and is an essential part of my home State's economy. Unfortunately, in the discussions surrounding climate change, some have suggested that we should end our Nation's use of coal. Because of the abundant, cost-effective nature of this resource, that doesn't make sense. Instead of talking about eliminating one of our country's most important energy sources, we should be talking about how we can make coal cleaner. An essential element of the effort to make coal cleaner will be the development of carbon capture and storage, CCS, technology. There are many pieces to that effort, and today, Senator Casey and I have introduced The Carbon Storage Stewardship Trust Fund Act of 2009 to address one issue with CCS liability for the stored CO2. Our legislation sets up a framework that answers the question of who is responsible for the CO2 once it is placed underground. The Carbon Storage Stewardship Trust Fund Act of 2009 requires companies injecting CO2 into the ground to obtain private liability insurance for a period of time. After the CO2 is injected and the injection site is certified as closed by the Federal Government, liability for the CO2 is transferred to the Federal Government. To cover any claims that may arise from damages caused by the injected CO2, the bill sets up a Federal trust fund that is paid for through a small fee charged for each ton of CO2 that is injected. Additionally, it provides a method for compensation for those damages. While this legislation is far from everything we need to make commercial CCS a reality, it is an important step and answers an important question about long-term liability of CO2. I appreciate Senator Casey's leadership on this issue and look forward to working with him and other Members of the Senate to move this legislation forward.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for such time as I might consume.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have called me an ``eternal Optimist.'' Since I entered the Senate more than 12 years ago, I have consistently worked across party lines to find new solutions and broker bills that then become law. I have a long and consistent track record of working in good faith with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. I had hoped, and still hope, to do that on the complex issue of health care reform. Last Congress, I proposed Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America. I traveled 1,200 miles across my home State last March to bring my message of reform directly to the people of Wyoming. My message was built on the belief that the American people needed more choice and more control over their health care. I put it together by working with people on both sides of the aisle. I found a way to get coverage for everybody if we did all 10 steps, and any one of them would increase access and cut costs. Among other things, my plan attempted to level the playing field in the tax treatment of health insurance and also provide a helping hand to low-income Americans in the form of subsidies to ensure access to quality, affordable health insurance. My plan also provided greater equity and ease to our Nation's small business owners by allowing cross-State pooling. Each of my proposals targeted three fundamental goals: Increasing access to health care, reducing costs within our health care delivery system, and improving the quality of care. As the only accountant in the Senate, I was and remain very concerned about the effect of any health reform proposal on our Federal budget, as well as personal and family budgets. We all want coverage for everyone, including preexisting and chronic conditions. We want portability. We want health care, not sick care. I have continued my work on health care reform this Congress. As the ranking member on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, a member of the Finance Committee, and a member of the Budget Committee, I assumed a unique role in the health reform debate this year. I worked hard to foster a constructive dialogue with the members of all three committees, and I have met with the President and administration officials to share ideas on how to best craft a strong bipartisan bill. As the debate on health care reform progresses in the Senate, I continue to stand ready to work on this critical issue. As I have noted many times before, this is likely to be the most important piece of legislation that we will work on as Members of the Senate. It touches the life of every single American in a very real way. Our health care system is approximately one-sixth of our Nation's economy, and the changes we make in it will ultimately affect the lives of every single American. I have never worked on a bill that was that extensive. It is a sacred trust we have, and we must not be moved by artificial deadlines and short-term political considerations. I do not think a good bill and a bipartisan bill are mutually exclusive. To the contrary, I believe a health care reform bill will need strong support from both sides of the aisle to gain the credibility and the support of our constituents. It is still my hope we can produce a strong bipartisan health care bill that upwards of 80 Members of the Senate could support. I see that as a possibility. I remain eternally hopeful we will deliver the American people the strong bipartisan health care bill they deserve. But I have to tell you I am disappointed by the recent developments of the House of Representatives and, more particularly, in the Committee of the Senate on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. Yesterday, on a party-line vote, 13 to 10, the committee passed the Affordable Health Choices Act. But don't let the name fool you because, with a $1 trillion pricetag, the bill is anything but affordable. Unfortunately, the HELP Committee chose to gallop down a path of partisanship. Despite my strong urging that we start with a blank piece of paper, HELP Committee Republicans were presented with roughly 600 pages of longstanding Democratic policies. It seems not a single Democratic member of the committee was told no, as every pet project was included in this bill. Because Republicans were shut out of the drafting process, we were forced to file hundreds of amendments. Unfortunately, of the 45 committee rollcall votes on Republican amendments, 2 were successful. There were a number of amendments that were accepted, but they fall more in the category of proofreading amendments and some slight changes. President Obama has repeatedly called for a