Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I would like to be able to do that. I don't have the numbers that I need to have. I appreciate the question, but I can't give you an answer yet.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk for the debate to be done in the morning.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and this amendment be sent to the desk.

Mr. ENZI. The Senator withdraws his request to do that but requests the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it was just about 10 years ago that Bob Dole announced his retirement from the Senate. It was 1996 and the Nation was in the midst of an intense campaign for the Presidency. Bob Dole had decided to resign his Senate seat for the good of his home State of Kansas, his party, and his country. He knew he would have to focus all his energies on his campaign for President if he were to be successful, so he left Washington to answer another call to serve his country and provide a choice to the people of Kansas and the rest of the United States when the election was held in November of that year. We really shouldn't have been surprised. Answering the call to serve his country was nothing new for Bob Dole and he was proud to be able to do it. Over his life he had been many things, a legislator, a decorated war hero, and a leader both inside and outside of the Senate. Through the years, Bob Dole had always answered the call to serve his country when he was needed, and I have no doubt that he will continue to do so for many years to come. It's no secret. Bob Dole has made it clear all his life. You want to know and understand him, you must first understand Russell, KS--the people who live there and the values and principles they hold dear. By coming to know the people of Russell, you understand the philosophy that Bob Dole has lived by his entire life. It's a philosophy ard work, and of always giving your best to whatever you choose to do. It is a reflection of his father's view of the world--``stewers versus doers.'' Needless to say, you will always find Bob Dole in the ``doers'' group. That is why the story of Bob Dole's life is thoroughly intertwined with the story of Russell, KS. For it was when he was growing up in Russell that Bob Dole committed himself to the service of God, Country and family. They came to become his core values as he learned at a young age that there are things worth fighting for and that is what drew him to his service in the military. Those who have chronicled those difficult years in our history have called him part of our greatest generation. Without any regard for himself, Bob Dole left everything he called dear behind to face a challenge as great as any generation had faced before. Pearl Harbor had been attacked and the whole world had taken up arms in a battle against an unspeakable evil that had been unleashed upon the world. World War II had called him to action and Bob Dole was a young man serving in the U.S. Army. He would never be the same again in mind or body. Given the circumstances, I don't think anyone would have returned home from the battlefields of Europe and the South Pacific and not have been changed forever. As he bravely fought in the mountains of Italy, he was wounded in action, but still he fought on. Then, he was wounded again, this time far more seriously. The odds were against him, but he somehow made it through those vital first days. He then began what would be a lengthy recovery. He had a long stay in the hospital and despite the efforts of those who attended him, he had lost the use of an arm. When he was released from the hospital, he returned home, and that special place of Russell, KS, again reached out to him with open arms and provided him with the support he needed to continue to recover from the wounds he had suffered on the battlefield. Once again, the bonds that tied him to the people of Russell and Kansas became stronger. Those bonds helped Bob Dole to regain his strength and begin to plan for the future. Soon he heard the call to serve again. With the support of the people of his home town, he left to work for the people of Kansas in the State house and then in the U.S. Congress. His leadership skills were quite apparent and he compiled quite a record in the Senate. He progressed through the ranks and served his party as minority and then majority leader. Every day on the Senate floor, he took a leadership role on a wide variety of issues that he knew were important to the people of his home State. Through the years he worked to ensure that our American values we protected and preserved in all the proceedings of Congress. It was a remarkable record of service that continued until that day, ten years ago, when he resigned to pursue the call to carry the Republican banner for President. Although that final political campaign of his was not successful, Bob Dole will always be remembered for a lifetime of service to the United States. He has received many honors for his service to the United States, and for being a part of a noble cause that the greatest generation took up for which so many fought and died. He never forgot those with whom he served or the needs of our Nation's veterans. In fact, it was those ties from so many years ago that led him to join the effort to construct a memorial for World War II to recognize those with whom he served--especially those who never returned. His leadership in that effort resulted in the dedication of a beautiful memorial that will stand forever in the shadows of the Lincolm Memorial and the Washington Monument on the Mall in our Nation's Capital. Today, Bob Dole and his wife Elizabeth continue to be a great team as she serves the people of North Carolina with the same care and attention that Bob Dole has always provided the people of Kansas. Bob Dole has always said that his goal in life was to defend and serve the America he learned to love in Russell. I think the record shows that he succeeded in that effort and, in so doing, left his mark throughout much of the world as he fought in Europe to free the oppressed, and, in the Senate, for the principles and values he had learned to cherish as a young boy growing up in Russell, KS.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, just a few days ago Senator Robert C. Byrd set a very remarkable record. He is now the longest serving Senator in the history of the Senate. The Senate, the legislative body that means so much to him, now honors him for his achievement and for the remarkable record of service that he has given to the United States. I appreciate having the opportunity to be a part of our recognition of our colleague and his commitment to public service and the people of his home State of West Virginia. For almost 48 years now, Robert C. Byrd has carried the title of U.S. Senator. I think it is fair to say that no one has done so with a greater awareness of what it means to be a Senator and of all the institution of the Senate represents. He is truly our institutional memory and he is the master of the Senate's rules and procedures. No one knows better than he the precedents and prerogatives of the Senate, and no one is a better protector, promoter and defender of them than he is. It is not just for the length of his service that Senator Byrd is being honored, however. It isn't so much the years he has served but the service he has provided to the people of the United States and his State of West Virginia that has earned him the accolades he has received and will continue to receive from his colleagues and his constituents. Our celebration of this moment and all he has achieved is softened by the loss of his beloved wife Erma, his greatest friend and supporter, his companion through