Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I too ask unanimous consent that I might be allowed to speak for as much time as I might consume.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are all familiar with the phrase ``all you can eat.'' There are restaurants everywhere that specialize in feeding us until we burst. Needless to say, that isn't a good idea. Eating until you just can't eat any more isn't just a waste of resources, it is likely to have a severe impact on your future health-- and your current waistline! We are in a similar fix here in the Congress. Our country is in a sinkhole of debt and it's almost as if we have adopted a philosophy of ``all you can spend'' around here. Spending is out of control and we are doing more than just wasting resources--we are destroying the future of our children and our grandchildren. Our friends on the other side of the aisle don't seem to see what a terrible problem we face. Just like that all you can eat line, our colleagues are heading back to the buffet for one more full plate and leaving the bill for our children to pay. As the old adage says so well, you can pay me now, or pay me later--and our colleagues have chosen to leave the bills for later. We ought to know better. This week the Senate is considering the conference report for the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, a blueprint that is supposed to provide us with guidance for spending that reflects the priorities of the Congress. As stewards of the public trust, the Congress needs to make responsible choices that leave a fiscally sound country to our children and our grandchildren. Unfortunately, the budget resolution conference agreement we are debating this week doesn't confront any of the tough choices that face our country. I will say once again that we cannot sustain the current level of spending without inflicting grave damage on the fiscal health of our country. This conference agreement rejects the President's proposals that slow the growth of spending in mandatory programs, as well as keep a handle on discretionary spending. It does nothing to shore up the government's fiscal house, and instead leaves the tough choices to future Congresses and the next administration. Yet every day, Americans sit at their kitchen tables and tighten their own budgets to pay for gas, food and other necessary expenses--while we can't even impose meaningful discipline on spending here in Washington. As stewards of the public trust, we owe it to all American taxpayers to use the funds they provide us in the most efficient way possible. If we do that, then we provide future generations with a strong economy. As an accountant, I particularly welcome the opportunity to look at the overall spending priorities of our Nation. Fiscal year 2009 ought to be another tight year for spending. This year the Federal deficit is projected to be close to $350 billion--under the Conference Agreement-- which will pale in the face of major demands on resources as the so- called baby boom generation begins to reach eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. We must realistically deal with issues like increasing health care costs, tax policy, burgeoning energy costs, as well as continuing national security obligations. Americans deserve more than another ``pass the buck'' budget. Mr. President, here is the truth about what the Democratic budget resolution would do. It will: raise taxes by $1.2 trillion meaning that 43 million families with children will pay $2,300 more each year, and 18 million seniors will pay $2,200 more; increase spending by $210 billion over 5 years. For fiscal year 2009, exceed the President's requested budget by $24 billion; would allow the gross debt to climb by $2 trillion by 2013; last year's budget grew our national debt by $2.5 trillion. It ignores entitlement reform--there is no attempt to tackle the $66 trillion in unsustainable long-term entitlement obligations that face our country. The President's budget proposed to reduce the rate of growth in one of our most expensive entitlements, Medicare. This would not cut Medicare at all--it would simply reduce the rate of growth. This conference report rejects even slowing the growth in entitlements. For these reasons alone, the conference report ought to be rejected. Congress ought to be considering a budget that reduces the national debt, promotes honest budgeting, and encourages true economic growth by reducing energy costs, reducing taxes, and reducing health care costs and increasing access for all Americans. Last year, the majority also promised to abide by pay-go rules and actually pay for all new spending. Well, as far as I can see this has not happened, and in fact, pay-go enforcement rules have been weakened through a variety of different mechanisms and smoke and mirrors that taxpayers have ended up with billions in new spending. Congress must take seriously the warnings from the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office about Federal expenditures spiraling out of control. We need to make procedural and process changes to directly address these problems. One of the many procedural reforms that I believe would promote fiscal responsibility is a 2-year budget process, known as biennial budgeting. In fact, in his budget for fiscal year 2009, the President once again proposed commonsense budget reforms to restrain spending. He has several recommendations, including earmark reforms and the adoption of a 2-year budget for all executive branch agencies in order to give Congress more time for program reviews. Implementing these overall recommendations would be a step in the right direction. The budget process takes up a considerable amount of time each year and is drenched in partisan politics, while other important issues end up on the back burner. The Federal budgeting and appropriations system is broken, and lends itself to spending indulgences taxpayers cannot afford. We only have to look to the mammoth spending bills that nobody has time to fully read or understand before they are passed into law. Last year's omnibus appropriations bill is an example of a system that promotes fiscal recklessness. This conference report is a missed opportunity. There is a crucial need to enact procedural and process changes that will enable us to get this country on the right budgetary track again. We simply cannot risk the economic stability of future generations by continuing to ``get by'' with the status quo. The risks are far too great. The conference report we are debating today is a hollow, tax and spend, big government budget. It makes no tough choices.