Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, might I inquire what the status is?

Mr. ENZI. Are there time restrictions?

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to reform our Nation's health care system. If we are to be successful, we must undertake this effort with the greatest care and deliberation. When it comes to health care reform, we have started down this road before. Last Congress, I proposed legislation called Ten Steps to Transform Health Care in America in an effort to provide a blueprint from which we could begin to address the challenge of improving our health care system. I might mention the way that came about is that Senator Kennedy as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and I as the ranking member, worked together on a number of bills. In fact, I have quite a record for being able to work in a bipartisan way to get bills completed. We were very busy on the Higher Education Act and other education issues, so I took some leadership in the health area, and we talked about principles we wanted to achieve. Then I collected ideas from both sides of the aisle and put together this package of 10 steps that will transform health care in America as a blueprint to improve and address this challenge of improving our health care system. So it isn't something on which he or I just started working. After I introduced the bill, I took my message of health care reform directly to the people in my State. I traveled 1,200 miles and held a series of events in March of last year to provide the people of Wyoming with the chance to see what I was working on and to voice their concerns with our current system. Everywhere I went, I heard the same message repeated over and over, and that was that people want change. They want a system that will provide them with a health care system that is affordable, more available, and easier for them to access. Simply put, the people of Wyoming, as do people all across the country, want more choices and more control over their health care. That was the goal of my Ten Steps bill. It was drafted with the aim of leveling the playing field in tax treatment of health insurance. It was also intended to provide a helping hand to low-income Americans in the form of subsidies that would ensure access to quality, affordable health insurance. As I traveled through the State, I also heard from members of the small business community. They made it clear that they wanted greater equity and access to a plan that would allow cross-State pooling so they could band together with small business owners in other States and get better rates on the health insurance they provide to their employees. In the end, no matter whom I spoke with, they all had one message they wanted me to bring to the Senate: Keep costs down and under control. There have to be limits. That is why, as the only accountant in the Senate and as a member of the Budget Committee, I was and remain very concerned with the effect any health care reform proposal will have on our Federal budget, both in the short and the long term. I can't be the only one who heard those things when I was back home. I think my experience on the road was very similar to that of almost every one of my colleagues. Last year, whether they were campaigning for themselves or for other members of our party, we logged on a lot of travel miles. We met with and spoke to people from all walks of life who came from every imaginable background. Some were from large cities and towns with large populations and others came from the smaller cities and some very small towns with fewer people and resources. Whomever we spoke to and wherever we were, we all heard the same concerns: We need a better health care system, and we need it now. In response, I was pleased to join with several of my colleagues as we continued to work on health care reform this year. As the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and in my service on the Senate Finance Committee, I have been working to foster and facilitate a constructive dialog with my colleagues on both committees. I have also met with the President and administration officials on numerous occasions so we could share ideas on how to best craft a strong, bipartisan bill. As the debate on health care reform proceeds, I continue to stand ready to work on this critical issue. This is likely to be the most important legislation we will ever work on as Members of the Senate, no matter how many terms we serve. How well we handle this crucial issue will have an impact not just today but for many tomorrows and countless years to come. If we fail to provide the change that is needed, it may be a long time before the Senate will ever try to do this again. I am convinced we have a perfect storm before us as we face this issue. The time is right, the political winds are with us, and we have the support and encouragement of the current administration and the people of this Nation to get something done. That is why a good bill and a bipartisan effort are well within our grasp. If we are to do the work that is before us and do it well, however, we can't have one side or the other try to grab the reins and lead the effort exclusively in their direction. The American people are looking for us to solve the problem, and they want to know we wrote this bill together, amended it together, and, most importantly, finished it together. They know no one side has all the answers, so they do expect us to put partisanship aside. This is too important an issue not to follow a path that will produce a bill that will have the support of 75 or 80 Members of the Senate. I have every belief we can do that, and that is why I am so strongly committed to bringing massive change to the policies laid out in the recently filed Kennedy bill. I will continue to try to bring that change to the work being done by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and in the Finance Committee. Let me be very clear about what I believe we can do if we put partisanship aside and work together. We can draft a good bipartisan bill, one that will draw a large majority to its side, and we can get it done this year. Last week, the HELP Committee began to mark up a very flawed piece of legislation. I understand the difficult circumstances that brought Senator Dodd to chair this extraordinarily complex bill, and I appreciate Senator Dodd's willingness to take on the task, as he also chairs the Banking Committee. However, the legislation we are considering in the HELP Committee is broken, almost to the point of being beyond repair. It is too costly and it is incomplete. Of course, we are promised we will get the other pieces of the bill. Arguments made about the unfairness of estimating the cost of an incomplete bill show that in the race to revamp our health care system, this bill was a false start. In order to get this right, we should slow down, and in some areas we need to start over. This shouldn't be a matter of speed. To stay with the analogy of health care, no one goes to a doctor or a surgeon based on how fast they can operate or conduct an examination. It never matters how long it takes. All that matters is that they get it right. We should do the same. I am not suggesting that we come up with a new process to develop this legislation. All I am saying is that we need to make better use of the one we already have in place, the way we have always done things in the Senate when we want to make sure we get it done right. For instance, it wasn't all that long ago that we had to do something about our Nation's pension system. We worked together. We talked about what we had to do together. Then we came up with a way to get there, together. The result was a bill that when it came to the floor was over 1,000 pages long and it had the immense involvement of two committees--the same two committees we are talking about with health care, the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee. Those two committees came together on a bill of over 1,000 pages. When it came to the floor, we already had an agreement between the two committee members which was taken to the leaders, which meant we had an agreement with everybody in the Chamber that there would be 1 hour of debate, two amendments, and a final vote. I asked the Parliamentarian when the last time was that there was a bill of that complexity that had that kind of an agreement before we even debated it, and that person said: Not in my lifetime. That is what is possible around here if we work together. That is what we did with the Nation's pension system. I think we were talking about the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation being short a drastic $24 billion. Boy, that doesn't look like much money anymore, does it? No. We are talking about some errors on this one that are over $58 billion. That pensions bill wasn't so long ago. We worked together, we talked about what we had to do together, and then we came up with it together. The result was a bill that only had the two amendments offered to it because the agreement on both the illness and the remedy was so strong. As we prepared to begin the markup of this bill last week, we received a troubling preliminary analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation regarding the costs and coverage figures associated with the legislation. In its review of the proposal, the CBO found that enacting the proposal would result in an increase in spending of about $1.3 trillion, with a net increase to the Federal budget deficit of about $1 trillion over the 2010-to-2019 period. This cost estimate did not include the promised ``significant expansion of Medicaid or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with an income below 150 percent of the poverty level.'' As the markup continues, we will be asking the CBO for an official analysis of the impact of the addition of such a policy on the Federal budget deficit. We are