life and almost 69 years of marriage, who passed away recently. I am sure she is looking down on us all, proud and thrilled to see Senator Byrd's continued efforts to address the issues of importance to his beloved friends of West Virginia and to note his recognition for being their champion for so many years. During my service in the Senate I have appreciated working with Senator Byrd on a variety of issues, most recently the Miner Safety Act. We were both there at the President's side as he took up his pen and signed the bill into law. As he did, he noted Senator Byrd's presence because he knew the bill was the result of Senator Byrd's heartfelt concern for the miners of his State, for their safety, and the security of their families. I have no doubt that if we were to look up the words ``constituent service'' in any book it would immediately refer us to Senator Byrd's work in the Senate. He has been an active and effective advocate for the people of West Virginia and he has worked tirelessly and diligently to address their needs in the Congress. Looking back, Senator Byrd's life reads like a Hollywood movie script. He graduated first in his high school class and married his high school sweetheart. He then spent 12 years saving the money he needed to start college. Through the years that followed, he held a variety of jobs that gave him an understanding of the needs of the working people of his State. He also developed his talent for the fiddle, and soon became known for that as well. Before long he was a member of the State legislature and, not too long thereafter, he came to the Senate. Here in the Senate, no one has shown a greater understanding of the history and meaning of the U.S. Constitution and the role it plays in shaping our values and our way of life as Americans. We both have a habit of carrying a copy in our pocket to remind us of our job here in the Senate and our responsibility as Senators to adhere to the provisions of the Constitution and all it says and requires us to do. Whenever I think of Senator Byrd, the first thing that comes to mind is his incredible knowledge and understanding of world history and the American experience. He also has a profound and substantive mastery of the legacy of the written word. Whenever he takes to the floor to present his views on an issue he always has a ready reference to the precedents of the past, or the words of some great author who had written something appropriate to the moment. Now, Senator Byrd, the great student of the history of our Nation and so much more, is himself a part of the great story of America and the traditions of the Senate. Every day he joins us here to deliberate on the issues before the Senate, he writes another chapter of his own life's story, a story that will be forever told and retold back in his home State, in the mountains and valleys of West Virginia, by the people who live there who will forever remember him and his legacy as their Senator--a legacy that will never be forgotten.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the YouthBuild Transfer Act. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senators DeWine, Kerry, and Murray. This bill transfers the YouthBuild program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, the Department of Labor, DOL, as an amendment to the Workforce Investment Act, WIA. YouthBuild was enacted in 1992. It provides programs for young adults aged 16 to 24 to build or rehabilitate housing for homeless or low-income individuals in their communities while they study to earn their own high school diploma or GED. These youth gain occupational and technical skills while building their knowledge to help them become and remain productive participants in the workplace. By transferring YouthBuild to DOL, the program will be more closely aligned with and benefit from collaboration with the larger workforce system at the State and local levels. It will continue to serve those young adults most in need of these services, and enable them to serve their communities by building affordable housing, and assists them in transforming their own lives and roles in society. YouthBuild assists young adults not currently enrolled in school gain needed education, skills and knowledge. The skill and literacy requirements of today's and tomorrow's workplace cannot be met if we do not provide everyone access to lifelong education, training and retraining. 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 introduce the YouthBuild Transfer Act. I am pleased to be joined in this important effort by Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Senators DeWine, Kerry, and Murray. This bill transfers the YouthBuild program from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, the Department of Labor, DOL, as an amendment to the Workforce Investment Act, WIA. YouthBuild was enacted in 1992. It provides programs for young adults aged 16 to 24 to build or rehabilitate housing for homeless or low-income individuals in their communities while they study to earn their own high school diploma or GED. These youth gain occupational and technical skills while building their knowledge to help them become and remain productive participants in the workplace. By transferring YouthBuild to DOL, the program will be more closely aligned with and benefit from collaboration with the larger workforce system at the State and local levels. It will continue to serve those young adults most in need of these services, and enable them to serve their communities by building affordable housing, and assists them in transforming their own lives and roles in society. YouthBuild assists young adults not currently enrolled in school gain needed education, skills and knowledge. The skill and literacy requirements of today's and tomorrow's workplace cannot be met if we do not provide everyone access to lifelong education, training and retraining. 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 voice my support for the nomination of Richard M. Stickler to be the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health. Mr. Stickler's nomination was referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. On March 8 of this year, the committee reported the nomination favorably out of the committee. The Senate acted just 2 weeks ago on mine safety legislation which the House passed on Wednesday. It is anticipated that the President will sign this into law expeditiously. It is extremely important for the Mine Safety and Health Administration to have permanent leadership to implement this important mine safety law; therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of Mr. Stickler's nomination today. Despite decades of improving safety in our Nation's mines, this year we witnessed a series of tragic accidents in the coal mines of West Virginia and Kentucky. Those tragedies, in part, led to a thorough review of our mine safety laws. The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which I am privileged to chair, and the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, chaired by Senator Johnny Isakson, conducted extensive hearings and roundtables on the issues related to mine safety. We conducted an exhaustive review of the current Mine Safety and Health Act and met, at length, with representatives from the mining industry, labor, the professional safety community and State and Federal regulators, all in an effort to determine how we could act in a responsible and constructive way to improve workplace safety for our Nation's miners. The result of these collective efforts was the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act. The MINER Act is the first comprehensive reform of U.S. mine safety laws in a generation. Following