Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I had hoped that the discussions that are happening on health care would continue to happen and that they would not be a focus of this particular bill. But, again, until we get some assurance that there is going to be a tax package that provides for some of the impact for small business, we will be discussing a variety of topics. I can tell by the amendments that have been put in. I need to do some clarification on this particular amendment. While I encourage people to keep working across the aisle on a whole variety of proposals, this particular amendment deals with helping to pay premiums for high-deductible plans in the individual market, not in the group market. This is in the individual market. I think everybody who works with health care pretty much agrees that one of the difficulties we have with health care is that primarily the premiums are paid for by companies that get a huge tax deduction for doing that. When the premiums are paid for that way, the insurance is paid for that way, there isn't nearly as much responsibility on the part of the individual to see that they are getting the best care at the lowest cost. It has allowed the system to blossom and grow. But this particular amendment deals with the individual nongroup market. At the present time, while we allow companies to deduct anything they put in for premiums, we don't allow individuals to do that. We do allow individuals to buy health savings accounts. That means they pay a premium for a high deductible, which helps to bring down that premium and puts people in a market that they could not have been in before. But the part that they get the deduction on is the part that covers the deductible, the high deductible. They can put that in a savings account, and they can actually roll that over from year to year if they don't have to use the deductible on it. But nobody helps them with the tax on their premium. For most people it is the premium that is the biggest cost. For individuals it is the premium that is the biggest cost. If they work for a company that provides insurance, they don't have that cost. But if they are an individual, they get taxed on the money they pay to pay their premium. What this amendment is suggesting is that we need to level the field a little bit, and while they are paying a smaller premium on a high deductible and allowed to deduct the portion that would be the deductible, if they put that in a savings account, allowing them to take part of that savings account and pay it for the premium so that their premium would also be deductible. I don't know where the $8 billion comes from. There is not a formal score on this, but there is a 2006 informal opinion from the Treasury staff. It indicates that the cost is probably going to be about $50 million over 5 years, which is pretty modest compared even to the cost of other proposals for HSA expansion. The intent and effect would be to make this HSA high-deductible option more easily available and affordable outside of the employment context. We have to admit, if it is an individual buying the policy, it is the most portable there is in the United States. We also talked about the need for portability. When someone loses their job there are some ways they can still get insurance, but that runs out. But if you have a health savings account, that is completely portable. It goes with you. The whole works goes with you. There are some small businesses that have been taking advantage of this and paying the premium for their employees and then paying a portion of the deductible that goes into a savings account. They found that this is the only mechanism by which they could afford insurance for their employees. So we are not even talking about those folks because this is about ones in the individual market, which limits it considerably. Everyone recognizes the difficulties with health care costs and obtaining health care coverage in the United States, and real solutions to this growing problem has to allow individuals and families to make decisions based on their unique health care needs too. We can't just limit health care to those who work for particularly big corporations who, also, are having problems being able to fund the insurance they are buying for their people. The cost is dramatically escalating in the health care area. I think it is the No. 1 concern of people across the United States. We have a lot of proposals that will help to bring down or at least stabilize those costs. I appreciate the help we have had from people on both sides of the aisle in coming up with those proposals. A lot of times we have agreed on principle and now we are trying to get down to details and the detail is always the tough part, but I think we can make some progress. I am for choices. I am for individuals and families having more options for obtaining health care insurance. I think more options help to bring down the cost; it is a competition factor. For that reason, I support Senator Ensign's amendment to provide more choices to allow individuals and families who work--not the ones working for companies where the company is getting a tax deduction to buy their insurance. This is for the individuals and families so they will have additional options for obtaining health care coverage, especially when the employer does not provide adequate options for health insurance. Senator Ensign's amendment does that. It provides more choices by allowing individuals without employer-based health coverage to use funds from their health savings to pay for their high-deductible health plan premiums. Right now they only get to use the money they have in savings to take care of deductibles. We would like for them to be able to take care of some of the premiums, too, which takes some of the pressure off that end, and since most people in the country already get that benefit through their company, which gets the tax deduction, we thought it would be nice if individuals had that too. I think this is a modest proposal, with an estimated score of $50 million over 5 years. There will not be a lot of people who will take advantage of it, but there will be some people who will take advantage of it, and it will provide additional options for individuals and families without employer-based health coverage. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Can I inquire as to the time remaining? I was under a little different impression on the time to vote, I guess.