having more and more seniors moving into the category of long- term care--and we have a proposal before us, which we will debate when we get back. The Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, ranking member on the Budget Committee, pointed out that the only part of that proposal that gets scored are the premiums people would pay in over that first 10 years for their long-term care, which comes to about $59 billion, which shows a surplus of $59 billion. But what it doesn't take into consideration is the obligation to those people who are paying in those premiums that they will get long-term care. The expected cost of that long-term care to those people paying in that $59 billion is $2 trillion. The proposed payment doesn't match the proposed costs, and it would not be sustainable beyond the 10 years. Whether or not people actually start taking long-term care benefits right away, we will have another Federal Government program with a budget deficit. At the same time we received notice of the preliminary analysis of the Kennedy bill, we got word the Finance Committee was postponing the markup on health care legislation, after reports surfaced that the CBO was preparing an estimate of its legislation that projected an increase to the Federal deficit of $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. All of this was on the heels of President Obama's speech last week at the American Medical Association, in which he said: Health care reform must be and will be deficit neutral in the next decade. The bill we have before us misses the target of this commitment by more than $1 trillion. Again, the bill is still missing language in three key areas. I will take a few moments to speak about our Nation's deficit and overall fiscal and economic condition. My concern about the runaway spending in the Kennedy bill--I should call it the Kennedy staff bill; I know the Senator, had he been able to work with me, would have come up with some different conclusions on the bill. My concern with the runaway spending in the Kennedy staff bill is not simply a concern that it breaks faith with the President's health care reform commitments. Rather, I am deeply troubled by the direction this bill would take us during a truly perilous fiscal age. I was elected to this body in 1996. In my first years in Congress, we moved from a budget deficit to a budget surplus. I am deeply disappointed that nearly 13 years later, our projected deficit for this fiscal year exceeds $1.84 trillion, and our national debt exceeds $11.4 trillion. That is bad. People are starting to take notice, and that, unfortunately, includes our creditors. Add to this the losses to our gross domestic product and an unemployment rate heading toward 10 percent and the news is worse. Again, there have to be limits. People have them in their families, municipalities have them, and most States have them. The Federal Government doesn't. According to the Federal Reserve, the level of debt-to-GDP ratio is estimated to reach the highest levels it has since immediately after World War II. The increasing spread between short-term and long-term treasuries is evidence that global investors are increasingly concerned about our Nation's level of debt and the real potential for future inflation. In recent weeks, Treasury Secretary Geithner traveled to China to attempt to ease growing concerns about our ability to pay off our growing debts. When Geithner told an audience of Chinese students at Peking University that ``Chinese assets are very safe,'' reports are that this statement drew loud laughter. It is really not a laughing matter for us. It is serious. Tough action, not ``I will tell you what you want to hear'' speeches, is what we need. On the State and local front, our economic indicators are equally troubling. On Thursday, the Rockefeller Institute of Government issued a report on State personal income tax revenues for 2009. They are falling fast; 34 of the 37 States in the report saw declines in tax revenue, indicating that it will be increasingly more difficult than expected for States to close their widening budget gaps. I can hear calls for more bailouts, but my question is, who is going to bail out the Federal Government? These numbers provide the critical backdrop as we consider the new deficit spending included in the Kennedy staff bill. Recently, Fed Chairman Bernanke stated that ``achieving fiscal sustainability requires that spending and deficits be well controlled.'' He went on to note that ``unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor economic growth.'' For these reasons, the Kennedy proposal requires an entire rewrite with respect to its impact on our Federal budget deficit. Just as troubling as this bill's impact on the deficit is its failure to help tens of millions of Americans get the health insurance they need. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, if enacted, this bill would only provide health insurance for one-third of the Nation's uninsured. Let's see, $1 trillion for 16 million people. This number falls far short of the President's stated goal of ``quality, affordable health insurance for all Americans'' in his recent letter to Chairmen Kennedy and Baucus. Of even greater concern, the CBO projects that about 10 million individuals who would be covered through an employer's plan under current law would not have access to that coverage under the Kennedy legislation. This figure breaks President Obama's often-repeated promise during both the 2008 campaign and since taking office that under his health care plan: If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what. Under the Kennedy plan, that promise rings hollow for millions of Americans, and that is simply unacceptable. I know the President has already scheduled an event on one of the networks to push his health care ideas. When it airs, I am sure we will hear him repeat the line over and over: If you like the health care plan you already have, you can keep it. If he makes that promise again, every time we hear him say that, we should remind ourselves that the White House has already admitted that such statements aren't to be taken literally. I think that means they are not true. I cannot recall ever hearing something like that from the White House, but those are their words. Maybe they should be applied to the whole presentation--that none of it should be taken literally. I know one thing that can be taken literally, and we ought to give it straight to the American people, and that is this: Under the Kennedy proposal being rolled out, you would not be able to keep the care you have right now. Washington bureaucrats will be able to deny you and your family the care you need and that you fully deserve. Unfortunately, that is not the only thing that we are in denial about. We are also in denial when it comes to the cost of the Democrats' health care plan and our ability to work our way out of a hole of debt that only promises to grow deeper and deeper for a long time and for many years to come. A lot of times we talk about how we are spending our kids' and grandkids' money. I really feel compelled to point out that we are already spending our seniors' money. Why is that? Well, normally, what happens in this country is that a little bit is taken--well, a bunch is taken--out of your check for Social Security, which is matched by the employer. That amount of money each month has always gone to pay the seniors who are retired, their pensions, and to have a little bit of surplus. But do you know what? It is not doing that anymore. We are having to take money out of the trust funds now to supplement that to be able to pay the people who are retired now--and we are not even to the baby boomers yet. So we have a problem. Unfortunately, that is not the only thing we are in denial about. Having shown the devastating impact of the Kennedy bill on the Federal deficit, and the failure of it to provide access to adequate health coverage for millions of Americans, I want to turn to one of the three foundational principles of my 10-step plan; namely, improving the quality of care. On this front, I think the Kennedy plan again fails to live up to the promise laid out by President Obama to ``improve patient safety and quality of care.'' That is very important--to improve patient safety and quality of care. I am deeply troubled by the real possibility that comparative effectiveness research, which is mentioned in the bill and has been debated in the committee, and which has been held intact in there, will be used as a cost-containment measure to ration care under this legislation. The result would be, for millions of Americans, a Federal bureaucrat would dictate the type of care they receive and interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. As the Kennedy bill proceeds through Congress, I will fight to strip those provisions that will delay and deny needed health coverage to Americans. I spoke at length in committee about the truly horrible stories of rationing care that we hear about from the United Kingdom. I will continue to speak out to make sure this type of so-called care is not imported to the United States. Finally, I am deeply troubled with a number of other policies advanced in the Kennedy bill. I believe the community rating provisions will result in skyrocketing premium costs for younger Americans. I am troubled that the bill doesn't provide incentives to encourage individuals to make healthier choices. There are a lot of choices we can make to improve our health ourselves. As we complete the second week of the HELP Committee markup, we are still missing the guts of the Kennedy proposal. We expect that the final proposal will include a government-run plan, a mandate on employers to provide insurance, and a provision dealing with biosimilars. It is difficult to comment on these provisions until they are released. Proponents of the government-run option--including the