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I get to change the dialog completely. I ask unanimous consent to share joy as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I believe I have 6 minutes remaining on my 20 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I have an important message for everyone listening to me right now: This bill will cost you money. It will make your gasoline more expensive. It will increase your electric bill-- dramatically. It will take hard-earned money out of your pocket. Companies don't pay the costs of higher energy. They pass it on to you, the customer. You need to think about what you want to pay for your gas and electricity when this bill has its full effect on you. How willing are you to pay the personal cost of global warming legislation--even if it might not make a difference? What you and I need is a bill that spurs innovation and recognizes what is possible with technology. What you and I need is a bill that cleans the environment without destroying our economy. I am in favor of using alternative sources of energy and reducing emissions and giving incentives to invent cleaner air. I am in favor of increasing our supplies of energy. I am in favor of actions that will bring down your cost of energy. We are now debating an issue that Congress has been discussing for a long time. I have been involved in this global warming debate for a long time. I was a member of the original Senate delegation that attended the Kyoto conference, at which the Kyoto protocol was created. I saw right away that that conference was not an environmental conference, it was an economic conference with the United States as a target. Well, before that, I was also the mayor of Gillette, WY, the center of the largest coal-producing area in the Nation. Like many of my colleagues, I have spent a lot of time studying this issue. Some say this bill is essential. I am not convinced that such is the case because I am not convinced it takes the right approach to reducing emissions. We may need to address this issue but not through the legislation we have before us today. I am concerned that this is a piece of legislation that will make energy much more expensive for Americans, at a time when the No. 1 issue I am hearing about is the need to decrease energy prices, especially gasoline. I am concerned that we are debating a bill that will send American jobs overseas. I am concerned we are debating a bill that will irrevocably harm our ability to use our Nation's most abundant energy source--coal. I am not a fearmonger. I am an environmentalist. I am in favor of using alternative sources of energy. As my constituents will tell you, we have a great potential for wind and solar energy in Wyoming. I am for conservation. We need to find ways to consume less energy. I am for inventions that reduce gasoline and diesel consumption, and I am for inventions that reduce or eliminate all suspect chemicals and gases. But I am not a fearmonger. We have held congressional hearings, but hearings around here aren't designed to get at the truth; hearings are to make a preconceived point. The chairman selects all of the panel members but one. The ranking Republican gets to pick that one. Then both sides show up to make specific points and to discredit the other approach. We have a bill before us that is one approach to this issue. Now we need to determine if it is a sensible solution, and we must determine what you, the public, are willing to pay. What are we willing to make you, our constituents, pay to implement the plan we have before us today to maybe address global warming? I suspect my folks in Wyoming are not willing to pay the enormous costs associated with this bill. This bill is a one-size-fits-all approach. It is expensive. It creates a huge new bureaucracy. It assumes that technology is further along than it truly is, and it ignores the fact that nations such as China and India do not and will not have similar programs. We need a bill that spurs innovation and recognizes what is possible with technology. What we need is a bill that recognizes that if we want a clean environment, we cannot destroy our economy. I figured out when I was mayor of Gillette and we were going to have a coal boom that we could wait to be run over or we could work to realize the benefits from development. We worked with the mines. We got the necessary facilities and amenities their employees would like. We made sure they did a reclamation job that makes us proud. You see, Wyoming coal is a clean coal. We ship it to all 50 States. Other States mix their coal with ours to meet the clean coal standards. In the early days of my hometown's coal boom, the critics of coal said, ``Don't let them tear that area up. It is not reclaimable.'' Today, visitors in Gillette say, ``Don't let them tear that lush land up.'' And I have to say, ``That is where the mine used to be, and that area is where the mine is headed.'' Most of those visitors then say, ``Let the mines move ahead if they can improve it like that.'' Of course, the next generation is going to say, ``You moved all that dirt and you didn't make a bigger difference than that?'' The mining companies have to put the contours back exactly as they found it. That comes from one-size-fits-all legislation. People in the East got upset about mountaintop removal, and they should be upset when that occurs. But we mine coal differently in Wyoming. Our coal is in 60- to 90-foot seams under a few feet of dirt. When we talk about coal mining, the first question should be: What would be hurt by mining? Second, we should ask: Can we improve what was there before? Are there any local needs that could be met? Wildlife is part of Wyoming's heritage. It is part of our recreation and even our food. What can we do to improve the habitat for wildlife? These questions are all asked before we allow mining to move forward in Wyoming in the first place. Unfortunately, sometimes policy in Washington dictates that we cannot do everything we want to do. A few years ago, a prime emphasis from Washington was wetlands. Wyoming was photo-surveyed during our wettest spring in years, and we have been maintaining at that level. As the mayor of Gillette, I wanted to do better. I worked to get more wetlands on reclaimed mine property. But I was turned down because they weren't wetlands before. I finally got permission for a demonstration on one mine. It worked beautifully. It looked lush and it attracted animals and birds that were supposed to be attracted. It was a marvelous success. Do you think we have been able, in the next 20 years, to do one other project like that? No, we have not. Why not? Because restrictive policies in Washington by Congress have held us back. Don't try to make things better; try to keep them the same. That is not a good policy. The Lieberman-Warner bill is an example of a similar policy. Instead of recognizing that, if given the proper tools, American innovation can solve any climate crisis, instead of trusting that industries will make advances and will improve technology, providing they can pass the cost on, the bill assumes that technologies are far ahead of where they truly are. And it does so at a tremendous cost to consumers. You may be paying for huge costs that may not make any difference. There are so many studies on this subject that you cannot count them all. The bottom line is you can count on the fact that this bill will be expensive. You can explain it any way you want, but it will increase the energy cost of all you hard-working Americans. I have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about the struggling middle class. Well, if you implement a policy that will significantly increase energy prices, the middle class will struggle even more. There is also a