its introduction, the MINER Act was unanimously reported out of the HELP Committee and, almost immediately thereafter, was passed in this body by unanimous consent on May 24. The House passed this bill on Wednesday night. It is expected that the President will sign the bill into law very soon. What has marked the MINER Act from the outset has been its bipartisan nature. The bill was drafted and moved through Congress as the direct result of continual efforts, on both sides, to reach across the aisle and reconcile differences. The passage of the MINER Act has shown that ensuring the safety of miners is not a partisan issue. While amending the Mine Safety Act is an important step in meeting our responsibility to ensure miner safety, it is not the only step. We must not only give the Mine Safety and Health Administration the statutory tools it needs to get the job done; we must give it the permanent leadership it needs as well. This, too, should be an action in which partisanship should play no part. The Mine Safety and Health Administration has been without a permanent, Senate-confirmed, Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health since November of 2004. This is too long under any circumstance but particularly in the wake of the recent coal mining tragedies, and on the eve of implementing the many changes that will result from enactment of the MINER Act. We have the opportunity today to address this issue and to provide MSHA with the permanent leadership it needs by voting to confirm Richard M. Stickler, the President's nominee to head MSHA. Mr. Stickler is an experienced nominee whose leadership is needed during this critically important period. He is one of a very few individuals who has experience in mining at all levels from a miner to management to State regulator. Born and raised in West Virginia the son and grandson of underground coal miners, Mr. Stickler has spent his entire 37-seven year career in the mining industry. He began his career as an underground miner and worked his way up to foreman, assistant superintendent, superintendent and manager. The bulk of this experience was not behind a desk but was underground, actually working in a mining environment. Because of this practical, day-to-day experience, he will be better able to understand and respond to the needs of today's underground coal miners and to provide seasoned leadership at MSHA. While working as a miner, Mr. Stickler also attended Fairmont State College and earned a degree in engineering. In addition to his engineering background, he is certified as a mine safety professional by the International Society of Mine Safety Professionals. Mr. Stickler also served as captain of a mine rescue team. As we have all seen over the course of the last several months, mine rescue teams are a critically important component of mine safety. The heroic miners who volunteer for this service endanger their own lives and donate significant amounts of time to ensure they are prepared to help their fellow miners. The MINER Act, which passed the Senate unanimously 2 weeks ago, mandates some changes to the mine rescue team system. Namely, we require mine rescue team members to have a higher level of training and experience and to be available more quickly when needed. I believe there could be no one better to implement these changes than a former mine rescue team captain. In 1997, Richard Stickler left employment in the private sector to become director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Deep Mine Safety, where he served for 6 years. He held that position at the time of the Quecreek mine accident in the summer of 2002. The accident drew national attention as nine miners were trapped underground for several days before being successfully rescued. The Mine Safety and Health Administration is facing its most significant challenge in decades. It needs an experienced leader at its helm to implement the MINER Act and to continue the vital task of ensuring the safety and well-being of our Nation's miners. I urge my colleagues to support the nomination of Richard Stickler and vote in favor of his nomination. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record additional materials regarding the nomination.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to S. 147, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2006. We must celebrate racial diversity in our Nation. Racial diversity defines the cultural norms and values that make America the ``melting pot'' that is so amazing. America's foundation is built upon many diverse races and cultures uniting to become one Nation, but while we can celebrate those diverse cultures, we must remember that we are all Americans and we must work to bridge gaps, not widen them. Every day millions of Americans pledge their allegiance to our flag. They stand for the freedoms and rights guaranteed by our Constitution. One of the essential clauses of this pledge remains, ``one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'' A source of our strength is our diversity, and still, despite our diversity, we are melded as one Nation, under God. When I return to Wyoming, I often attend swearing in ceremonies. It is an honor to watch people become citizens of this great Nation. Swearing in ceremonies are moving experiences that I cherish. At a swearing in ceremony, people from every background and every nation come together to celebrate America. Every American should take the time to watch a swearing in ceremony because when they do, they will realize the privilege that comes with being an American citizen. They come in as citizens of India, China, Mexico, Germany, and many others, but they leave as Americans. Although many citizens of this country practice and honor diverse traditions that are unique to their culture, one core similarity exists: we are all Americans. Racial diversity is important, but it should not be the rationale for the establishment of a separate sovereign government. Wyoming is the home to the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribes on the Wind River Indian Reservation. As part of the United States, these tribes have been recognized for nearly 150 years as sovereign nations. The Eastern Shoshone community was granted sovereignty during the Treaty of Fort Laramie in 1863 before Wyoming became a State. Over the years, other Native American and Alaskan tribes gained sovereignty by meeting the criteria laid out in our laws. Native Hawaiians now seek sovereignty similar to that of Native Americans and Alaskan Natives through this legislation. While I understand their desire to be granted sovereign immunity, the facts and circumstances surrounding Native Hawaiians are different. It does not make sense to waive or change the requirements that others had to meet. Our Government has never created an Indian tribe. Sovereignty has only been granted to preexisting tribes and only in special, rare circumstances after statehood. In order to be federally recognized, a tribe must meet several criteria. A tribe must prove it existed and operated as a tribe for the past century. Additionally, the tribe must distinguish itself as a separate and distinct community both geographically and culturally. Finally, the tribe must have a preexisting political structure that is clear. Native Hawaiians do not meet these criteria. A distinct community does not exist according to the standards outlined in the proposed legislation. Within the United States and the State of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians live integrated among all races. During the ``fall'' of Queen Liliuokalani, a ``Native Hawaiian'' government was not present. All races coexisted under the reign of the monarchy. Non-natives