President-- consistently argue that a public plan is necessary to keep the insurance companies honest and to foster competition. With respect to provisions dealing with preexisting conditions, rate bands, and other reforms, we are all committed to taking action to keep insurers honest and make sure people with preexisting and chronic diseases can get insurance. The creation of a new government program at a time when the experts and Medicare trustees tell us that Medicare stands on the brink of insolvency, does nothing to foster honesty; it fosters fiscal irresponsibility. We are borrowing to pay for the government-run programs we have now. If you already have trouble making your mortgage payments, why would you go out and buy a boat and an RV? With respect to the notion that we will be fostering competition with the creation of a government-run health plan, I think the public is growing tired of government intervention in our day-to-day lives. First, there was our involvement in the mortgage system and then the banking system and then we got more involved in our Nation's automotive industry. It is certainly more than a possibility that the government has taken on more than it can handle. We are operating at more than the maximum capacity already. Having government take over our Nation's health care system may be the last straw. Think about that--about all the things that just this year the government has decided to take over. The comment I get at home, and in other places I have traveled across the United States, is, doesn't the government have a little bit of trouble just running government? There is certainly a role for government as a strong regulator of free market enterprise, but the inclusion of the government as a principal player in our competitive markets is entirely inconsistent with our Nation's capitalist economic system. I will forcefully oppose the creation of a government-run health plan. Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words about the current process of health care reform in the Senate Finance Committee. I said at the outset that I am committed to working toward bipartisan health care reform. As a member of the Finance Committee, I have witnessed and have been a part of at least the foundations of such reform. There are many hurdles to remain, but I thank Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their very hard work on this extremely complex, difficult issue. We have never had an issue that involved as many people in this country--100 percent of the people. It is important we get it right, that we take the time to get it right. Ranking member Grassley has been cooperative and Chairman Baucus has been open and that has been extremely helpful. We have spent hours upon hours in that committee receiving inputs and options from both sides on how to reform our Nation's health care system. This stands in great contrast to the partisan process that has, unfortunately, unfolded in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee we have been tediously working through. There have been comments about how many amendments we turned in. We had 388 amendments. I had to remind them that if you don't get any piece of the drafting, you have to get your opinions in somehow and you do it through multiple amendments. Probably half those amendments were to fix grammatical errors, punctuation, typos--about half of them. Those were accepted. It is my hope that the difference in process will result in a difference in substance between the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee legislation and the Finance Committee legislation. I will continue to work in the Finance Committee to shape legislation that improves the quality of our health care, reduces costs, is responsible in its budgetary impact, and increases access to care for all the American people. As I have said, there is a long way to go on that committee and many differences to resolve, but I continue to work in good faith and hope for bipartisan, responsible health care reform. I am holding out hope a better, more inclusive process will emerge as we continue our work in the HELP Committee. I hope that a change will come about soon, but the bill we currently have before us is a clear sign that just as we have been excluded early on in the health care reform effort, it looks like we will continue to be excluded as the process continues. There is time to get us included. There is an important reason to get us included. But we will see. In the end, for me and many people across this country, our discussions about health care can be summed up in a short story with a simple moral. I was reading a book about a Wyoming doctor who came home and decided to settle in a town called Big Piney. He found some ranch land he liked, and he decided to make it his home. When he was attending a local rodeo, one of the cowboys competing in the contest looked at him and said: You aren't from here, are you? He said: Well, I am going to be, I am a doctor. Unable to control his enthusiasm, the cowboy walked away shouting to all within earshot: Hey, we finally got ourselves a doctor. That is what health care is all about in Wyoming, the West, and countless towns and cities all across our country. I have to tell you, this doctor spent most of his life in the Congo. He studied Ebola and established a lot of health clinics over there. When he retired, he did move to Wyoming. He did health care the old- fashioned way. He made house calls. He sat with people while they were dying. He had a lot of friends over there. Incidentally, he did not take Medicare or Medicaid. He said there were too many strings attached to it. He set up a foundation, and people he worked with could make a donation to his foundation instead. That way he wouldn't violate any Federal rules about treating some people and taking money. He was a tremendous doctor. Unfortunately, we lost him this year. So that area is once again without a doctor. If you can send me one who likes rodeos, we would be happy to have him there. That is what health care in Wyoming is about. In the big cities and towns of Chicago, New York, Boston, and Los Angeles, it seems to me there is a hospital or doctor's office on almost every corner. In States such as Wyoming, however, they are few and far between, which makes health care a very precious commodity. I always tell people the statistics are we are short every kind of provider in Wyoming, including veterinarians, which always brings the comment: Surely, veterinarians don't work on people. We say: Yes, if you are far enough from a regular doctor, you are happy to have a veterinarian. You just hope he doesn't use the same medicines! If we are not careful with this legislation, it will not make health care more plentiful and abundant, it will make it even more rare and difficult to obtain, and when health care gets more expensive and less available in places such as the big cities in this Nation, imagine what it will be like in the small towns of Wyoming and the West. People back home know what it will be like--another one-size-fits-all policy that did not fit so well into the rural areas of this country to begin with. That is why people are worried right now. The only way we can assure them they do not have to worry is if we take the time to make sure we get it right the first time. Then, and only then, will the American people feel like they will be getting what they said they wanted during our campaigns last year--not just change but change for the better. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this bill and our need to make important technical corrections to the Higher Education Opportunity Act. I thank Senator Kennedy for his willingness to approach this bill in a bipartisan manner, I always believe that working together we produce a better policy. Any time this body considers a bill that has over 1,000 pages, there is bound to be a need to do some ``clean up'' and to correct unintended consequences. Fortunately, we were also provided an opportunity to broaden benefits to the children who have lost a parent in either Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001. It is important that we do all we can to support these individuals whose families have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. I am appreciative of Senators Burr and Alexander for their leadership in getting this bill done. A college education is not a luxury in the 21st century economy. It is a necessity. This bill will improve the ability of our student assistance programs to function and meet the needs of institutions of higher education, students and their families.