lot of talk about the need for the United States to be the leader on climate policy. People argue that if the United States acts, the world will follow. Europe is working to meet the greenhouse gas reduction standard they set up, but they are doing it by shipping their manufacturing to India and China because those countries don't have to meet any sort of standards. I don't want the United States to do the same thing. I want the jobs here. Presidential candidates are complaining about jobs going overseas. Whose jobs will be shipped out because of this bill? I cannot support a bill such as this, which does little to include the developing world in this effort. We have already reduced our logging, and those jobs shipped overseas have almost eliminated the Siberian tiger. We have placed an emphasis on ethanol and have Brazilians chopping down the rain forests to plant corn. We are going to spend some time talking about this bill. The American people need to know that this bill costs money. It will make gasoline more expensive. It will increase their electric bills. It will take hard-earned money out of their pockets. It is the right time to have this debate so we can discuss the approach this bill is taking and determine if we are willing to saddle the people of our States with the enormous costs caused by it. On June 1, George Will did an editorial in the Washington Post and exposed the cap-and-trade policy of this bill for what it is--a carbon tax, but clever and hidden. While I was at the global warming conference in The Hague, the United States was negotiating to get some recognition for the increase in trees in the United States since they absorb CO2 and put out oxygen. The United States has had a significant increase in trees over its history, and studies have shown that the trees absorb more CO2 than the people of the United States put out. The other countries wouldn't allow that since the conference every year is an economic conference, not an environmental conference. Here is how the cap and trade will work. Actually, here is how cap and trade will shift wealth. Landowners who have trees on their land can put their trees' CO2 absorption on the market. They can do that right now. The same trees that have been absorbing and transforming--that the world will not credit--will now be paid to do what they have always done. And you will pay for it at the gas pump and when you flip the electric switch, or when your furnace or water heater come on. That is right, the companies will buy the cap-and-trade credits for the trees and other absorbers, but you will pay it because it will be passed on. I want everybody listening to visualize opening their utility bill the month after this bill goes into effect. Can you see your shocked look as the already high bill is now 50 percent higher? But that is nothing. Visualize how high your bill will go when you get into the spirit of selling credits. Speculation has driven up oil costs. Cap and trade will result in speculation as well. You will wonder what happened to your utilities, and they will tell you that Washington foisted this expense on you. The utilities will explain how Congress forced them to buy CO2 credits to stop global warming. If there were a carbon tax--and I am not suggesting any new tax--if it were a carbon tax, it would at least be in proportion to what you yourself used and could be transparent. If this bill becomes law, you should visualize what will happen when you fill up your automobile. If you have a job in manufacturing, imagine what will happen to your job when India and China, that have no constraints, get your job because their energy, with no environmental controls, is cheaper. Without a way to increase energy supplies that we rely on every day, so that prices will come down, this bill is out of step with the times and will cost you dollars--and perhaps your job. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I was here for the previous discussion, and it was my understanding that the train had to continue on time, but it was set up that it would flow, that we could withhold shortly and then have a slight rebuttal after the rebuttal.

Mr. ENZI. I certainly wish to retain a portion of it.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I get to announce to my Senate family that I am a grampa again. Incidentally, that is spelled with an ``m'' and no ``d,'' grampa, the greatest title anyone can have. It is an indescribable thrill. It is incredible love. You cannot comprehend all of what I am saying unless you have a grandchild. I have two other grandchildren, but this time Diana's and my youngest child, the baby of the family, had a baby. Emily and her husband Mike, Mike McGrady, met at the University of Wyoming. Mike broke family Florida University Gator tradition to come to Wyoming, but it was part of God's plan. Emily and Mike fell in love and got married. Emily worked for the university while Mike went to law school. When he graduated, he got a job clerking for Federal Circuit Court Judge Terry O'Brien. Last year they bought a house. This year, they called to ask what we were planning to do for Memorial Day and suggested we might want to be near them for the birth of our grandchild. We were near. Our daughter Emily and her daughter Megan had extremely fortunate timing for Diana and me. Diana and I were in Wyoming for the workweek. Some call it a recess. I prefer to call it, more accurately, a workweek. The baby started coming almost on schedule. We went to the hospital when Emily went into labor. The family took turns walking the halls with Emily while she could. After 13 hours of labor, mother and baby were getting so tired the doctor suggested--strongly suggested--a Cesarean section to take the baby. When nothing is progressing, there is no other decision. Surgery is always a scary decision. But at 8:33 on May 29, we had a granddaughter, Megan Riley McGrady. She weighed 6 pounds, 14 ounces, and was 20 inches long with delicate hands and long, thin fingers. I cannot begin to share the emotion and feeling that overwhelms me today. It is such an incredible feeling to hold another generation in your hands, to see such a miniature person and such a huge miracle. I had the pleasure of holding that baby and watching her breathe and move with 100 different facial expressions--with the tongue in, the tongue out, yawns, eyes closed and eyes wide, and listened to all the little sounds she made. I watched her hands close to tight fists and then open as if to stretch. Of course, I had to let my wife Diana hold her a little, too, and Megan's mom and dad, Emily and Mike, wanted a turn, too, and Mike's parents, Tom and Mary McGrady, came all the way from Florida and, of course, they wanted turns, too. It was a grand time for our family. I have some instant replay memories of that little face and those moving hands and the blanket and cap to hold in the body heat or the little pink bow on a pink band circling her tiny head. They are all locked in my mind, and I am constantly doing little instant replay memories for myself and thanking God for the opportunities that he has given me from finding Diana to learning about prayer with our first child, the daughter who was born