even held high positions within the government. In 1898, at the time of annexation, there was no political effort to treat Native Hawaiians similar to Alaska Natives or Native American tribes. The same held true when 94 percent of Hawaiians voted to become a State in 1959. Ninety-four percent of Hawaiians voted to become Americans. In fact, at that time, advocates of Hawaiian statehood emphasized the cohesive diversity, the ``melting pot'' nature of Hawaii. In addition, in 1998, the State of Hawaii's Supreme Court brief from the case of Rice v. Cayetano expressed the government's belief that, ``The Tribal concept simply has no place in the context of Hawaiian history.'' If the proposed legislation passes, the progress we have made over the past century to improve racial equality regresses. Instead of uniting the country, we divide it, and some of the darkest hours of this Nation occurred when people were separated because of race. This legislation is based solely on the ideology of race. We are all Americans, and as such, we need to be united. Although I respect the desire of Native Hawaiians to be a federally recognized sovereign nation, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose S. 147.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to voice my support for H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act. Since coming to the Senate, I have continuously supported the repeal of this burdensome and unfair tax and am also a proud cosponsor of S. 420, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act and S. 988, the Jobs Protection and Estate Tax Reform Act. I believe the death tax is fundamentally unfair because it constitutes another layer of taxation. After years of paying State and Federal income taxes and other taxes on property while trying to grow a business, the family must pay again at the time of death. This double taxation is unfair and should be eliminated. Many small, family-owned businesses throughout my State of Wyoming cannot afford to pay the tax and are forced to close their doors. In addition, many landowners are forced to sell their property in order to afford paying this unfair tax and avoid passing on the costs to the next generation. Our country should encourage growth and investment, not force people to sell their assets. Families should not have to choose between paying taxes or operating their business just because a family member passed away. In Wyoming, we work hard, in pursuit of the American Dream, to create a better life for our children and grandchildren. Yet the death tax punishes this dream and the families who must pick up the pieces after losing a loved one. The death tax not only hurts the families who are forced to pay the tax, it also hurts our overall economy. A Heritage Foundation study reports that repeal of this tax would create 482 jobs in Wyoming alone. While this number may not seem large to my colleagues from New York and California, 482 jobs would have a substantial economic impact for communities throughout my State. I believe we will see additional financial gains when businesses can continue their operations where previously they would have had to shut their doors. The death tax forces families to spend thousands of dollars on estate planning. By forcing individuals and families to use vital financial resources on estate planning, money is being taken away from the family business or the family farm. When we eliminate this tax, jobs will be saved and money will be devoted to economic growth rather than extensive estate planning costs. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of H.R. 8, which offers relief to America's hard-working families. Eliminating the death tax will bring fairness to our Tax Code as well as encourage continued growth in our economy.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment. This important legislation, which was introduced by my distinguished colleague from Colorado, is simple and straightforward. It amends the U.S. Constitution to clearly define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. It is important to have this debate because the institution of marriage is under attack by some rogue local officials and activist judges who wish to push their agenda onto the majority of Americans. We need to have this debate to give the American people the opportunity to define marriage as they see fit. We need to remove the definition of marriage from the courts and return the decision making power to the American people. Marriage has traditionally been considered the union between a man and a woman. State common law practices have always assumed this to be the case. In addition to that, 45 States have some form of protection for the traditional marriage of a man and a woman. These States have done so with strong support from their citizens. Nineteen States have gone so far as to enact State constitutional amendments to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Those amendments have passed with support averaging more than 71 percent. What do these statistics make clear? The vast majority of Americans want the institution of marriage to be protected. They want to keep it as it has been: a union between one man and one woman. How can we be certain that the American people support defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman? By using the ultimate democratic tool: the constitutional amendment. Amending the Constitution is a rigorous task, and when our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, they worked to ensure that any decision to alter it was a decision that would be made by the American people. In order to amend the Constitution, we must get a two-thirds vote in each body of Congress, which as my colleagues know, is no simple task. After that vote has taken place, the proposed amendment is sent to the States, where three-fourth's of State legislatures must vote to ratify the proposal. That means that 38 of the 50 States must support this amendment. This is how the Framers of the Constitution intended our government to operate. A constitutional amendment places the final decision with the people, where it should be. Courts will no longer have the power to legislate the definition of marriage. Local officials will no longer have the ability to arbitrarily change the rules. The people will make the final call. Considering this amendment and sending it to the States for ratification is, in my opinion, the closest we can get to a truly democratic self-government. Why is such an amendment necessary? Opponents of S.J. Res. 1 argue that this is a State issue and that our Nation is governed by the Defense of Marriage Act. According to the Defense of Marriage Act, no State can be forced to recognize the marriage laws of another State. Although this is true, the Defense of Marriage Act is not exempt from the Constitution, and therefore, is not exempt from the political rulings of activist judges. The Defense of Marriage Act will not prevent an activist judge in State court from ignoring the will of that State's citizens if that judge forces them to redefine marriage. It does not prevent an activist judge in Federal court from ignoring the will of the people and forcing them to recognize a definition of marriage that is not their own. The only way to ensure that the American people define marriage is to pass a constitutional amendment. If the definition of marriage is clearly laid out in the Constitution, neither an activist judge nor a rogue local official can ignore that definition and impose his or her will on the American people. It is important to note that the Marriage Protection Amendment deals only with the institution of marriage. It does not alter a State's right to recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships. It does not deal with a State's ability to confer benefits upon same-sex couples, and so State governments can continue to grant those benefits if they so choose. Congress must enact the Marriage Protection Amendment to stave off the fragmentation that is sure to happen if different definitions of marriage exist. Passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment is necessary to the end judicial activism that has surrounded the marriage debate. It is necessary so that the American people can define marriage for themselves. And so, in closing, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, from what I understand we just got the managers' amendment. It is 115 pages. I think the Senator from Arizona is one of the first ones to acknowledge getting a managers' amendment with 115 pages, and then agreeing to a time agreement would be a little unreasonable. So if you would take out the agreement to have a vote directly on the managers' amendment until we have a little bit of time to go through it, I think the unanimous consent would be agreeable.