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. I have thought long and hard about this legislation, and after a lot of work and a few good improvements, I believe this bill is the only bill we will consider seriously that will make it difficult for kids to get tobacco, make it difficult for them to start smoking, and that is the important point. I want to be clear, I still do not think there is enough in this bill to stop smoking. One smoker is too many. But maintaining the current state of tobacco regulations is not acceptable to me. One issue we have not discussed much is the cost of tobacco use to nonsmokers. Many smokers say it is their business what they put into their bodies. Ordinarily, they would be right. But when it comes to tobacco, we all pay for what smokers put into their bodies and breathe out into the air. We all bear the increased financial costs of the diminished health of smokers. When one of your colleagues smokes, health insurance premiums go up for everybody. Every senior who uses tobacco creates a further strain on Medicare, and since you pay for that, too, through your taxes, it puts a strain on your wallet. If smokers were the only ones who paid the price for smoking, we would not be having this debate at all. But since the extra costs get shifted to the rest of us, it becomes our problem too. Secondhand smoke penalizes those who do not smoke, particularly the families of smokers. I hope they listen to that and realize that. Unfortunately, I know a lot about this since my parents' smoking impacted me. My mom, we thought, quit, but she became a closet smoker, which goes with Senator Dodd's comment that it is hard to give it up, and I understand how hard it is to give it up. When she quit smoking and was not smoking around me, my doctor told me he was glad I quit smoking. I said I never did. He showed me the lung x rays he had taken the year before at my athletic physical and that year at my athletic physical. When they quit smoking around me, I also got over extreme hay fever. Nearly 22 million U.S. children aged 3 to 11 are exposed to secondhand smoke. Approximately 30 percent of indoor workers in the United States are not covered by smoke-free workplace policies. Those numbers are just too high. We cannot keep paying that price. I also have concerns about the long-term financial health of this new center at FDA. The bill gives FDA increases in funding for this program for the first 10 years but leaves it flat after that. I think Congress will have to revisit that issue or this program will wither on the vine and we will not have meaningful tobacco regulation. We cannot let that happen. This bill does contain three important provisions for which I fought; increased fines on tobacco companies, larger color graphic warning labels, and reporting to Congress on how the program is going. I would like to talk about each of these for a moment. We know from decades of experience that the tobacco companies are not inclined to follow the law. They do not have a history of being forthcoming with the health information in their possession. Just 2 weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found that the tobacco companies were guilty of `` . . . a decades-long conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects and addictiveness of smoking cigarettes.'' I am pleased I was able to add a measure to the bill that increased civil penalties for violations of the new law and sends a strong message that we are serious about expecting compliance from the tobacco industry. The new larger color graphic warning labels provision I authored will do a lot to reduce smoking. Everyone from the World Health Organization to the Congressional Budget Office says these warnings work. Research shows these warnings have a big impact. One-fifth of the participants reported smoking less as a result of the labels. Only 1 percent reported smoking more. We should want kids who are thinking about taking up this deadly habit to have a bit of a shock just by looking at the package. We should want smokers to think about these health issues each time they light up. Any tool in our arsenal that makes people think twice about taking up tobacco should not be an option, it should be a requirement. Now these labels are a requirement. Finally, we now require reports on the performance of FDA's tobacco center and on the financial situation of the program. Without this regular reporting, Congress would have little insight into the operation and status of this new program. These reports play an important role in establishing the health of the programs and FDA's performance in carrying out the law. I want to make sure the agency is doing what it is supposed to do and that the fees are paying for FDA's tobacco control activities. These reports will help us do just exactly that. I have always stood against tobacco. The footing would have been better if changes such as my phase-out amendment to reduce tobacco use over 100 years was accepted. I know how addictive it is. I did not want to make it too short a period of time. I thought 100 years was plenty reasonable. We did not have a chance to debate that or look at it. I actually offered that a little more than a year ago. It was a new amendment then. New amendments have trouble getting traction, except in New Zealand. New Zealand liked this approach to stopping smoking and looked at it in their legislature. They even called it the Enzi bill. Of course, you have to realize that is how it sounds and that is the way they spelled it, but in New Zealand, ``NZ'' stands for their country. I think they were talking about their country's bill rather than something I had written. It was kind of fun to watch anyway. I think we need to look at some approaches such as that idea where the tobacco companies have to reduce the number of cigarettes they are selling each and every year or purchase a number from another company to make up for the increase in cigarettes they sold, which would reduce smoking at least in one part and over a long period of time would eliminate this problem. This bill is just one step toward the goal I know we all share, which is reducing the public health toll of tobacco use. I urge my colleagues not to rest on their laurels and think this bill is enough to combat tobacco. I intend to continue the fight against tobacco, and I ask my colleagues to join me. I thank Senator Dodd, who has been chairing this effort and working on this bill with me, for giving us a voice and taking the bill through the whole process. It was extremely important, extremely valuable. The floor discussion took longer but with less debate than I anticipated. I know some parliamentary issues got in the way of that. We could have had more success, but there were some additional amendments that could not be resolved. I always ask people to do relevant or germane amendments to the bills. When they talk about doing other ones, it sometimes slows our process down dramatically and usually does not result in any of those amendments happening anyway. I also wish to thank all the staff who worked on this bill. They, too, have been very diligent, have looked at everything, have done tremendous research. I particularly thank Amy Muhlberg for her efforts on this legislation. I think she knows the tobacco bill and other proposals better than probably anybody. She has real diligence and passion for it. I also thank Greg Dean of my staff for his efforts. He has a legal mind that helps us on these issues. I thank Senator Burr for his hard work during this process. Although he ultimately was not successful, his efforts helped advance the debate and highlight some areas where improvement is needed. He put considerable time and energy into preparing a viable alternative, and I appreciate the way he created options. Chris Wall of Senator Burr's staff was extremely helpful during the markup and floor debate, and I thank him and compliment his work with my staff and others on this bill. Jeff Teitz and Ben Olinsky of Senator Kennedy's staff, and Jim Fenton and Jeremy Sharp of Senator Dodd's staff were also critical to our progress on this bill. Finally, Megan Hauck from the Republican leader's office and the floor staff for their assistance. I do intend to continue the fight against tobacco. I ask my colleagues to join me in this fight. I thank Senator Dodd for all of his efforts. There is true passion. I yield the floor. Regulating tobacco warehouses

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, who is working as chairman on this committee, for his passion, enthusiasm, and for listening to us. We do have a few things that are in the bill, but there are several other things that ought to be considered. We want the bill to be as good as possible. When we do cloture, we cut off that possibility. I have a couple amendments that I think, if they were addressed--I know one is kind of accepted on both sides, but we cannot get them in. That is a frustration. We should not be having frustrations on something as important as this bill. It is important that we stop kids from starting smoking and that we get people already smoking to stop smoking. It is adding to the health care bills of all of us. It is a cost shift we are experiencing. It is not good for their health. Then there are family members who are having secondary smoke. People do not realize the problems they are giving to their family members by doing that. I do oppose cloture today. There are several amendments I would like to offer. They are all germane amendments. I am glad they were germane amendments. We have been trying to reach an agreement on offering these amendments but it has been without any success, and if we invoke cloture we will not have a chance to consider any of these amendments. I hope we have a way to give these amendments serious consideration. If we cannot, I have to oppose cloture and I ask my colleagues to do the same. I think we can get it worked out in a relative hurry but not unless the train stops for a moment, a little hesitation here. I want to get this bill done. I am hoping we can complete it. But I think there are some important points that have to be made on it. I yield the floor. characterizing flavor

