[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19157-19161]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              FLOOR ACTION

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, we are here today dealing with a non-
essential distraction from the issues our country should be dealing 
with. None of these nominees need to be confirmed right now. Rather, we 
should be dealing with the problems we see each day. I talked about two 
of the biggest problems we face last Wednesday: Obamacare and our debt 
and deficit. I want to expand on those matters and discuss some of the 
other things we should be addressing.
  We are here today dealing with a non-essential distraction from the 
mounting Obamacare problems. None of these nominees need to be 
confirmed right now. Rather, we should be dealing with the problems we 
see each day of how the health care law will fail to live up to the 
promises made by the administration. We must repeal this law, because 
as these reports demonstrate, it is bad for consumers and bad for small 
businesses. The outcry of millions of people who lost health care plans 
they were told they could keep forced President Obama to admit that he 
broke his promise. He then announced a new initiative that he said 
would really allow people to keep their existing health insurance plans 
this time--for a short time.
  This isn't true either because for one thing he doesn't have the 
power under the Constitution to rewrite or ignore laws passed by 
Congress. It would also mean he would have to be willing to ignore a 
2010 administration regulation that has prevented insurers from 
continuing to offer insurance for millions of individuals and small 
businesses. That's right, at the same time the President was promising 
out of one side of his mouth that people could keep their health 
insurance, the other side was approving rules that would make that 
impossible.
  And everyone who was in the Senate at the time knew it. It was right 
there in the Federal Register and written by

[[Page 19158]]