premature, who showed us how worthwhile fighting for life is, to the birth of our son, to the birth of our youngest daughter, this one who had the baby, to helping me through open heart surgery so I might have this chance to hold another generation in my hands. I think of the Prayer of Jabez in Chronicles where he says: Lord, please continue to bless me, indeed. And I add my thanks for this and all the blessings noticed and, unfortunately, often unnoticed. So now I am a grampa. That is not grandfather. That is too stilted. Years ago, my daughter gave me a hand-stitched wall hanging that says: ``Any man can be a father, but it takes someone special to be a dad.'' That is a challenge for grampas to live up to, too. Please note the name is not ``grandpa.'' That is a great title, but it is a little too elevated. As I said before, my name, grampa, is spelled with an ``m'' and no ``d.'' That is what I called my Grampa Bradley who took me on some wonderful adventures and taught me a lot of important lessons. Now it is my turn to live up to that valued name. He liked to be called grampa, and I am now delighted to have the opportunity to earn that name. I wish I could adequately share the joy with you that is in my heart. After Megan was born, I went to the Republican Convention. When I spoke, I mentioned my mom's admonition that I need to pass on to my grandchildren; that is, to do what is right, to do your best, to treat others as they want to be treated. I use that guideline every day and expect everyone on my staff to measure legislation and casework by it too. Now I have an additional measure for myself. I don't ever want my grandkids to say: My grampa could have fixed that, but he didn't. I do know that most of what I do fix they will never know about. That is how America is supposed to work. America is a lot of people doing their job, doing it because it needs to be done, not because someone will give them acclaim. Some would say that you, my granddaughter, Megan Riley McGrady, have been born at a scary time, a time of fear, fear of almost everybody, fear of war, fear of people from other countries, fear for our neighborhoods, worry about energy supplies and energy prices and the effect on food prices. As an Enzi, we have faith that doing the right thing, doing our best, and treating others as they want to be treated will solve most problems which will overcome fear. In my job, I get to hear lots of disparaging comments about our country and our Government, but you, granddaughter, were very lucky to be born in this country. I have been to a lot of places in the world now, and I can tell you that there are none that I would trade for the United States. In my job, I often have to remind people that I never hear about anybody trying to get out of our country, but I do hear of millions who would love to live here. As you get older, precious baby, if things don't change, you will hear people who think Government owes them a living and all kinds of guarantees, and you will hear people portray business as greedy, and you will see attempts to keep faith and God out of your vocabulary. And all those things could come to pass, except for you, you and your family, you and others who will know how to do the right thing and will value the way our country was founded and has grown. Megan, granddaughter, welcome to this world of promise and hope and faith and love. Your whole family is excited to have you in our lives. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Elly Pickett, my press secretary, be given floor privileges for the balance of the day.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in my 11\1/2\ years in the Senate, I have worked closely with a very special man, a very caring man, a very liberal man, a very energetic man, a very thoughtful man, and a man who has become my dear friend. That man is Senator Ted Kennedy, the Senator from Massachusetts. A great blow was dealt to the Senate when we found out Senator Kennedy had a malignant brain tumor. This blow is not because of what may or may not get done in his absence. No, this blow went straight to the heart of anyone who has known this man as a friend. Many find it hard to believe that Senator Kennedy, the third most liberal Senator in the Senate, and I, the fourth most conservative Senator in this body, could get along or actually enjoy each other's company. But we do. When I was chairman of the HELP Committee, I worked under what I called my 80 percent rule. I always believed we could agree on 80 percent of the issues and on 80 percent of each issue, and that if we focus on the 80 percent, we can do great things for the American people. Senator Kennedy and I worked together on proposals using that rule, and we found that 80 percent in the things we undertook. We also found friendship. In those 2 years, we passed 35 bills out of the Health Education, Labo& Pensions Committee, and the President signed 27 of those into law. Most of them passed almost unanimously. Again, it was kind of the belief that if two people that far apart could come together on an issue, it must be OK. The HELP Committee used to be the most contentious committee in the Senate, but in our 3 years of working together as chairman and ranking member, we turned it into the most productive committee in the Senate. I remember being in the President's office at a bill signing and having him say, ``You know, you are the only committee sending me anything.'' We got to checking on it, and he was right. I could not help but think of my friend as I stood next to the President while he signed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act a few weeks ago. That bill was the fourth bill that month Senator Kennedy and I sent to the President. We had worked on it for several years, and we are glad it finally passed, almost unanimously. We briefly conferenced it with the other side, so the differences are already worked out before they vote on the bill. It went to the President's desk. That is a perfect example of how we worked together to pass legislation that had been held up for years. Another example is the mine safety law. In 6 weeks, we worked together to pass the first changes to mine safety law in almost 30 years. The average bill around here takes about 6 years to pass. That one happened in 6 weeks. We share an incurable optimism, and if you add that in with Ted's work ethic and my persistence, you have a great recipe for success. When we don't get along, you will see us come to the Senate floor and debate our policy differences passionately. Once the votes are cast and we walk off the floor, we move on to tackle the next issue, and we do that as colleagues with a deep respect for the other person and his beliefs. We have taken trips around the country together to look at mine safety and hurricane damage. I have also invited Vicki and Ted to come to Wyoming to dig fossils with Diana and me when our schedules can work it in. We have some 60-million-year-old fossil fish in Wyoming. If you ever see the brown bones of a fish in a piece of white rock, it undoubtedly came from Wyoming. If you see brown bones in a brown rock, it probably came from the other place, which would be China. But I have invited