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Burr amendment No. 1246. The Burr substitute amendment takes major steps to restrict tobacco. It creates a new office within HHS to regulate tobacco. It puts in place a realistic, science-based standard for the approval of new and reduced risk products. It also requires states to do more on tobacco control--something we can all support. As many of you know, I support strong tobacco regulation. I want to remind my colleagues that supporting a different approach to tobacco regulation doesn't mean being soft on tobacco. The Burr amendment is extensive--longer and more detailed even than the underlying bill. It makes it more difficult for kids to get tobacco and start smoking, and that is the most important thing of all. Whether we see the Burr proposal or the Kennedy proposal put in place, we still have our work cut out for us when it comes to putting out tobacco use. I am going to keep working on this issue, and I am going to keep putting forward new ideas to stop smoking. These proposals are a first step, but we have a long way to go. I urge my colleagues to support the Burr amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the Chair, and I thank the chairman, but from the speeches, one can tell that the Senator from Connecticut has more passion than I do. Nobody is more passionate than the Senator from Connecticut, and I appreciate his passion, particularly on this issue. I am very hopeful we can get something done. It has been at least 10 years--I know I have worked on this all the time I have been here, and it is true in the Senator's explanation that sometimes it makes it through the House and sometimes it makes it through the Senate but it never makes it through both Houses at the same time. I think to get it done, though, it is going to take a little bit longer. I appreciate the offer the leader is making that he wishes to have votes on the relevant and arguably germane amendments that are before us, but there isn't any assurance of that if there is cloture on the bill, and that is the difficulty. It seems to me as though we ought to be able to work out some kind of an agreement so we can quickly get into the couple of amendments that have already been debated and debated extensively, and that we would be assured of at least those two, but we haven't had a vote on anything. I appreciate the cooperation we have had from Chairman Dodd in working out a couple of the provisions, but there are some other people who have some provisions they think ought to be debated and brought up and perhaps included, but if we invoke cloture, there is no assurance they get to do that. So I have been asked to suggest that we not invoke cloture at this point in time and then do it quickly another time if it can be brought up again. One of the amendments is Senator Burr's alternative. Even though he represents a tobacco State, he has a substitute amendment that takes major steps to restrict tobacco. It takes a tougher stance than some of the things we have in the bill. It creates a new office within HHS to regulate tobacco. I spoke about the difficulties of having the FDA do it, as they are supposed to take poisonous materials and get them off the market. Instead of giving that kind of a seal of approval, this new office would regulate the tobacco industry. It puts in place a realistic, science-based standard for the approval of new and reduced risk products. It also requires States to do more on tobacco control-- something we can all support. The Burr amendment makes it more difficult for kids to get tobacco and start smoking, and that is the most important thing of all, and that is what Senator Dodd has concentrated on in his remarks. But we won't be considering that amendment, nor will we consider my amendment to ensure that the FDA continues to have the resources to carry out this program, or any amendments on smoking cessation. We won't have an opportunity to improve the bill and attack the root of the problem, which is tobacco use. For example, I had an amendment to reduce smoking by 1 percent a year. That is a 100-year phaseout that ought to be fairly reasonable, but we aren't going to get to debate that at all or have a vote on that amendment if we invoke cloture. So I hope we can find a way to give germane amendments serious consideration over a short period of time. I have to oppose cloture at this point in time, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor, reserve the remainder of the time, and suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be divided equally.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Len Zwelling, a fellow in my office, for the remainder of the debate on H.R. 1256.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to talk about one of the great icons of the American West--the cowboy. The cowboy is an enduring symbol of strong character, honesty, integrity, respect, and patriotism. I am proud to carry on a tradition started by my late colleague and friend, Senator Craig Thomas, by sponsoring S. Res. 142, which honors the men and women called cowboys by designating July 25, 2009, the National Day of the American Cowboy. Craig truly showed us what it meant to be a cowboy. He knew that they come from all walks of life. Cowboys are men and women of any age, any race, and can be found across the country. The cowboy spirit isn't about boots and spurs and a hat. It is about strength of character, sound family values, courage, respect, and good common sense. Senator Thomas said: Trying to define a cowboy is like trying to rope the wind, but you certainly recognize one when you see them. It was easy to recognize that Senator Thomas truly was a Wyoming cowboy in every sense of the word. The cowboy way of life has been passed down for generations since the first cowboys settled the American West. They were true pioneers who came west to settle an untamed frontier. Many of the cowtowns that sprung up around the cattle business when the West was being settled are still there now. They continue to live their western heritage. The first cowboys relied on hard work and persistence to make their living in a tough country. Today's cowboys haven't changed all that much from when the first wranglers and ranch hands started herding cattle on the Great Plains. Today's cowboys continue to rope and ride across the United States. They live and work in every State to manage nearly 100 million cattle. They are an integral part of the economy of Wyoming and many other Western States. Cowboys work hard but they also play hard. Rodeo is a sport that tests skill with a rope or challenges a cowboy's ability to stay on the back of bucking rough stock for 8 long seconds. Rodeos across the Nation, from big events such as Cheyenne Frontier Days and the National Finals Rodeo in Las Vegas, to weekly smalltown jackpots at community arenas around the country, draw millions of fans every year. The cowboy legend still lives in our culture and our imaginations through music, movies, and books. From cowboy blockbusters on the big screen to the thousands of country radio stations on the air, the cowboy remains a larger-than-life figure. We look up to cowboys because they are examples of honesty, integrity, character, patriotism and self-reliance. Cowboys have a strong work ethic, they are compassionate, and they are good stewards of the land. We look to cowboys as role models for how to live up to the best American qualities. I am proud to be from a State that continues to live the cowboy tradition every day. Their contributions have helped shape what it means to be an American and have created a high standard we can all strive to meet. I am proud to continue Senator Thomas's tradition of recognizing the many contributions cowboys have made to our country. I look forward to celebrating the National Day of the American Cowboy on July 25, 2009.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I yield 45 minutes postcloture time to Senator Burr.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on cloture on the motion to proceed on H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Full and fair debate is one of the hallmarks of American democracy and the Senate in particular. All we are voting on today is whether we are going to get to debate, not whether we are going to have FDA regulation of tobacco. But if this vote does not get 60 votes, we will not have the opportunity in this Congress to see whether we can take real steps to curb tobacco use. Whether you are for this bill or against it, I urge you to support cloture on the motion to proceed. We cannot get to substantive amendments and improvements to the bill until we have cloture on the motion to proceed. I will have a number of amendments to improve this bill and fight the scourge of tobacco use and its deadly health consequences. In order to get to offer my amendments, I will support cloture on the motion to proceed, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to talk against the deadly scourge of tobacco. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. We have to take some dramatic steps to reduce smoking. Smoking killed my dad, my mom, and my mother-in-law, and secondhand smoking conclusively affected me. This isn't political; this is about the health of all Americans. This bill comes out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, mentioned that we don't want kids to start. We don't want anybody to start. There is enough information out there that can tell you that this will kill you. So don't do something that will kill you. Yes, it is a slow death; it may take a number of years, but it will kill you. Cancer is one of the big results of smoking. I wish to share a little bit from a contract that an oncologist--a person who deals strictly in solving cancer and providing cancer treatment--makes his patients sign before he will treat them because if they keep smoking, they are adding to the problem, causing recurrences of the problem. It starts off this way: Tobacco is a dangerous substance. It contains 50 carcinogens (cancer-causing substances) and is a Group A Carcinogen in the same class as asbestos and radon. It has many toxic substances besides cancer-causing agents; among these are insecticides which are used on the tobacco plant. In some parts of the country, tobacco is used as an industrial insecticide because of this composition. Tobacco use is considered the number 1 preventable cause of death in the world. On average, tobacco users live 35 years less than non-tobacco users. I go on to quote: Tobacco has been found to cause a multitude of cancer types, whether it is smoked or used in a smokeless fashion. Tobacco is the number one cause of cardiovascular disease leading to heart attack and strokes. Emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and many other diseases are a consequence. When I care for patients, I expect them to be involved in the healing process, no matter what