Mr. ENZI. Yes.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to compliment both sides on working on amendments. We have not had any shortage of amendments being offered. In fact, we have a whole bunch of people who would like to offer amendments that have already been filed. So it is not the usual problem of trying to get people to come down and offer amendments; it is a problem of being able to get some agreements so we can have votes on those amendments. Both sides are working diligently to try to get it set up so we can have a whole series of votes yet today and move along substantially on this legislation. Of course, what we are kind of waiting for is to get some assurance that there will be a small business tax package to offset the impact of this before we get some progress. But I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. Mr. MARTINEZ addressed the Chair.

Mr. ENZI. I need to address a few of the things that were said. ``We are on the fifth day of this debate.'' Yes, we are. ``It's a simple bill.'' No, it is not a simple bill. It is simple in the one proposal that is out there, but it has a lot of interlocking implications. We had some debate yesterday, separate from an amendment on tip credits. We talked about work opportunity tax credits. We talked about earned- income tax credits. All of those tie in with the minimum wage, so it has a lot of implications. It has a lot of implications for small businesses, too. I showed some quotes from a lady who would lose hours, another from someone who would lose their job. They were all in situations where they can't afford to do that. There have been charts showing that on the aggregate it helps the whole economy to raise the minimum wage. But on an individual basis it affects people individually. Small business employees understand. They are really connected to their business. They know how much the employer is making. They know what the markup is on things. And they know whether their job is in danger or not, so there is that concern. But I want to clear up something. There has not been an argument against raising the minimum wage. The argument has been for doing something to help counter the impact on small business. We have been acting in a bipartisan way on some things; we can act in a bipartisan way on this. I contend that as soon as there is some assurance to the minority that there will be some tax offsets for the small businesses, this process will speed up dramatically. But until there is that assurance we will be using our opportunities, the process, to make sure we can take care of small business at the same time and not put them out of business. There has been some cooperation, at least through the press. I would mention that Senator Reid said: If it takes adding small-business tax cuts to have a minimum wage tax increase, we're going to do that. Maybe we can get 60 votes to invoke cloture on a straight minimum wage. I'm not sure we want to do that. . . . A one-party town doesn't work. We have a majority of 51-49. We're going to accomplish the possible; that's what we're going to do. That was on January 5 at a press conference. I have some other quotes from him, too, but Senator Baucus said: Small business is the engine that drives our economy and creates jobs on Main Street. That's why I'm proud we are getting them some tax relief from Uncle Sam. . . . It's high time our workers get a raise. At the same time we are going to give a boost to small business. That was a January 17 press release. Senator Kerry: I support the majority of the provisions of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007. I would have preferred that this package moved separately rather than in tandem with a minimum wage bill. However, the reality is we need a tax package in order to advance minimum wage legislation. That is from a January 2007 committee report, Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007. I have a whole lot of quotes from the other side of the aisle that have encouraged me that we can do both things--raise the minimum wage and have some offsets for small business. I have talked to the Senator from Massachusetts about this before. I understand his desire to have just the minimum wage increase and his concern that any other discussion takes away from that. I suggested that it wouldn't take away from it if it were a whole package to begin with; that it would be a minimum wage increase and our concerns about having some tax breaks for the small businesses would overcome that. But we have not gone that route yet. The debate we had yesterday, the cloture vote we had yesterday, would have excluded the possibility of doing the tax breaks. I have to tell you, to get those tax breaks to offset the impact on small business has a long road to go because the House didn't pass any of those. In fact, the House has made some very detrimental comments about it. There is a process over here that enforces the rights of the minority and can provide some protection for the small businesses, the mom-and-pops out there trying to make enough living for their own families and provide for some workers that we can take care of at the same time. But it is going to take some showing that there is some dual concern, both for the employee and for the mom-and-pop businesses, before we move along much faster. That is what the debate is about. It is not about whether to raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage will be raised. I hope there are a whole lot of other things that will be done in the process, too, because we need to move these people to more skilled jobs, and we need to get a Workforce Investment Act through, too, and I would have liked to see this be part of this same bill, too, so we could increase the skills of the employees and get them into better jobs. We don't want to just remove the bottom rung of the ladder and have them have to make a bigger step to get a job to begin with. We want them to have better jobs. Better jobs do not hit the inflationary core quite as much. I want to be sure people understand we are not talking about whether to do a minimum wage, we are talking about whether to do a minimum wage increase and offset some of the impact for small businesses. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, quickly, for the benefit of my fellow Senators, we are trying to get as much done as possible. I appreciate the cooperation we have had. Usually the problem managers have is getting people to offer amendments. We have many amendments that have been offered. We need to get votes on them. Some are: Senator Smith's on education tax incentives, which I think we will have in a moment; Vitter's on paperwork violations; Kyl's on extended depreciation provisions; Sessions' on Federal contract torts; Burr's on more flextime; DeMint's on involuntary donation collections, and an amendment regarding American Samoa. A lot of them are ready to go. If we lock in limited debate time and get votes, it will be helpful. I hope we move forward on that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. It is my understanding they do not wish to speak. I would like to reserve the time until I hear some of the other comments. I have nothing to say at the moment.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask to have the Senator from South Carolina yield me 8 minutes.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, could I ask what the time situation is?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina such time as he might consume.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, before the Senator yields back his time, I need to say that Senator Smith is on his way to the floor to make a couple more comments.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask the chairman that the 10 minutes be divided between Senators Burr, Chambliss, and Allard.