him out to do a little fishing in the fossil field with me. This week I even sent him a very small one that we might be able to use for bait if we get to do that. Mr. Chairman, if you are listening, I do still expect you to make that trip to Wyoming for the fossil dig. Senator Kennedy has a very deep human side. Although he has one of the busiest schedules of any Senator, he makes time to do small things for those around him. There is a program called Everybody Wins; it is a reading program, where an individual who is willing to volunteer their time meets each week with a young person and they read. One reads to the other, and the other reads back. It is a tremendous help to kids in reading. But to do that, you have to sacrifice an hour each week, and you work with the same child each week. Senator Kennedy does that. Not many people make that kind of a time commitment. Senator Kennedy is also thoughtful. I will always remember when he brought me a gift when each of my grandchildren was born. One happened to be a little pair of training pants that said ``Irish Mist'' on the back. He even treats my staff like family. He made a copy of the painting he made for Vicki on their wedding day and presented it to my scheduler when she got engaged. He always makes a special point to thank my staff on the Senate floor for all their hard work to get their bills through. He somehow finds time for all these things. He also came to a staff coffee in my office. Every month, we do a staff coffee, and that means I invite two Democratic Senate offices and two Republican staff offices to come to my office, so people can meet their counterparts in a less violent situation than working on a bill. If they know their counterparts--if you get to know somebody, it is pretty hard to work against them when you actually have to do the work. On this particularly rare occasion, the Senator showed up also. He came to my office and dramatically presented me with a photo of a University of Wyoming football helmet and a Harvard football helmet next to each other, with a note that said, ``The Cowboys and the Crimson make a great team.'' I agree. Senator Kennedy has quite a few friends from Wyoming, one of which is the former Senator Al Simpson. Al and Senator Kennedy worked together for many years. They even did a little radio program. So when I was elected, my first bill was one dealing with OSHA. That is one of the primary areas of interest of Senator Kennedy. He was ranking member on the committee. After I got it drafted, I went around to every member of the committee and I pleaded with them and they sat down and went through the bill with me, a section at a time, and asked questions. I answered them. The last person I had on the list to talk to--and the most formidable, in my view, because I knew his history--was Senator Kennedy. So to get permission to meet with him, I called Al Simpson and said: Could you talk to Senator Kennedy for me and see if he would meet with me to go through this bill? The next day I got a call from Senator Kennedy, who said: Yes, come on down to my office. I will meet with you. So I went down there. My mother had been named ``Mother of the Year'' for Wyoming the day before, and he presented me with clippings of my mother's award. He went through that bill with me, a section at a time. It wasn't until the markup of the bill that I found out that was not the way you did things around here. He explained that in his, I think, 35 years at that time, he had never had a Senator ask him to sit down and go through a bill a section at a time. The bill did not pass, but several sections of the bill are now law. It was the first eight changes in OSHA in the history of OSHA. After we did those eight changes, he came to me and said: I have this needle stick bill I have been trying to get through. Would you take a look at it? I did. We made some changes to get to the 80-percent rule, and it passed unanimously here and in the House and the President signed it. The nurses were appreciative and the janitors were appreciative because either of them could get an accidental needle stick and they wouldn't know where it had been and they would have to wait months to find out if they were going to get something from it. I learned a lot from each of these opportunities to work with Ted Kennedy. I had no idea I would be chairman of the committee, and he would be the ranking member. Then I had no idea the majority would change and he would become chairman and I would become ranking member. I remember meeting with him after he became chairman, where we took a look at the bills we intended to get done during these 2 years, and we have had pretty substantial progress on that. I told him I was glad he was chairman because after I had studied under him for 2 years, I would be able to do a much better job when I became chairman again. He laughed. A week ago today, we were resolving some issues on the floor and several other things we are trying to get done, and I remember being over in that corner where he was telling me about his dad's recipe for daiquiris, and earlier this week we passed the National Day of the American Cowboy, and that reminded me of an incident in Montana when Senator Kennedy was helping his brother, he actually went to a bucking horse sale and rode a bucking horse and wound up on the cover of LIFE magazine--to get the Kennedy name out to help get his brother nominated. As a result, Montana and Wyoming both went for Senator John F. Kennedy and put him over the top for the nomination to be President. There are a lot of other stories I would like to tell, but I will not because of the time. Ted, my chairman, Diana and I are praying for you and your family during this trying time. ``Cancer'' is the last word any family wants to hear. I know you will fight it; you have that fighting spirit. I wish to see you at the next bill signing in the President's office and with me again in the HELP Committee hearing room. We have more bills to pass, fossils to dig, fights to battle, and laughs to enjoy together. We have to keep up our bill-of-the-month club for the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise 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. 483 which honors the men and women called cowboys, designating July 26, 2008, as the national day of the American cowboy. I am an accountant and one of the few elected officials from Wyoming who isn't known for riding a horse. But when anyone mentions my home State, the first image that comes to mind is a cowboy and a horse. For many of us in the Senate, no one fits that image as well as my friend Craig Thomas. As he went through his leukemia treatments and still worked, he showed us what it was to cowboy up, to focus around pain, and to do the job at hand. Having lived in Wyoming most of my life, I have gotten to know the best cowboys in our country, and Craig surely showed us what it meant to be a cowboy. When Senator Thomas first began the tradition of designating a National Day of the American Cowboy in 2005, he told us ``Cowboys come in any age, race, marital status, and gender.'' He knew the cowboy spirit was not about getting dressed in cowboy boots and a cowboy hat. He said: Trying to define a cowboy is like trying to rope the wind, but you certainly recognize one when you see one. We all recognized the cowboy spirit in Craig. It is about strength of character, sound family values, courage, respect, and good common sense. Since it was first established in 2005, the National Day of the American Cowboy has been celebrated at rodeos across the Nation, including Cheyenne Frontier Days, known as the ``daddy of 'em all.'' Senator Thomas would find me remiss if I did not invite all of you to Cheyenne Frontier Days at the end of July--or call my office to know about other rodeos in our State. Sadly, Senator Thomas passed away after finishing the resolution for the National Day of the American Cowboy last year. But I am proud to continue the tradition he started to recognize the accomplishments and contributions of all American cowboys. 