health care bill that will reduce costs. He has called for a bill that will help every American get access to quality health care, a bill that allows people who like the care they have to keep it, a bill that will not increase the deficit. Republicans strongly support those goals. Unfortunately, the HELP bill does not meet any of them. In my view, and graded on the criteria specified by the President, the bill voted out of the HELP Committee fails on all counts. The bill breaks the President's promises and falls short on achieving the commonsense goals the Republicans and President share. Instead, the partisan HELP bill adds $1 trillion to the deficit, despite the President's promise that health care reform must and will be deficit neutral. The bill increases that deficit by more than $1 trillion over 10 years. It is not as bad as the House bill. It is my understanding that increases it by $4 trillion over 10 years. Maybe it is just more honest, because there are ways to avoid a cost by phasing in authorizations and by using such sums in authorizations--little tricks of budgeting that avoid the score. But this is on the heels of news last week from official scorekeepers that the Federal budget deficit was $1.1 trillion for the first 9 months of fiscal year 2009. According to scorekeepers, this bill will bend the cost curve the wrong way, driving up the cost of health insurance for most Americans and increasing total spending on health care. I refer people to an article by Lori Montgomery in the Washington Post today, ``CBO Chief Criticizes Democrats' Health Reform Measures.'' Instead of saving the Federal Government from fiscal catastrophe, the health reform measures being drafted by congressional Democrats would worsen an already bleak budget outlook, increasing deficit projections and driving the nation more deeply into debt, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said this morning. Under questioning by members of the Senate Budget Committee, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said bills crafted by House leaders and the Senate health committee do not propose ``the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.'' ``On the contrary,'' Elmendorf said, ``the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.'' Though President Obama and Democratic leaders have said repeatedly that reining in the skyrocketing growth in spending on government health programs such as Medicaid and Medicare is their top priority, the reform measures put forth so far would not fulfill their pledge to ``bend the cost curve'' downward, Elmendorf said. Instead, he said, ``The curve is being raised.'' The CBO is the official arbiter of the costs of legislation, and Elmendorf's stark testimony is certain to undermine support for the measures even as three House panels begin debate and aim to put a bill on the House floor before the August recess. Fiscal conservatives in the House, known as the Blue Dogs, were already threatening to block passage of legislation in the Energy and Commerce Committee, primarily due to concerns about the long-term costs of the House bill. Cost is also a major issue in the Senate, where some moderate Democrats have joined Republicans in calling on Obama to drop his demand that both chambers approve a bill before the August recess. While the Senate health committee approved its bill on Wednesday with no Republican votes, members of the Senate Finance Committee were still struggling to craft a bipartisan measure that does more to restrain costs. The chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad (D-ND), has taken a leading role in that effort. This morning, after receiving Elmendorf's testimony on the nation's long-term budget outlook, Conrad turned immediately to questions about the emerging health care measures. ``I'm going to really put you on the spot,'' Conrad told Elmendorf. ``From what you have seen from the products of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?'' Elmendorf responded: ``No, Mr. Chairman.'' Asked what provisions would be needed to slow the growth in federal health spending, Elmendorf urged lawmakers to end or limit the tax-free treatment of employer-provided health benefits, calling it a federal ``subsidy'' that encourages spending on ever more expensive health packages. Key senators, including Conrad, have been pressing to tax employer-provided benefits, but Senate leaders last week objected, saying the idea does not have enough support among Senate Democrats to win passage. Elmendorf also suggested changing the way Medicare reimburses providers to create incentives for reducing costs. ``Certain reforms of that sort are included in some of the packages,'' Elmendorf said. ``But the changes that we have looked at so far do not represent the sort of fundamental change, the order of magnitude that would be necessary to offset the direct increase in federal health costs that would result from the insurance coverage proposals.'' Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid dismissed Elmendorf's push for the benefits tax. ``What he should do is maybe run for Congress,'' Reid said. But Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus expressed frustration that the tax on employer-funded benefits had fallen out of favor, in part because the White House opposes the idea. Critics of the proposal say it would target police and firefighters who receive generous benefits packages. And if the tax is trimmed to apply only to upper income beneficiaries, it would lose its effectiveness as a cost- containment measure. ``Basically the president is not helping,'' said Baucus. ``He does not want the exclusion, and that's making it difficult.'' But he added, ``We are clearly going to find ways to bend the cost curve in the right direction, including provisions that will actually lower the rate of increase in health care costs.'' Ideas under consideration include health-care delivery system reform; health insurance market reform; and empowering an independent agency to set Medicare reimbursement rates, an idea the White House is shopping aggressively on Capitol Hill. But Baucus is not giving up on the benefits tax. ``It is not off the table, there's still a lot of interest in it,'' Baucus said. I would mention the members of the committee are still working to find that bipartisan match, but it does take time. There are so many moving parts to this bill. But the partisan HELP bill breaks the President's promise, ``if you like what you have, you can keep it.'' The scorekeepers report the bill would force millions of Americans to lose their health care plan they have and like. Several Republican members offered amendments that aimed at ensuring Americans who like the coverage they have they can keep it, but they all suffered the same failing fate. The partisan HELP bill kills jobs and cuts wages. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concludes the bill will result in lower wages and higher unemployment. These jobs and wage cuts would hit low- income workers, women, and minorities the hardest. It is hard to believe that with unemployment at a generational high, Democrats on the committee will even consider putting more jobs on the chopping block. Despite passage of the so-called stimulus bill earlier this year, Americans are facing the highest unemployment rate in 26 years. At the same time, the HELP Committee and the House Democrats are attempting to impose new taxes on small employers that will eliminate jobs for low- income minority workers. The partisan HELP bill raises taxes at the worst possible time. Despite several amendments offered by Republican members, which the Democrats defeated on party-line votes, the bill breaks President Obama's promise not to raise taxes on individuals earning less than $250,000 per year. The bill would impose a new tax on people without health insurance. The partisan HELP bill allows Washington bureaucrats to ration health care. The bill lays the groundwork for a government takeover of health care, giving Washington bureaucrats the power to prevent patients from seeing the doctor they choose and obtaining new and innovative medical therapies. I could go into the cost effectiveness--the clinical effectiveness research, but I will not go into the details of that at this time. But that is a way that care could be rationed. How do we know? We tried a bunch of amendments that would specify what could not be rationed, and every one of those was defeated. The partisan HELP bill traps low-income Americans in a second-tier health care program. Despite several amendments, the other side refused to give Medicaid patients the choice to access higher quality care. The other side claims to support giving patients choices but when the choice is a new government-run health plan. However, they refuse to give low-income Americans the chance to get out of the worst health care programs in the country. I would mention government-run programs, instead of giving the lowest income Americans a choice to enroll in private insurance with subsidies, the HELP Committee bill forces them to stay in a program where 40 percent of the physicians will refuse to see them and the care they receive will be worse than what is available through private health insurance. I have to remind you, if you cannot see a doctor, you don't have health care. Instead of reducing health care costs, the partisan bill will spend billions of taxpayer dollars on new porkbarrel spending. The bill would build new sidewalks, jungle gyms, and farmers markets through a mandatory spending $80 billion slush fund. That is just the first 10 years, which is delayed 2 years; otherwise, it would be $100 billion. That is for additional porkbarrel projects. Talk about a rating system. A rating system is how much difference you have between the low age and the high age, the more well and the sicker people. That is being compressed dramatically, which will raise the rates for virtually everybody in America. The partisan HELP bill preserves the costly, dangerous, medical malpractice system. Again, despite several blocked attempts by multiple Republican committee members, the bill fails to reduce medical lawsuits which drive up the cost of health care and force doctors to order wasteful tests and treatments to cover liabilities. The bill worsens doctor shortages. According to an analysis by the Department of Health and Human Services, the bill would worsen the Nation's primary care physician shortage by providing fewer medical students with financial assistance in return for work in underserved areas. In short, the HELP Committee bill costs too much, covers too few, and if you like what you have you can't keep it. Under this bill, if you like your job, you may not be able to keep that either. With all these bad policies comes a $1 trillion pricetag. That is $1 trillion this country cannot afford right now and a trillion reasons why it is a bad bill for America. We have not even talked about clinical effectiveness or some other programs that were not actuarially sound. As I said at the beginning of the speech, I am an eternal optimist. Despite my comments on the perils and policies in the HELP bill, we still have a chance. We can write a good bill, a bill that ensures every American has quality, affordable health care; a bill that is fully paid for with savings exclusively from health care; a bill that reverses the cost curve; a bill that lets Americans keep what they have if they like it; a bill the American people deserve. We are working on that now. We are trying to put together that bill, but it takes time. Those are all things that can be done. One way to enact real change is to sit down and work out the details. Health care is complicated. The laws of unintended consequences are severe and unforgiving. We cannot rush into something that will change one-sixth of our Nation's economy and affect 100 percent of Americans. We must take our time and get the policies right. I have heard reports of White House staff calling the HELP Committee bill a bipartisan bill. I heard White House staff say this bill incorporated Republican ideas. White House staff speak for the President, not for Senate Republicans. I can tell you as the ranking Republican on the HELP Committee, the partisan vote speaks for itself. Republican ideas were excluded from the process and from this legislation. We have five bills that have ideas that would meet the goals of the President and the ones I have stated. Parts of those were considered; most were rejected. I passionately want to reform our health care system to improve quality, reduce costs, and increase access. I think the HELP Committee legislation fails to meaningfully address those goals and sticks the American people with a bill we cannot afford. I hope we can get back to work and construct real reform that has the support of the American people. I appreciate the openness that Senator Baucus has had in dealing with Finance Committee members and am optimistic eternally that something good can come out of it. I yield the floor.