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. This legislation, The MINER Act, represents the most comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's mine safety laws in a generation. S. 2803, was unanimously reported out last week by the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. It is the product of a truly bipartisan effort undertaken with the single goal of improving the safety of our Nation's miners. I would like to thank Senator Kennedy, the ranking member of the HELP Committee, Senators Isakson and Murray, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety; and Senators Byrd and Rockefeller of West Virginia for their long and tireless efforts in fashioning this legislation. I would also like to express my thanks to Senators DeWine, Santorum, Specter, McConnell, and Bunning for their cosponsorship of this legislation. This year we have witnessed a series of tragic losses in the coal mining community. The year began with the deadly accidents at the Sago and Alma mines in West Virginia. It continued this weekend with the deaths of five miners in a coal mine explosion in eastern Kentucky. Nothing we can do here can bring back those whose lives have been lost. We can, however, best honor those who have lost their lives by making such accidents less likely in the future, and making it more likely that miners will survive such accidents when they do occur. That is the aim of the MINER Act. The MINER Act would require that coal mines develop and continuously update emergency response and preparedness plans that are designed to make mining accidents more survivable. These plans will incorporate technological advances designed to enhance surface to underground communication, to aid in the location of underground personnel, and to provide additional breathable air for miners that are trapped underground. The legislation codifies the requirements for mine rescue teams, affords protections for these heroic volunteers, and ensures that they, and other necessary Federal resources, will be promptly called upon when an emergency occurs. The bill further recognizes that the development of mine safety technology, and the education and training of all those who work in the industry are vital elements in the effort to improve mine safety. Thus, the legislation enhances the mine safety research and development efforts of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. It encourages private sector technology development, and speeds the approval of new equipment. It also provides a mechanism for sharing technical research and development among Federal agencies. The bill will also provide grants for additional safety training, and scholarship funds for mine safety related education. In addition, the legislation recognizes the fact that despite the tragedies of this year, the safety record in the mining industry has been a good one that continues to improve. This has been due to the concerted efforts of State and Federal regulators, mine employees, and mine operators, the vast majority of whom are serious and steadfast in meeting their workplace safety responsibilities. However, there are a few operators that fall outside the mold; thus, the legislation contains enhanced penalty provisions targeted at these few ``bad actors.'' Those who work in our Nation's mines play a vital role in our country's economic well-being and energy security. They deserve our best efforts to provide for their protection as they perform their often dangerous work. I believe that the MINER Act does make major safety improvements that will better protect miners both today and in years to come.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in support of an amendment introduced by my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe. I firmly believe a common language promotes unity among citizens and fosters greater communication. Establishing a national language would save the Government the expensive and time-consuming task of preparing documents in many languages. A recent Zogby poll showed 84 percent of our population believes that English should be the official language of our Government. Twenty-seven U.S. States have already made English the official language, including Louisiana which agreed to it as a condition of statehood. My home State of Wyoming made English the official language of the State in 1996. Fifty-one nations also have English as their official language, but the United States does not. It is time that we have a clear statement on our national language. This amendment also addresses the important issue of English proficiency for new citizens. On May 15, 2006, President Bush addressed the Nation about the needed reform of our current immigration situation. He stressed the positive role that the English language has for new citizens. Many improvements need to be made to the current process that our new citizens go through. I am pleased that this amendment creates a set of goals for updates to the new citizen exam. Some of the goals are demonstration of sufficient understanding of English usage in everyday life and an understanding of American common values. These common values include the principles of our U.S. Constitution, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, and the significance of our American flag. The goals will help new citizens better understand our Nation and become productive members of our society. Senator Inhofe's amendment is a good strong statement in support of English as our national language and the importance of sharing this common value with new citizens. I have worked on legislation that would establish English as the official language of the U.S. Government during my service in the Senate and in the Wyoming State Legislature, and I encourage all Senators to support this important amendment to the immigration reform bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions I am pleased to announce today the introduction of comprehensive legislation designed to make our Nation's mines and miners safer--the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, the MINER Act. I am particularly pleased to note that the MINER Act is the product of a truly bipartisan effort that includes Senator Kennedy, the committee's ranking member, Senators Isakson and Murray, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, and Senators Rockefeller and Byrd. They have all worked tirelessly to make this bill a reality, and I am grateful for their leadership on this issue and their co-sponsorship of the MINER Act. Mining, and coal mining in particular, is vital to our national and local