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 cow towns 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 and loyalty to make their living in a tough country. Today's cowboys have not 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. There are about 720,000 ranchers in our Nation. They live and work in every State to manage nearly 100 million cattle. They are an integral part of Wyoming and many other Western States, and they undoubtedly improve our way of life. Now, you can be assured that 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 a bucking rough stock for 8 long seconds. One of the best parts of watching a rodeo is seeing the amazing partnership between the cowboy and the horse. Rodeos across the Nation, from big events such as Cheyenne Frontier Days and the National Finals Rodeo in Las Vegas, to weekly jackpots in rural communities such as Kaycee or Cody, WY, attract more than 27 million fans annually, making rodeo one of the most watched sports in America. The Professional Bull Riders circuit, with its TV coverage, has expanded the audience dramatically. The cowboy legend still lives in our culture and our imaginations. John Wayne made cowboys larger than life in movies such as ``How the West Was Won'' and ``She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,'' and ``The Cowboys.'' Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, and Dale Evans entertained millions with their music, television, and movies, and Louis L'Amour's cowboy stories are read across the country. Audiences today continue to enjoy western novels, cowboy movies, and country music. 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. Craig Thomas told us that those of us from the West could always feel at home in Wyoming because we know it is, and always will be, cowboy country. 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. Senator Thomas left some big cowboy boots to fill, and I am proud to be able to continue his tradition of recognizing the many contributions cowboys have made to our country as we designate July 26 as National Day of the American Cowboy for 2008. I thank Senator Thomas for living the legend and involving us and America. I have a unanimous consent request to read. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 482.

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.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

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

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Clint Lohse of my staff, who has done a tremendous amount of work to assure that we recognize the American cowboy, be granted the privileges of the floor during debate on the resolution.

Mr ENZI

Mr ENZI. Mr. President, I wish today to speak about the farm bill conference report. Without a doubt, our Nation's rural communities are in need of a new national agricultural policy. Since the last farm bill was passed in 2002, there have been substantial changes in agriculture and this bill is needed to keep American farmers and ranchers on track during a time of growing demand on our food system. In recent weeks, I have come to the floor to ask my colleagues to do something about health care, do something about high energy prices, and today I am asking that we do something for our agricultural producers. When this farm bill passed the Senate in December, it passed with substantial support. Today we are considering a farm bill that reflects that support and takes steps to improve American agriculture. That being said, for many agricultural producers this farm bill is coming months late and dollars over budget. The opportunity to consider a farm bill is rarer than an October harvest moon and lawmakers must take special care to ensure that the seeds we sow today will reap a bountiful harvest tomorrow. I wish to make the point that addressing the needs of both producers and consumers goes beyond the language of this farm bill. Successful farm policy begins with lower energy costs, affordable health care, and competitive domestic and foreign markets. As the Senate considers this farm bill, the question that should be on all our minds is at what cost does this farm policy come to our producers, our consumers, and our country. This conference report comes to the floor at a time when U.S. farm income is expected to reach an all-time high of $92.3 billion. It is true that our Nation's producers are facing higher costs to fill their tanks, fertilize their fields, feed their livestock and pay for their health care. However, this farm bill does not go far enough to cut the subsidies handed out to the wealthiest of farmers. I supported and applauded the efforts of my colleagues when the Senate considered amendments to the farm bill in December to limit these payments. Family farms are the backbone of American agriculture and the farm safety net should only be extended to only those who are in the most need, not to those making nearly $750,000 a year. This farm bill balloons to nearly $300 billion because the conference report makes only modest cuts to the largest payments. There is nothing wrong with helping our farmers guarantee a safe and secure food supply, but that assistance does not deserve to go to farmers who fashion diamond studded coveralls and golden pitchforks. It is not just a financial travesty that these payoffs to agribusiness are in the bill, it is a policy travesty because this farm bill does have some very good policy contained within its pages. Many of these provisions I have worked to pass for a long time, but like gophers in the garden, these payments to millionaires have ruined a good product. I support provisions that were included in the farm bill that help livestock producers and come at no expense to the U.S. Treasury. For the first time, the farm bill contains a livestock title to promote competition and fairness in our agricultural markets. In the past, I labeled the farm bill as, ``Do No Harm, Do No Good'' for ranchers across this country. I said this because the farm bill never addressed the needs of hard-working independent livestock producers like those found in Wyoming. Well this farm bill includes something I have been working on since I came to the Senate 11 years ago and that is language to implement mandatory country of origin labeling, often referred to as COOL. COOL provides consumers with important