Mr. ENZI. So the unanimous consent request is to divide the 10 minutes, or the time until 4:45, between Senators Burr and Chambliss, and after the vote, 7 minutes for Senator Allard.

Mr. ENZI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Gregg and Senator McConnell's ``Second Look at Wasteful Spending'' amendment. While I would prefer that this issue be addressed on a separate bill, I understand the procedural reasons behind why my colleague from New Hampshire is offering this amendment to the minimum wage package. I am treating this amendment as separate from the rest of the minimum wage debate and I hope my colleagues will do the same. I am pleased, however, that the Senate is able to debate this important issue on the floor. This amendment is a responsible step towards spending accountability. It provides for a greater level of accountability which is critical to enhance the fiscal well-being of the country. Senator Gregg's proposal allows both Congress and the President the opportunity to seriously reconsider both mandatory and discretionary spending. By allowing the President to single out wasteful spending and giving Congress the final say through vote on a rescission package, this amendment will help eliminate waste, rather than perpetuate the current out of control spending habits. By forcing Congress to take another look at spending, this amendment gives the President the ability to send up to four rescission packages a year. Congress then has up to 8 days to act on the President's proposal through a fast track process. However, a simple majority of both Houses of Congress must approve before any of the rescission package can become law. Finally, any savings from the rescissions must go to deficit reduction. I believe that ``A Second Look at Wasteful Spending'' is a simple, clear-cut proposal that stands within the parameters of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment includes the same principles of fiscal responsibility that have received bipartisan support since the passage of a comprehensive veto in 1992, and strongly echo the Daschle-Byrd proposal of 1995. Here is a chance for both Republicans and Democrats to help restrain frivolous spending. I emphasize the gravity of fiscal responsibility because it sets the standard for the success or failure of our Nation. We need to take action now to avert an even larger economic crisis in the future. ``A Second Look at Wasteful Spending'' is a step in the right direction, though there is more work to be done. Many of my colleagues in this Chamber have supported this concept in the past, and I urge my colleagues to support the Gregg amendment. As I stated in my maiden speech in 1997, the American people continue to demand an end to runaway spending. We need to show the American people that we are responsible. I said those words about the balanced budget amendment in 1997, and they also hold true for this amendment today. By adopting the ``Second Look at Wasteful Spending,'' we would show that Congress is willing to take a much needed step toward fiscal restraint. I stand in full support of this amendment and am proud to be a cosponsor. This outstanding amendment is worthy of your consideration and support.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, for those who have been listening for the last 2 days, the argument has not been about whether we would raise the minimum wage. There seems to be agreement to raise the minimum wage. The difficulty has been how do we take care of some of the impact to small business that will result. The Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, has mentioned that the last time we passed the minimum wage, there was a small business tax package in it. That somewhat set a little different level for doing this kind of action. Incidentally, it was Senator Simpson from Wyoming who headed up that effort at that time. This bill could have happened earlier if we had some assurance that there was going to be this tax package. I congratulate the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus, and the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, for the way they have worked together and the way their committee worked together to put together a tax package that will benefit small business and reduce some of the impacts of the increase in minimum wage. The minority just needs some kind of a sense that will be a part of the bill, and we can move forward with the whole thing. We are trying to make sure we don't put the mom-and-pop businesses and their employees out of work and their services lost to the community. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to submit a letter from the Coalition For Job Opportunities supporting it.