economies, and to our national energy security. No aspect of mining is more important than protecting the health and safety of those whose hard work fuels the industry. This year our Nation has experienced tragic losses in the coal mines of West Virginia. Following the accident at the Sago mine, Senators Isakson, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and I traveled to West Virginia to meet with the families of those miners whose lives were lost. We were all deeply moved by that experience, and committed to do our best to ensure that such tragedies will not be repeated. To further that commitment, we have sought the views of experts and stakeholders on a wide range of mine safety issues and have conducted hearings and roundtables on such issues as mine safety technology. In the MINER Act, we have done much to reach our common goal of safeguarding the lives of all those who work in our Nation's mines. The legislation we introduce today addresses the issue of mine safety in a variety of ways. First, the MINER Act would require the development of mine-specific emergency response plans that incorporate safety and technology provisions designed to enhance miner safety. In the area of technology, in particular, the MINER Act recognizes that as safety technology evolves, so, too, must our approach. Thus, the plans that are initially developed must be periodically modified to reflect such changes. Second, the MINER Act recognizes the critical role of mine rescue teams, and those who serve on them, in enhancing the safety of miners. The legislation directs the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations that will make new provisions for mine rescue teams, and it creates liability protection for those who serve on those teams and their employers. Third, the MINER Act recognizes that in emergencies the ability to craft a prompt response is dependent upon prompt notification. Thus, the MINER Act provides that in the case of serious life-threatening accidents notification must be made to Federal Mine Safety officials within 15 minutes. Fourth, the legislation recognizes that despite all efforts, accidents may occur in the future, and that in those instances MSHA should be prepared to provide assistance to and communicate with the families of those affected. Accordingly, the MINER Act requires MSHA to establish a policy to meet both of these objectives. Fifth, the legislation recognizes the key role of technology in improving mine safety and the key role of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in advancing such technological development. The MINER Act establishes an Office of Mine Safety within NIOSH, a NIOSH-administered grant and contract program designed to foster the development and manufacture of new mine safety equipment, and a NIOSH-chaired interagency working group designed to facilitate the transfer of technology that may be adaptable to mine usage from such other Federal sources as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the Department of Defense. The bill also contains provisions to streamline the testing of new technologies. Sixth, the MINER Act recognizes there are some areas regarding technology and engineering and mining practice about which uncertainty remains. The MINER Act recognizes that such issues are better addressed with the informed assistance of experts. Thus, the MINER Act creates a technical study panel to review the belt air issue and directs further NIOSH study and testing regarding refuge chambers. It also requires the Secretary to utilize the regulatory process to issue final regulations regarding the strength of seals used in abandoned mining sections. These directives do not prejudge the issues or dictate any result or action. They do, however, provide an important means of developing a body of expert opinion with regard to these Issues. Seventh, throughout the development of this legislation my long-held view that the vast majority of mine operators take their safety responsibilities with great seriousness has been reinforced. The conscientious efforts of mine operators throughout the country have been the principal reason behind our continual improvement in mine safety over the years. We must recognize this essential fact even as we must also recognize that there are a handful of operators who do not fall in this camp. In the instance of these ``bad actors,'' the MINER Act provides tools MSHA can use to more readily deal with those who fail to pay civil penalties. The MINER Act codifies a tenfold increase in the available criminal penalties, and it creates an increased maximum for flagrant violators in line with the administration's proposal and creates minimum penalties for the most serious types of infractions. Lastly, the legislation recognizes that training and education play a critical role in the effort to make mines and miners safer. Therefore, the legislation contains scholarship provisions to address the anticipated shortages of trained miners and MSHA personnel as well as fostering the skills of those who will work on the next generation of mine safety technology. It also contains provisions for the establishment of a program to provide a full range of mine safety training grants. These steps, when taken together, will help make our nation's mines a safer workplace today and in years to come. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions I am pleased to announce today the introduction of comprehensive legislation designed to make our Nation's mines and miners safer--the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, the MINER Act. I am particularly pleased to note that the MINER Act is the product of a truly bipartisan effort that includes Senator Kennedy, the committee's ranking member, Senators Isakson and Murray, the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety, and Senators Rockefeller and Byrd. They have all worked tirelessly to make this bill a reality, and I am grateful for their leadership on this issue and their co-sponsorship of the MINER Act. Mining, and coal mining in particular, is vital to our national and local economies, and to our national energy security. No aspect of mining is more important than protecting the health and safety of those whose hard work fuels the industry. This year our Nation has experienced tragic losses in the coal mines of West Virginia. Following the accident at the Sago mine, Senators Isakson, Kennedy, Rockefeller, and I traveled to West Virginia to meet with the families of those miners whose lives were lost. We were all deeply moved by that experience, and committed to do our best to ensure that such tragedies will not be repeated. To further that commitment, we have sought the views of experts and stakeholders on a wide range of mine safety issues and have conducted hearings and roundtables on such issues as mine safety technology. In the MINER Act, we have done much to reach our common goal of safeguarding the lives of all those who work in our Nation's mines. The legislation we introduce today addresses the issue of mine safety in a variety of ways. First, the MINER Act would require the development of mine-specific emergency response plans that incorporate safety and technology provisions designed to enhance miner safety. In the area of technology, in particular, the MINER Act recognizes that as safety technology evolves, so, too, must our approach. Thus, the plans that are initially developed must be periodically modified to reflect such changes. Second, the MINER Act recognizes the critical role of mine rescue teams, and those who serve on them, in enhancing the safety of miners. The legislation directs the Secretary of Labor to issue regulations that will make new provisions