the President's own administration. Congress knew and the 
administration knew the President was not telling the truth, but kept 
making the promise anyway.
  When one party has 60 votes in the Senate, the minority party is very 
limited in what it can do. There are few exceptions to the majority 
leader's control. He decides what the Senate can debate and vote on. 
Through parliamentary manipulation he can also block amendments.
  One sure way to inject something not approved by the majority leader 
is to find an offensive regulation and petition the Senate for a debate 
and a simple majority vote. I did that in 2010. One catch is that has 
to be acted upon within 60 days of the regulation's publication in the 
Federal Register. Miss that date and it can't be brought up again. Lose 
the vote and the opportunity is also gone. That's an opportunity 
Democrats in the Senate squandered. Every single one voted to defeat my 
resolution and many ridiculed the effort. Over the next few months 
their constituents are going to make them answer for this.
  I have fought against the new health care law for the past 4 years 
because I knew that there was no way the President could keep all of 
the promises he was making about how the law would affect average 
Americans. As an accountant and former small business owner, I 
understood that you cannot mandate that everyone must purchase gold-
plated health insurance plans without increasing costs and causing 
millions of people to lose their existing insurance plans.
  But wait. There is more. If you can't keep the health plans that you 
like, then you are going to have a tougher time keeping the doctors and 
hospitals you like. Get ready for the next wave of disappointment and 
frustration when expectations created by this President and his PR 
machine come crashing up against the harsh reality of the real world. 
Obamacare casualties will continue to grow even as this President 
launches media blitz after media blitz in attempt to convince people 
that higher premiums, worse coverage and a bigger debt for this country 
is a good thing.
  During the health care debate, the President and his Congressional 
allies also promised that the new health care law would reduce health 
insurance premiums for American families. I and my colleagues argued 
that rather than saving money, the new law would instead drive up the 
costs of insurance for millions of families.
  Disastrous planning and implementation of the healthcare.gov website 
have made it difficult for Americans to learn just how much this 
partisan law has driven up costs. People are starting to learn how much 
their premiums are increasing, and the more they do the more people 
will not appreciate how the President's promise failed to reflect the 
reality of the new health care law.
  The President and his allies also promised that the new law would 
improve the economy and protect Medicare beneficiaries. We now know 
that small businesses across the country are not hiring new workers 
because of the impact the health care law will have on their bottom 
lines. In addition, millions of Medicare beneficiaries face reductions 
in their existing benefits as a result of the $500 billion that was 
taken from Medicare to fund the new law.
  It is not quite 2014 yet and most of the 2,700 pages of the new law 
haven't gone into effect. But each day it seems there is a new breaking 
story about what a debacle this health care law is turning out to be.
  I received a letter from Jessica in Laramie who explains how this 
health care law is negatively affecting her. Jessica's ``catastrophic'' 
health care plan as a single adult, according to healthcare.gov, is 
$297 per month. This is with the premium support from the Federal 
Government. I repeat, this is with the subsidy. The University of 
Wyoming health insurance rate for a semester is $452. That's over the 
course of 4 months. The university's rate is nothing new. It has been 
available to students long before the Democrats forced their health 
care disaster through Congress. Today, Jessica's premiums would cost 
more than any of her medical bills to date. Jessica recently fractured 
her foot, a very common injury, and this cost her less than $300 in 
medical bills. Jessica's mother also works for the State government, 
and has a health care through the state. However, even though she is 
under the age of 26, Jessica is not allowed to join her mother's 
insurance plan. This is yet another example of a broken promise from 
the Obama administration. The President's flawed health care bill is a 
raw deal for our students, and for our Nation. Jessica said, ``It feels 
like the government is punishing everyone for the few people who have 
health bills worth more than a house. It isn't remotely fair.''
  Karen from Cody contacted me because her construction company had to 
drop their Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance plan. Why is this? 
The President's flawed health care plan mandates health care coverage 
for full time employees that work more than 90 days for the company. 
The company was already providing health care plans for their 
employees, and now these folks can't keep their health care plan they 
liked. Their employees are mostly young Americans and are trying to 
make their budgets work. They couldn't afford to sign up for health 
care plans that would reduce their pay. As a result, all of her 
employees will have to seek individual policies in 2014. Karen also 
said there is a lack of information on insurance plans. She doesn't 
know what doctors and medical facilities will be included or even 
available in any health insurance plan next year. Karen is upset. I am 
upset, too.
  It is time for Congress to heed the calls of the majority of 
Americans and repeal this partisan law, but that won't happen unless 
ordinary Americans continue to speak out and demand those who brought 
them Obamacare keep their promises--all of them.
  I also want to talk about the recently announced Murray/Ryan budget 
legislation. I had hoped we would have an open process to finally come 
up with a solution to our Nation's spending problems, but that didn't 
happen. Instead, we have another backroom deal put together by two 
members that is bad for our country. It increases spending and shows 
that one thing some Democrats and Republicans can agree on is putting 
off hard decisions.
  This plan spends more than current law. It charges people and States 
more for things and uses the money to increase spending in non-related 
areas. Spending cuts are scheduled for outlying years and the so-called 
``savings'' are used up right away. It isn't real.
  This bill has a lot of problems. It again raises rates for premiums 
that private companies pay the Federal Government to guarantee their 
pension benefits. Raising premiums for all companies participating in 
PBGC is effectively a tax increase. Moreover, this money isn't going to 
shore up PBGC. The ``savings'' that these rate increases generate will 
be spent on other Federal discretionary programs. And employers are 
still in the process of implementing a $9 billion rate increase to pay 
for highways per last year's transit bill. To put it simply, over 2 
years the flat-rate premium will have increased 40 percent and over 3 
years, the variable-rate premium will have increased over 100 percent. 
This is a huge tax that will cause companies to end their voluntary 
pension and retirement plans. These pensions are completely voluntary 
and if the cost to keep them goes up, companies may have to re-
evaluate. Workers and their families will be forced to find other ways 
to save for retirement due to this increased ``tax'' on companies.
  Under this budget deal, they are also again telling Wyoming, Montana, 
Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and other States that allow for the 
production of minerals on their lands that the Federal Government 
deserves more than half of the revenues. Under Federal law, States are 
entitled to half of the royalties collected by the Federal Government 
for energy production on their lands. To distribute the State share, 
the law intends for the Minerals Management Service to divide the 
amount of mineral royalties collected by two, write a check for that 
amount, and

[[Page 19159]]