information about the source of food and allows our livestock producers, who hands down produce the highest quality meats in the world, to remain competitive in a growing global market. No more excuses, no more foot dragging, the time is hot for COOL. The livestock title also contains provisions that will improve the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act by making market information easily accessible online and will improve the enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act by requiring the USDA to report annually on its investigations into violations. All important provisions for livestock producers who simply wish to have a fair and competitive market for their animals. I was disappointed to see that the conference committee left out an important provision that was passed by the Senate last year, just as it did in 2002. The ban on packer ownership was an important step in ensuring that independent livestock producers have access to markets in light of growing consolidation among meat packers. Finally, I would like to address language in the livestock title that promotes the ability for local ranchers to market their product across State lines when processed at State-inspected plants. The interstate meat inspection language is critical for the small mom-and-pop processing plants who meet Federal standards but cannot afford to pay for a full-time Federal inspector. These facilities, that already meet rigorous state inspection standards, will now be able to sell specialized products across State lines and ultimately help producers find value-added marketing opportunities for their livestock. For Wyoming and a number of other Western States, another provision in this bill that costs little but yields significant results, is this Nation's investment in animal health programs. I was pleased to see language that makes brucellosis a high-priority research initiative in the U.S. Department of Agriculture and clarifications for the Animal Health and Disease Research Program that provides vital applied animal research to producers on the ground. For conservation, this bill makes significant improvements to the incentives and financial assistance offered to land owners who use the Environmental Quality Incentives and Conservation Reserve programs. I am especially pleased to see that the CRP program offers additional assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers since we all know that one of the greatest challenges to the future of agriculture is attracting young people into the industry. There are some positive changes made in the farm bill, but the conference report clearly lacks alternatives and only makes small steps to improve the condition of agricultural producers across our country. One alternative that I would like to present to my colleagues is to continue promoting new markets for American agricultural products through trade overseas and develop better markets domestically by promoting fair and competitive markets for our livestock producers. In addition to these steps, there are scores of things this Congress can do today to ease the burden on rural America that cannot be solved in farm legislation. The Senate should take action to address the cost of rising energy costs and more importantly reduce the cost of health care for Americans. For the past several months, I have come to the Senate floor to speak about my 10 steps to transform health care in America and policies to lower energy prices by increasing supply and developing domestic sources of production. All of these things being said, this country desperately needs a new agricultural policy, and I hope that we will not stop merely with this farm bill. Sound farm policy goes beyond commodity payments and nutrition programs. It begins with providing the men and women sitting in the saddle with affordable energy, affordable health care, and fair and competitive markets to sell their products.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. That would be part of the unanimous consent? Do I understand that under the unanimous consent I would get my 10 minutes before the farm bill.

Mr. ENZI. Ten will be plenty. I appreciate it.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the leader's kind remarks. I have been diligently working on the collective bargaining bill. It is an important part of the process to get the full debate out. We are being precluded from that process now. We have had three amendments brought up. None of those were mine. I have five amendments that I would like to have debated that address what I see as serious flaws in the bill, but I am being precluded from even bringing up one of those. I was given the offer, take it or leave it, that there could be two Republican amendments, period, and I could decide from among my own and others which would be the two. As I pointed out at the very beginning of this bill, this bill is flawed. It did not go to committee. This happens every time a bill does not go to committee. We have a process with bills before the committee where people can sit down and look at amendments and revise the amendments until there is agreement between the two sides. That is the only reason that a committee such as Health, Education, Labor and Pensions can get bills done. We often take a look at all of the amendments when they are in committee and decide that we will work on those before they go to the floor. Otherwise, as contentious a committee as we have, which handles the volume of work it does, we would get nothing done. But we get a lot done. In fact, last week when we were at the signing with the President of one of the bills we passed, the President said: You know, you are the only committee sending us any bills. It is because we go through the whole process. Usually Senator Kennedy and I sit down, we list our principles, we agree on the principles, we plug in some details, and then we talk with the stakeholders. That is everybody with an interest in it. Usually at that point there is someone who says: No, we have one provision we have worked on for 12 years, and we never have gotten that provision. And until we get that provision, we don't care about the rest of the bill. Whoever's constituent it is, Senator Kennedy or I, we take the lead on it and say: You know, you have been asking for it for 12 years and you got nothing. How would you like to get the other 80 percent that you also claim you like? That is the way we do bills. It is working to get common ground, which is a third way. There are so many issues around here that have been polarized, so the second they come up people jump into the weeds. They talk about a little glitch here or there that irritated people in the past and that gets us nowhere. So we have been able to elevate that to coming up with a third way to achieve the same thing, the same principles we agreed on. This bill didn't go through any of that process. We just slammed right over here to the floor of the Senate and then they are surprised at the result, that we want to do a few amendments. I saw the House bill, and then I saw the negotiations with some of the Senate people from our side on some amendments that they thought were critical. A lot of those