for mine rescue teams, and it creates liability protection for those who serve on those teams and their employers. Third, the MINER Act recognizes that in emergencies the ability to craft a prompt response is dependent upon prompt notification. Thus, the MINER Act provides that in the case of serious life-threatening accidents notification must be made to Federal Mine Safety officials within 15 minutes. Fourth, the legislation recognizes that despite all efforts, accidents may occur in the future, and that in those instances MSHA should be prepared to provide assistance to and communicate with the families of those affected. Accordingly, the MINER Act requires MSHA to establish a policy to meet both of these objectives. Fifth, the legislation recognizes the key role of technology in improving mine safety and the key role of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health in advancing such technological development. The MINER Act establishes an Office of Mine Safety within NIOSH, a NIOSH-administered grant and contract program designed to foster the development and manufacture of new mine safety equipment, and a NIOSH-chaired interagency working group designed to facilitate the transfer of technology that may be adaptable to mine usage from such other Federal sources as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the Department of Defense. The bill also contains provisions to streamline the testing of new technologies. Sixth, the MINER Act recognizes there are some areas regarding technology and engineering and mining practice about which uncertainty remains. The MINER Act recognizes that such issues are better addressed with the informed assistance of experts. Thus, the MINER Act creates a technical study panel to review the belt air issue and directs further NIOSH study and testing regarding refuge chambers. It also requires the Secretary to utilize the regulatory process to issue final regulations regarding the strength of seals used in abandoned mining sections. These directives do not prejudge the issues or dictate any result or action. They do, however, provide an important means of developing a body of expert opinion with regard to these Issues. Seventh, throughout the development of this legislation my long-held view that the vast majority of mine operators take their safety responsibilities with great seriousness has been reinforced. The conscientious efforts of mine operators throughout the country have been the principal reason behind our continual improvement in mine safety over the years. We must recognize this essential fact even as we must also recognize that there are a handful of operators who do not fall in this camp. In the instance of these ``bad actors,'' the MINER Act provides tools MSHA can use to more readily deal with those who fail to pay civil penalties. The MINER Act codifies a tenfold increase in the available criminal penalties, and it creates an increased maximum for flagrant violators in line with the administration's proposal and creates minimum penalties for the most serious types of infractions. Lastly, the legislation recognizes that training and education play a critical role in the effort to make mines and miners safer. Therefore, the legislation contains scholarship provisions to address the anticipated shortages of trained miners and MSHA personnel as well as fostering the skills of those who will work on the next generation of mine safety technology. It also contains provisions for the establishment of a program to provide a full range of mine safety training grants. These steps, when taken together, will help make our nation's mines a safer workplace today and in years to come. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, actions speak louder than words. People are going to have a chance in a little while to show some action for small business. Once in a while there is a moment when you have a chance to make a difference. Today, most of the Democrats appear to be willing to sacrifice that moment to make a statement. They are saying we cannot give small business anything until we have votes on stem cells, until we have votes on prescription drugs, until we have votes on drug importation, and to heck with the small businesses. What kind of an attitude is that? The Democrats' argument is: We are going to deny small business anything until we get them everything. Of course, they are promising everything in their bill. Let us get this clear. The Democrats care so much about families employed by small business that they are willing to keep them from having any insurance until they find a way to provide everything they think they need. Spare me the care. We have a lot of smokescreens. One of the smokescreens is the process did not allow them to have votes. I asked unanimous consent a little while ago, and I said I will guarantee you a vote on Durbin-Lincoln. I will guarantee you debate on Durbin-Lincoln. I will let that happen right after cloture. The reason that has to happen is because of the process of the Senate; otherwise, they only get a vote and they still block me from getting a vote on this bill that has been worked out with the insurance companies, with the insurance commissioners, and with the associations. That is a smokescreen. There is going to be a vote on whether we care to debate some more on small business. There can be amendments after cloture. Amendments will allow you to cover everything that has been mentioned over here, whether it is ratings or whether it is mandates. Let me tell you that mandates is another smokescreen. Where this has been done inside States, the companies that had the right not to have mandates, it covers the ones that you mentioned. This is about being able to have enough opportunity to expand across State lines where there are 1,800 different mandates. You have to be able to get them together so that small businesses can go together across State lines and gather a big enough pool to effectively negotiate against insurance companies. Yes, there are some insurance companies that are writing letters saying: Do not let them do this. There is a profit motive. I can't blame them for that. But what the small businesspeople are really asking for on that is the same thing that big businesses have. We already excluded big business from all of the mandates and the oversight by States. We are not going that far. We even have some provisions in there, and I am sure with some amendments there would be some mandates in there. Here is where the savings come in for these small businesses. I am extremely excited about this. The cost for administration for a small business policy is about 35 percent. If you check with Wal-Mart, which is excluded from everything and gets to have their own plan, their cost of administration is 8 percent. The savings are in the administration. That is 27 percent which they save. For every 1 percent of savings, insurance brings in 200,000 to 300,000 people into the market. There are 27 million uninsured small businesspeople and employees out there. They are like families. I was talking to Senator Harkin. He was telling me about a small businessman he knows. These small businesses are kind of interesting. They go to church with the same people who work for them. They go to watch baseball with the same people who work for them. Their kids are in the same little league. They go to the same organizations. And this small businessman said: I have to tell them that I can't afford the insurance anymore. And I still want to live with them. I want my family to have insurance, but that is not going to happen. This is an opportunity to make a difference, to offer amendments to perfect the bill in whatever way the majority of people think