disease they are afflicted by. If they continue to smoke, they do not want to improve their health. Because of this, they can either discontinue tobacco and continue under my care, or find another health care provider. Any tobacco user followed in our clinic will be given the opportunity for tobacco cessation (quitting the habit). They work with them on that. Tobacco users must discontinue tobacco use within 2 weeks of the initial consultation. I ask unanimous consent that the entire contract be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I did notice that in the last couple of weeks, a Federal appeals court has even looked at a landmark ruling that found that the Nation's top tobacco companies were guilty of racketeering and fraud for deceiving the public about the dangers of smoking. A three-judge panel of U.S. courts of appeals in Washington unanimously upheld requirements that manufacturers change the way they market cigarettes. The requirements, which have been on hold pending appeal, would ban labels such as low tar, light, ultra light, or mild, since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than the others. That is one of the requirements in this bill--that they cannot use that kind of false advertising. I wish to share some facts with you. The Senator from Connecticut shared some with you. These are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Among current U.S. adult smokers, 70 percent report they want to quit completely. In 2006, an estimated 19.2 million adult smokers had stopped smoking for at least 1 day during the preceding 12 months because they were trying to quit. That is more than 44 percent of the smokers. Think about it--70 percent of smokers want to quit, and 44 percent of them are trying each year. Unfortunately, not enough of them succeed. I know what a terribly addictive thing it is. I watched my parents deal with it. The numbers are even more shocking when we consider youth smokers. Nearly one in five young people smokes, but more than 54 percent of current high school smokers in the United States tried to quit smoking during the preceding year. We need to get people to stop smoking or, better yet, never start. I support incentives to quit smoking--for example, offering incentives to lower health insurance premiums for those who stop smoking or, better yet, who never start. That becomes a continuing cost to us. The cost of health care is out of control. There seems to be support in the context of health care reform. Full, fair, and open debate is critical to the democratic process. I am pleased to have the opportunity this week to offer amendments to this bill to help lessen the toll tobacco takes on our society. Senator Dodd mentioned the committee action. We have a committee that works a little differently from some of the others. We look at that opportunity of the committee process to see what the key concerns are and to see how they can be incorporated into making a better bill. That is what Congress is about. That is why we have 100 people here and 435 on the other end of the building, so that we get a lot of backgrounds, opinions, and ideas, so that can avoid unintended consequences and tighten up processes so that what we are trying to do can actually get done. I appreciate the way this bill has been worked on. One of the things we did, of course, was leave about six amendments to be worked on in the interim, before we actually get to amendments on this bill. I am hopeful those can be worked out so they will tighten up the bill a little bit more. This Congress does have a unique opportunity to have an impact on smoking and health consequences. My record is clear when it comes to tobacco. I am no friend of big tobacco. I have never taken a dime of tobacco company money for my campaigns, and I don't intend to start now. I have ideas to make a real impact on the public health and win the war on tobacco. I thank the Senator and all those on the other side of the aisle for the serious consideration they are giving the bill and the opportunity now to have the floor debate. I am hoping we will stick to germane issues so that it will stay a tobacco bill. That is the only way we will actually reach a conclusion on it. I hope the ideas presented with the goal of making this a better bill will get serious consideration. I am sure they will. I encourage people to bring those ideas forward and, if they will, talk to us a little bit before they put them in to see if they are already under consideration as opposed to already in the bill. I am thankful for this opportunity. I am glad that the bill is being brought to the floor and that it went through the regular process. I hope something good can come out of this. We need to make sure what we are doing will stop smoking. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. President, I rise to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Dorgan, Grassley, and Johnson. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law has since provided livestock producers, the family farmers and ranchers of our country, with a remedy to protect themselves against manipulative and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. However, since the early 1920s our domestic livestock industry has changed significantly and so too have the ways in which producers market their livestock. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed. Changes in marketing have introduced new ways for bad actors to manipulate prices and this legislation is designed to strengthen the laws originally enacted in the Packers and Stockyards Act. It is no secret that the packing industry in the U.S. has again become increasingly consolidated. In 1985, the four largest packers accounted for 39 percent of all cattle slaughtered in the U.S. Twenty years later, the top four firms controlled over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic does not even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry since 2007. Being big in agriculture is not bad, but it does present opportunities for a select few to manipulate the market for their own gain. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti- competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders. I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem--large packers owning captive supplies--by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements. This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. Ranchers aren't asking for a handout. What I am asking for is a level-playing field and an equal opportunity for our ranchers to succeed. I am pleased to say that I am joined by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in working to address this problem. I encourage my other colleagues to support the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act and to join me in giving ranchers an honest chance to make a living. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. President, I rise to speak on the introduction of the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act. I want to also acknowledge that I am joined in introducing this legislation by Senators Dorgan, Grassley, and Johnson. The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 was enacted at a time when there was significant concentration in the livestock and poultry industry. That law has since provided livestock producers, the family farmers and ranchers of our country, with a remedy to protect themselves against manipulative and anti-competitive practices in the marketplace. However, since the early 1920s our domestic livestock industry has changed significantly and so too have the ways in which producers market their livestock. Gone are the days when a simple handshake between buyer and seller was all you needed. Changes in marketing have introduced new ways for bad actors to manipulate prices and this legislation is designed to strengthen the laws originally enacted in the Packers and Stockyards Act. It is no secret that the packing industry in the U.S. has again become increasingly consolidated. In 1985, the four largest packers accounted for 39 percent of all cattle slaughtered in the U.S. Twenty years later, the top four firms controlled over 69 percent of the domestic cattle slaughter and this statistic does not even include the acquisitions that have taken place in the industry since 2007. Being big in agriculture is not bad, but it does present opportunities for a select few to manipulate the market for their own gain. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act strikes at the heart of one particular anti- competitive practice. Over the years, livestock producers, feeders, and packers have been given a number of new marketing tools for price discovery and hedging risk. One of those tools is the forward contract where a buyer and seller agree to a transaction at a specified point of time in the future. However, certain types of forward contracting agreements have become ripe for price manipulation. This is because a growing number of packing operations own their own livestock or control them through marketing agreements. These firms then can buy from themselves when prices are high and buy from others when prices are low. Captive supplies are animals that packers own and control prior to slaughter. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act prohibits certain arrangements that provide packers with the opportunity use their captive supplies to manipulate local market prices. First, the legislation requires that forward contracts contain a ``firm base price'' which is derived from an external source. Though not outlined in the legislation, commonly used external sources of price include the live cattle futures market or wholesale beef market. This ensures that both buyers and sellers have a basis for how pricing in a contract will be derived at the time the contract is agreed upon. Second, the bill requires that forward contracts be traded in open, public markets. This guarantees that multiple buyers and sellers can witness bids as well as offer their own. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act also ensures that trading of contracts be done in a manner that provides both small and large buyers and sellers access to the market. Contracts are to be traded in sizes approximate to the common number of cattle or pigs transported in a trailer, but the law does not prohibit trading from occurring in multiples of those contracts for larger livestock orders. I travel to Wyoming nearly every weekend and have heard the same concerns from many of our ranchers. They want to be competitive in the market and sell the best animals possible so that they can continue the work that so many in their family have done for so many years. However, this problem is not isolated to Wyoming. Livestock producers from coast to coast are finding that with consolidation there are fewer and fewer buyers for their animals and their options for marketing too are being lost. This legislation not only increases openness in forward contracting but preserves the right for ranchers to choose the best methods for selling their animals without worry that their agreements will be subject to manipulation. The bill does not apply to producer cooperatives who often own their processing facility. The legislation also carefully targets the problem--large packers owning captive supplies--by also exempting packers that only own one facility and those that do not report for mandatory price reporting. The Livestock Marketing Fairness Act does not apply to agreements based on quality grading nor does it affect a producer's ability to negotiate contracts one-on-one with buyers. Therefore, sellers can still choose from a variety of methods including the spot market, futures market, or other alternative marketing arrangements. This bill is common sense and ensures that our ranchers have access to a competitive market in these difficult economic times. Ranchers aren't asking for a handout. What I am asking for is a level-playing field and an equal opportunity for our ranchers to succeed. I am pleased to say that I am joined by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in working to address this problem. I encourage my other colleagues to support the Livestock Marketing Fairness Act and to join me in giving ranchers an honest chance to make a living. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Margaret Hamburg on her confirmation last night by the Senate to be commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. I wish to also thank Dr. Hamburg for her previous public service and her willingness to once again go through the process of Senate confirmation. The vetting process for executive nominees is thorough and not without some degree of personal and professional sacrifice. I thank Dr. Hamburg for her willingness to serve. Dr. Hamburg is an internationally recognized leader in public health and medicine, and an authority on global health, public health systems, infectious disease, bioterrorism and emergency preparedness. This background is especially important given that the swine flu--H1N1 influenza--has been on the front pages for several weeks and spread across the globe during that time. Dr. Hamburg has a tremendous amount of experience with emergency preparedness. The FDA has a very broad and critical mission in protecting the public health. Dr. Hamburg is in charge of an agency that regulates $1 trillion worth of products a year. The FDA ensures the safety and effectiveness of all drugs, biological products such as vaccines, medical devices, and animal drugs and feed. It also oversees the safety of a vast variety of food products as well as medical and consumer products, including cosmetics. As commissioner of the FDA, Dr. Hamburg is responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations in its mission areas, and by helping the public get accurate, science-based information on medicines and foods. Another core mission of FDA is approving drugs and ensuring their safety. However, the FDA can not ensure the safety of deadly products such as tobacco--it kills people, not cures them. Yet this week the HELP Committee, of which I am the ranking member, is set to consider legislation that would require the FDA to regulate tobacco. At a time when federal dollars are stretched and resources are limited, I have serious concerns about adding more statutory responsibilities at FDA. In addition, given the recalls of spinach, peanuts, peppers, and tomatoes over the past two years, FDA's resources are already stretched too thin on the food safety front. I represent a State that has substantial agricultural interests. Food safety and food labeling are critically important to me and my constituents. I am hopeful that Dr. Hamburg and I can work together on protecting the American food supply. Additionally, I look forward to working with the new commissioner to restore the FDA's status as one of the strongest regulatory agencies in the world. I have no doubt that with the right leadership in place and with Congressional oversight, the FDA will again be the gold standard and our regulatory process the envy of the world. Given Dr. Hamburg's expertise in emergency preparedness, pandemics and public health, I am pleased that the Senate acted quickly on this nomination. Again, I would like to congratulate Dr. Hamburg on her confirmation.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce a resolution today to designate Saturday, July 25, 2009 as ``National Day of the American Cowboy.'' My late colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, began the tradition of honoring the men and women known as ``Cowboys'' five years ago when he introduced the first resolution to designate the fourth Saturday of July as National Day of the American Cowboy. I'm proud to carry on Senator Thomas's tradition. The national day celebrates the history of Cowboys in America and recognizes the important work today's Cowboys are doing in the United States. The Cowboy Spirit is about honesty, integrity, courage, and patriotism, and Cowboys are models of strong character, sound family values, and good common sense. Cowboys were some of the first men and women to settle in the American West and they continue to make important contributions to our economy, Western culture and my home state of Wyoming today. This year's resolution designates July 25, 2009 as the National Day of the American Cowboy. I hope my colleagues will join me in recognizing the important role Cowboys play in our country.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the chairman for his kind remarks and for the great job he does on very difficult issues. Anytime you talk about money, whether it is at home, at work, or here in the Senate, it raises a lot of concern and difficulty. I know this has been a difficult process to work through. Of course, I have a major disagreement with the budget that I want to concentrate on because I am not only on the Budget Committee, I am also on the HELP Committee, which is a big bite of the apple, especially since the President has placed so much emphasis on health care reform and education reform this year. I also happen to be on the Finance Committee. So the three committees have to interact on those issues, particularly the health care issue. I have never been involved in an issue with as many moving parts or as difficult as health care reform, probably because it involves 100 percent of the American people. Seldom do we have a bill that involves that. This also involves every single business and every single health care provider. All of them are nervous and probably ought to be as long as we are in session. I will speak in opposition because of a particular part of the budget resolution conference agreement that I am disappointed in. As I review the agreement before the Senate, it once again reminds me of the old adage that I have referred to before: You can pay me now or you can pay me later. This budget conference agreement leaves the bills for later. It taxes too much, it spends too much, and it borrows too much. I ask my colleagues if this is the legacy we want to leave our children and grandchildren. Actually, we are going to be paying for it within our lifetimes; it will not be just the next generation. We ought to know better. Yesterday, we were having a hearing in the HELP Committee where we were talking to several States that have done something significant in the area of health care. I like the roundtable approach. That is where we bring in people who have done something, and they explain how they did it, why, what the results were, what they would do differently. It is not like a regular hearing where one side invites in some of the witnesses, the other side invites one of the witnesses, and then everybody shows up to beat up on the witnesses. This is to get information. It was fascinating because we had Massachusetts, California, Vermont, and Utah--four States that have tried or done something in the area of health care. Yesterday, California explained their health care reform and had to mention that it failed. I asked why. They said it was primarily because they had a $14 billion deficit they were trying to figure out how to cover, and health care costs money. I did have to point out that our deficit is significantly bigger each and every year. Even proportionately, it is significantly bigger. So that will raise some difficulties. This budget resolution conference agreement doesn't get near to solving that problem, not even in the long run. So we are not considering a conference report that will confront any of the tough financial priority choices that face our country. As I have said repeatedly, we cannot sustain the current level of spending without inflicting grave danger on the fiscal health of the country. Recently, I noticed that England tried to sell some bonds. They