didn't get in at all, even though I think a few of them thought they were in there. They are not in there. That is what I am bringing up--what were good ideas that ought to be contained in this kind of a bill so the rhetoric we have had so far actually winds up meeting what is in the bill. That is our job. It is really supposed to come out doing what we said it would do. This bill does not do what the chairman said it would do. This bill doesn't say what the Republican cosponsors said it would do. It could be clarified. It is not easy to clarify it when we are out on the Senate floor. It is difficult to do out here because it is more of a take it or leave it. In fact, that is what I was offered: take it or leave it on getting two amendments. What kind of a choice is that? I have five germane amendments and many other germane amendments have also been filed and offered. But, of course, I will have to get unanimous consent to bring up my amendments later if at all. Unanimous consent is not the easiest thing to get around here, particularly when it starts getting into this little friction area. I want to comment on the 71 filibusters. I suspect the two motions that were just filed count as two more filibusters. What they are is two more attempts to protect the rights of the minority. We have a right, just as that side did when they were in the minority, to bring up amendments. They protected their right, and we are protecting our right. You heard one of the cosponsors of the collective bargaining bill make those same comments earlier today when the big discussion happened on the amendment that was put on the other side of the tree. He voted not to table that because he respects the rights of the minority. That is what has always had to happen around here. I have to tell you, on filibusters, one of the reasons we get filibusters is because there is still a Presidential campaign going on on one side of the aisle, and that means two of our Members are not here except in unusual circumstances. So the way it has to happen is, on Monday when we come in we vote on a cloture motion. It is not legislation that necessarily needs a cloture motion because a lot of those have been passed 98 to 0, 96 to 0, maybe 95 to 1. That is nowhere near a filibuster. But that allows us--that forces us into a situation where, for the next 30 hours, we debate whether to debate. That way, by Wednesday the candidates can show up so there is enough of a vote to agree to some of the amendments that go on there. So part of it is a tactical procedure being used by the majority, who still has a primary going on in their Presidential race, to assure they will have the votes there when the time comes. You can see this is 51 to 49, so if two people don't show up on that side, it is 49 to 49 and that gives the Vice President a chance to vote. So far he has always voted with me. So that gives the minority a win, and I understand that. But I do not stand for being blamed for all of those cloture motions that have been put out here. Some of those have been to protect the majority as a majority. They need to take credit for those instead of blaming us for it. This is a kind of do-nothing Congress. If it were not for bills coming out of this committee there wouldn't be a lot of bills passing out here, but a lot of the failed bills come from skipping the process and coming right to the floor, like the immigration bill. The way to get things done is take them through committee and then we don't need to do as many amendments on the Senate floor. In fact, if you check back on the bills Senator Kennedy and I worked on, it is very unusual for us to have an amendment on the floor. And they usually pass unanimously here and in the House. That is how they get to the President. There is not a conference committee involved in it. We have already preconferenced with the House and found out what their potential objections were with the House and worked it out. But not on this bill. On this bill what we said--not we said; they said-- you know, the policemen and the firemen are going to be in DC for this big memorial event this week. We ought to time it so we can really put the crush on the Republicans. I have to give you congratulations for that. It would not be enough just to recognize the tremendous sacrifices these people make and the difficult jobs they have. No, we can make some points against the Republicans because they may want to make sure Government still works when we are done with the process. There are a lot of people commenting that there are some problems with this bill. The mayor of New York City--that is a State that requires collective bargaining--sent us a letter that said: Don't pass this bill. This will affect the way that we do business. It is not a one-sided thing, but I tell you, when it gets one-sided, nothing happens and that is kind of the process we are in. I am going to be asking people to vote with me against the cloture motion because I have not been able to bring up my amendments. I haven't been able to get votes on the other side. That has an interesting little twist to it too. We have four amendments: three that are germane--those are the three the Republicans put in, which means they relate to the bill--and one offered by Senator Leahy that is actually a reauthorization bill on some grant money. It doesn't relate to this bill, but I am willing to have votes on all four of them. I am willing to accept the Leahy amendment and get it done. But there will be objections to that because he chairs the committee that handles judges, and we were promised three circuit court judges before Memorial Day. As I understand it, tomorrow morning there is a markup around here that does not have a single circuit court judge on it, which means that deadline cannot be met. So, again, protecting minority rights, there are some people on the Republican side who are saying if they are not going to follow their word, we are not going to follow--The Senator from Vermont then says: If they are not going to take my amendment, then I am not going to allow the other three to be voted on. That happened earlier today. There is plenty of blame to go around. But to stick it on any one party is the wrong thing to do. And to proclaim that we really want to have this bill done without taking it through the regular process is a misnomer--and I need to have my rights--and I appreciate this time to speak. The majority leader was very kind in that. I appreciate the way he let us at least work for a day, an interrupted day and a partial day at that, before the cloture motion went into effect. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. I thought I was in charge of half of the time, and I didn't allocate that time. I can see how the rules go here.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, we had one speaker from my side and then a colloquy with some people from my side who were involved with the Senator from Virginia, but I don't think that can hardly be charged to my side.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the quorum call so that I can answer some of the questions that have been asked on the other side.

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