needs to be done. Anything else is a smokescreen. I gave them an opportunity to vote on Durbin-Lincoln. I gave them an opportunity to vote on this, but it was an assurance that we would get to vote on both, so small business would get a vote. There is going to be a vote on small business. There are hundreds of people around the Capitol right now who are with small business who are saying: We need the opportunity to have a better health care plan. Some of them will get insurance for the first time; some will get a better health insurance plan. As an accountant, I have to remind you that this is not a case of subtraction. This insurance plan is an addition. We are bringing in newly insured people. Anybody who votes against cloture needs to go to their dry cleaners tonight to pick up their laundry and look that person in the eye and say: I do not think you deserve health insurance because you might not demand enough for yourself. So you know what? I saved you from yourself. Can you say that to the mom and pop running the business down the street from your home? Can you say that they do not deserve health insurance? As you go home today after you leave the Hill, think about the people around you, the regular people--the cab driver, the worker at the dry cleaners, the person in the neighborhood restaurant, all of those people you may not notice who really make the world operate. Many of them do not have any insurance. Some may even own that little restaurant around the corner and still not be able to afford the insurance. I am not talking about deluxe insurance; I am talking about any insurance. So please overlook the smokescreen and vote to have some more debate and amendments and a vote on a small business health plan. I yield the floor and yield the remainder of my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. ENZI. I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I had intended to present a list of people who worked for me, but a question was asked. I assume it was rhetorical, but I can't let it pass. The question--to me, I assume-- was, why offer what you wouldn't buy for yourself for others? If I were in small business--and I was--and I was faced with rising health costs--and I was--I would have been happy to have been able to buy this insurance for my employees. There is a whole different level of living out there. It is called small business. We usually think if you are in small business, you are making lots of money. A lot of times the employees are making more than the bosses. The bosses buy insurance because that is how they insure their family and they get a group. That helps them, too. But when you have a group, that means that the people in the group get exactly the same insurance you do. You don't get the same package as the Senate. I will admit that the Senate has a pretty nice package. I would also like to tell you, though, that when I was in small business, when I was in the accounting business, I had a better package than I have in the Senate. So it is available out there. It costs a lot of money. I was trying to find some way to bring that cost down. On your bill that you would have liked for everybody in America to have--the same thing as the Federal employees--it didn't get there. I would have been happy to have had a vote on that and had that debate. I offered you that opportunity. I wish you would have taken me up on it. We would have had cloture. We would have had a vote on your bill, and we would have had a vote on my bill. That is all it took. It just took a few more votes and we would have had the 60, and small business would have had some resolution tonight that they are not going to have. You have to remember that everybody isn't living at the same level out there, and we have to watch out for those small businessmen because they are the ones who are taking care of the backbone needs of this country every single day. I apologize for going on with a little bit more debate. I thank the Senator from Hawaii. I do need to express some thanks because there are a couple people here that are on this list that I have to keep away from ledges and high buildings yet tonight. They have devoted their life for about the last year and 5 months to this, every day that they possibly could, and through the nights and the weekends, and we came up with this bill, working with some unusual groups. I particularly have to thank Andrew Patzman for his patience, ingenuity, capability, and his constant work. Of course, Steve Northrop probably helped a lot on that because he has a fine sense of humor and an extremely quick wit. That helped us out in a lot of those situations where we were trying to pull everything together after a long time. I thank Katherine McGuire, who is the director of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. While we are doing this, we are also trying to do the pensions conference and a whole bunch of other things. I don't know of anybody who has the capability that she has to juggle as many things at one time as she does and still do a great job of being a mother. I have some really good people. I could go through a whole list and mention Flip McConnaughy, my Chief of Staff, who held everything together for all of the Wyoming issues and my Wyoming staff. I will just mention some of these other people more quickly. The same kind of thanks to them, and I know what they have done to help out. Brittany, Tod Spangler, Craig Orfield, Ryan Taylor; and then from Senator Gregg's staff, Conwell Smith and David Fisher; from Senator Talent's staff, Faith Cristol; from Senator Snowe's staff, Alex Hecht and Wes Coulam; from Senator Ben Nelson's staff, Kim Zimmerman and Amy Terrell; from Senator Isakson's staff, Brittany Espy; from Senator Hatch's staff, Pattie DeLoatche and Roger Johns; from legislative counsel, Bill Baird has just done tremendous work with us; from Senator Frist's staff, the leader, Elizabeth Hall and May Khosla and Charlotte Ivancic; from Senator Ensign's staff, Michelle Spence; from Senator McConnell's staff, Scott Raab and Laura Pemberton; from Senator Burr's staff, Jenny Hansen; from Senator Alexander's staff, Page Kranbuhl; from Senator Roberts' staff, Jennifer Swenson; from Senator DeWine's staff, Melissa Atkinson and Karla Carpenter. That is a whole group of people who have spent days, nights, and weekends working on this bill and making it possible to put together what we have. I know they are dedicated to it and they will continue to work and we will work across the aisle and look forward to getting something done for small business. I know small business will be asking--perhaps even demanding--but there is a need out there. I hope everybody will recognize that. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. That is the reason that was given. All I am asking is that we do something for small business. I know they were concerned about getting a vote on the Durbin-Lincoln amendment. I tried to make any concessions I possibly could to get that vote postcloture so that we would both be able to get a vote on the two bills and do something for small business. We can weed out what will work for small business. We can do additional amendments. There are actually unlimited amendments that can be done to S. 1955 that the other side could use to improve that, if they so desire. What we do is have 30 hours of debate and then a vote-arama on any issues remaining and a final vote on whether small business has anything different. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. It has not been debated in the Senate before. The House has done it for the past 12 years. They passed it eight times, but we have never done it on the Senate side. It has not made it out of committee before.