Mr. ENZI. I ask my colleagues to vote no on cloture. Cloture Motion

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

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

Mr. ENZI. There is no objection. I ask unanimous consent that following the majority's speakers, we give time for Senator DeMint and Senator Sununu.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator from Minnesota earlier today, Ms. Klobuchar, and thought she had some very convincing comments regarding the tip credit. In conjunction with that, she suggested that States ought to be able to do what they want to do. That is what this bill does. Even if one accepts the idea that the minimum wage should be used as a tool of economic policy, it is quite obviously a tool that should be used with precision, not indiscriminately wielded like a sledge hammer. State and local economies are vastly different, however, one-size- fits-all Federal legislation totally dismisses those important differences. It also misses the point that states are in a far better position to determine what is best for their local economies. Federal ``solutions'' often ignore local and regional experience and judgment, or worse still, just arrogantly cast it aside. There is just no room for debate over the fact that there is a vast difference from State to State in terms of the cost of living, the cost of doing business, and the purchasing power of a dollar. A nationally based minimum wage adjustment simply ignores these important differences. It discriminates against both employees and employers based solely upon where they choose to live and work or to establish their businesses. Proponents of an across-the-board Federal minimum wage increase might be able to ignore these realities and claim that somehow the Federal Government was ``forced'' to act because States ``refused'' to do so. Unfortunately for those who make this argument, nothing could be further from the truth. State legislatures have been, and continue to be extremely active in considering minimum wage legislation that is appropriately tailored to the economic realities of their respective States. Consider that 6 states this year have passed ballot initiatives raising their State's minimum wage law, and 29 States now have minimum wage rates higher than the current Federal level. I urge my colleagues to consider that States and localities may have a better idea of what their appropriate minimum wage level should be than the Federal Government. When the Federal level does not fit, States and localities act. I urge my colleagues to support the Allard amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Snowe, Senator Landrieu, and others, to provide regulatory assistance to our Nation's small businesses. This amendment requires that when Federal agencies issue new rules and regulations that impact small business, they also must issue compliance guides for small businesses. The amendment also requires that the compliance guides be written in plain English and made available in a timely manner. I think this is a commonsense requirement. It not only reduces the administrative costs for small business, but it also increases the level of compliance with such new rules and regulations. I think the work opportunity tax credit is an example. That isn't a program that a lot of small businesses have taken advantage of. Part of it is because they don't know about it, and part is they don't know how to comply with it. They don't have the opportunity to hire the specialists that might be needed to understand it or to do the recordkeeping on it. So they don't take advantage of it to the level they could. It is a provision in the tax bill that could make quite a difference to small employers. Many small employers simply lack the resources, the outside consultants, the experts necessary to continually advise them of changes in Federal rules that impact the way they must run their business. As it now stands, smaller businesses currently pay disproportionate per employee compliance costs when compared to larger employers. The average per employee cost for Federal regulatory compliance in a business with less than 20 employees is 45 percent higher than the same cost for a business with 500 or more employees. So it is about $7,600 for a small business to comply versus $5,200 for a big business to comply. Those numbers stagger me--the cost for small business to comply with Federal rules and regulations. That doesn't count the cost of complying with the Tax Code, which is a whole other range of costs. Cost mandates, such as a minimum wage increase, impose significant financial burdens on our small employers. We must do everything we can to help alleviate this burden and ensure that small businesses remain the well-run engine of our economy, and providing the kind of compliance assistance called for in Senator Snowe's amendment is one of the ways we can assist small businesses in meeting the administrative costs associated with Federal regulation. I commend Senator Snowe for her efforts on behalf of small businesses and am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation with her. She has put in diligent efforts to hold hearings and get this into place in the committee that she chaired, the Small Business Committee, on which she is now the ranking member. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that not only provides assistance that reduces employer costs but also assistance that increases employer compliance. That is two goals. This amendment will do both of those. I ask for your support. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided between the sides.