had difficulty selling them. They didn't sell them. Everyone will recall that China has been asking what additional guarantees we would give on our bonds. What does that say? That says that we have maxed out our credit cards. Every individual in America who has ever had a maxed- out credit card knows what that means. It means you can't get more credit. We run on credit, particularly if we run deficits. One of the most offensive and dangerous parts of this conference agreement is the use of budget reconciliation. It is a procedural tool, and it is a backdoor method to bypass the full and fair legislative process. The Senate was designed to include minority views, and there aren't issues where it is more important to do this on than with health care reform and education reform. I am hoping that on either of those, in order for the American people to have confidence in what we are doing, we will put together a bill that will have 75 or 80 votes. We need to have that kind of agreement in order to have a plan that will work. And Lord help the party that designs one that does not work or that stops the process of getting one to work. Both sides have a tremendous responsibility in the health care and education debates. Either one can end their party with either of those bills. Reconciliation's intended use is for meaningful deficit reduction on budgetary issues. If you attack those problems purely from a budgetary issue, you cannot get to the core of the problem and you cannot resolve it. I just came from a Senate Finance Committee meeting where we are talking about the Senate Finance Committee piece of health care. That is separate from the HELP Committee portion of health care. Both have to work together, along with the Budget Committee, in order to come up with a plan. Today, we were going through roughly one-third of the problem. We were going to go through the delivery system part, how do we deliver health care. We have a little eight-page document. The first page is just a cover page. The second page is just a summary. The third page is where we spent the last 2 hours. There are five more pages to go. The other five pages are more difficult than the first page. After we finish all of this and reach some resolution, which we are hoping to do before the middle of May, then we have to look at coverage, what kind of coverage people will be given if they are under health care, and we want to get everyone under health care. The final piece we have to do is how to pay for it. So you can see it is a very complicated process. Reconciliation is intended for the use of meaningful deficit reduction on budgetary issues. The budget resolution that passed this Chamber in March, the Senate version, was silent on reconciliation. Reconciliation is included in the House budget resolution and was, therefore, an item we resolved during the conference process. The conference agreement provides reconciliation instructions to the Finance Committee and the HELP Committee on both health care reform and higher education. I serve on both committees, and as the ranking Republican on the HELP Committee, I do have expertise on the issues at the heart of the debate. I also have a track record of legislative accomplishments and getting bills across the finish line. It doesn't do any good to just debate them. If they don't get finished, it never helps anybody. I work on getting them across the finish line. The way to do that is to focus on the 80-percent rule. That means focusing on the issues where there is general agreement 80 percent of the time rather than the 20 percent of the issues where consensus is not likely. On that 80 percent, you have to pick out the 80 percent of the issue that everybody can agree on and find another way, a new way of doing that other 20 percent. Then you can reach the goal. If you are divided at the beginning, you won't get the 80 percent, let alone the other 20. It takes time to keep everybody calm and focused and listening. It takes time to reach solutions, particularly on the 20 percent where you are trying to come up with a new way, where neither side loses face, and get a result. What we have is a situation where the House of Representatives is dictating the Senate process. How did reconciliation instructions make it into the conference report after so many powerful Senate Democrats-- the Budget Committee chairman, the Finance Committee chairman, the HELP Committee chairman, all of the committees involved in this--opposed using reconciliation and said they would fight to keep it out of the budget? How did that many important people get rolled on this thing? How did that happen? They said they opposed it, but it winds up in there. The House Rules Committee can allow large, comprehensive bills to be cleared in a single afternoon. They don't need it. They can do it irrespective of whether the bill is designated as reconciliation legislation. However, in the Senate, without privileged designation, it could take a week or more to consider the same legislation. It does take longer over here. That is because we want to get it right. Using the reconciliation process does not allow for a full and open debate in the Senate. It does not allow a thorough vetting and amendment process. Its fast-track nature shuts out Members, particularly from the minority party. It also shuts out centrist Democrats. So it is a declaration that Republican ideas and centrist Democratic ideas are going to be left out of the mix. It is counter to the successful way legislation is typically considered in the HELP Committee. We often work in a bipartisan way that results in much of our legislation being worked out to achieve strong support from both sides of the aisle. Laws such as the Pension Protection Act and the Head Start reauthorization were hundreds of pages in length, and they passed the Senate with little debate and by huge margins. I am deeply disappointed that the final budget resolution paves the way for a partisan process, particularly on these issues that are important on education and health. I have to say that the most radical on both sides will favor this. The far-left Democrats see this as a way to do it their way. The far-right Republicans see it as a way to delay it so it doesn't get done because they will be able to cause confusion with the amount of time that is involved. That will be bad for both sides. It won't work for the American people. That is why it won't work for either side. That is why we have to be centrist on this and pull together 75 or 80 people who can agree on these issues. That will take time in committee. If we do the proper amount in committee, it will take less time on the floor. We have proven that with past legislation. To just throw out this little bomb that says we are going to do this in a very short period of time really affects the ability to work closely together. One truly difficult challenge this Congress has to address is how to get control of America's exploding health care costs. Simply throwing more money at the problem is not a solution. Real health care reform has to be bipartisan. It has to have a full and open debate. If we enact the wrong health care fix, we will worsen our budget crisis. Enacting reforms without reducing costs represents an unsustainable promise that the American people will long regret. It is taking us time to do these roundtables and hearings. Yesterday, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, and Utah talked about their experiences. We learned a lot. Both sides learned a lot. They have learned a lot. The States are really laboratories for the Federal Government. What works at the State level might have some transformation to the Federal level. On the other hand, if we take it all at the Federal level and we do one-size-fits-all, we can damage efforts that can be done at the local level. The local level is where people live. Health care reform is too big an issue to advance with procedural shortcuts. There never has been a bill with as many moving parts that affects as many people as health care reform will. To get a workable solution, it will require the effort of everybody in the Senate. We can bring them together and do that. If we can't come up with a plan that will garner the support of at least 75 or 80 Senators, this institution will not gain the confidence of the American people. Without that confidence, the plan will fail. We will never overcome the objections that will be raised. Misusing the reconciliation process to get a health care bill or higher education reforms is not the right approach. It conflicts with the new bipartisan spirit the President has promised. This is a disappointing day in the Senate. Moving a health care reform bill through reconciliation rehashes what we have been suffering from--the Pelosi war cry: We won the election, we get to write the bills. That is not right. This kind of partisanship disenfranchises millions of Americans--not just Senators, millions of Americans--and it is wrong. They are looking for commonsense solutions, not party messages. The American people deserve a good bipartisan bill that will work. Using reconciliation will make that impossible. While I expect that Chairman Conrad has the votes to adopt this conference agreement, I am going to urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution and on the basis of needing to have good health care reform done the right way with everybody working on it. That is exactly how it has to be. It cannot be just one side. Anybody who opposes health care reform--unless it is because it was rushed through with just one party listening--will suffer too. If we get everybody together, we can come up with a plan that will work. I regret that ever made it into the budget. I still cannot believe that could be a part of it--the House, that does not need it, imposing it on a Senate that knows better. Madam President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.