mail it to the States. But an even split is not enough under the new 
budget bill. In an attempt to satisfy an insatiable appetite for 
spending, the budget bill's plan is to take more money away from our 
States, about $40 million every year. This is money that our State 
governments use for roads, health care, education for our children, and 
more efficient and environmentally-friendly development of our energy 
resources. It is money that finds its way directly to the people, not 
down some bureaucratic black hole. A disproportionate share of this 
funding--about $20 million--comes from my home State of Wyoming, which 
supplies a disproportionate share of energy to our country. Yet the 
Federal Government still wants more. Unlike bureaucrats, we answer to 
our constituents. Mine are telling me they don't want the Federal 
Government to take any more of our State's money. I am sure yours will 
tell you the same thing, either now or later.
  Worst of all, the so-called budget conference committee for all 
practical purposes did not exist. The agreement was the sole product of 
one House member and one Senate member. I sat on the conference 
committee and I can tell you that I learned the particulars of the deal 
at the same time as the public. We were not part of the process or 
negotiations. This is a symptom of the abandonment of the committee 
process. Instead of Representatives and Senators offering constructive 
amendments and debating spending bills in public, a couple people and 
their staff sit in a room and then present a take-it-or-leave-it deal 
right before a holiday or manufactured crisis deadline.
  This is not the way to operate. We have to start legislating and stop 
deal-making. I had hoped we could make a small move in that direction 
with this conference committee because I have several ideas for how to 
keep us out of the situation we were just in--the government shutdown 
and whether and to what extent to raise the debt limit--and make 
reasonable, but real, progress on our deficits and debt. I have a penny 
plan, a proposal on biennial budgeting, some relevant amendments for 
spending bills, the End Government Shutdowns legislation, forced 
prioritization for spending cuts, and tax reform.
  My penny plan cuts overall spending by 1 percent for 2 years and 
balances the budget so that we don't have to raise the debt ceiling. We 
have to stop spending more than we take in and find a way to start 
paying down the $17 trillion--and growing--debt. The penny plan doesn't 
mandate any specific cuts. Congress would have the authority to make 
targeted cuts and focus on the worst first, but would be required to 
meet the 1 percent overall cut. Everything would be on the table. And I 
would argue that we should focus on identifying and eliminating all of 
the wasteful spending that occurs in Washington before we look to other 
important programs and services. Let's not make the cuts hurt. Let's be 
smart about the spending cuts and prioritize how we spend taxpayers' 
dollars.
  My biennial appropriations bill would allow for each of the 
appropriation bills to be taken up over a 2-year period, with the more 
controversial bills taken up in a non-election year and the less 
controversial bills taken up in an election year. The defense 
appropriations bill would be taken up each year. This would allow us to 
get into the spending details more and eliminate duplication and waste.
  The End Government Shutdowns Act that I've cosponsored would help us 
move away from the crisis governing and deal making that has become a 
mainstay when it comes to funding the Federal Government. It would 
automatically continue funding for programs, but would use the 
mechanism from my penny plan to reduce spending across the board by one 
percent.
  We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. We shouldn't raise 
taxes in order for Washington to spend more. We cannot spend our way to 
prosperity. Identifying a process forward for tax reform is where part 
of our efforts on the budget conference should be focused. If done 
correctly, tax reform will help to generate additional revenue through 
economic growth to reduce the deficits and pay down the debt. I am 
ready to make that happen.
  We need to prioritize spending cuts--find the spending cuts that will 
do the least harm and start there. It worked here in Wyoming, and it 
can work in Washington. Raising taxes to offset more spending is not 
the path forward. Reigning in out-of-control spending is.
  I sit up nights worrying about our Nation's debt and how it will 
affect Wyoming children, my children and grandchildren. This was a 
chance to apply reasonable constraints to impossibly high future 
spending, but instead we got more spending and no plan to solve the 
problem.
  Congress should have been working on Federal spending bills and a 
responsible budget for months. Instead, the Senate majority put off 
this work. If the Senate majority would have allowed the 12 
appropriations bills to move through the committee process to floor 
debate in a timely manner, with input and amendments from Senators on 
both sides, there would have been no need for a continuing resolution 
and no government shutdown. Deal making instead of legislating is not 
an appropriate way to run the country.
  And even now we are not working on issues we should be working on. 
Instead, the Senate majority broke the rules the change the rules, and 
we are here processing nominations instead of dealing with the problems 
of Obamacare and reining in our debt and spending problems.
  One of the other things we should be working on is a Defense 
authorization bill, but once again the Senate has been prohibited from 
doing its job. The Senate majority leader blocked all but two 
amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act from 
consideration, and now we will be asked to vote on a package put 
together in a back room by a few Members. That is not right. If you 
want to know what is wrong with the Senate and why people of all 
political persuasions are upset with Congress, that is a big part of 
the answer right there.
  This is a very important bill for our country and there are a lot of 
important issues that we need to discuss. We haven't considered issues 
relating to our nuclear deterrent, privacy concerns relating to the 
NSA, how to address sexual assault in the military, or a number of 
other important issues. In the past, we have spent multiple weeks on 
the defense bill and considered dozens of amendments. That's what we 
should be doing this year too. Our national security needs to be fully 
debated by the entire Senate.
  One of those important issues that we are skipping over is our 
nuclear deterrent on which I offered several amendments. I have the 
honor of representing the city of Cheyenne, WY which is the home of 
F.E. Warren Air Force Base and the 90th ICBM Missile Wing. These are 
top notch men and women who work together to maintain the world's most 
powerful military force.
  Unfortunately, there are those in this administration who take the 
contributions of our military for granted. They don't have the sense of 
history that is needed to appreciate why these weapons were designed 
and put into operation in the first place. They don't see how much they 
are still needed to ensure our future. They don't fully appreciate the 
key role they have played in the past. They seem to think that nuclear 
weapons are part of a bygone era--a relic of the past--that has not 
been needed since the Cold War ended.
  The President is playing a dangerous game with our nation's national 
security. In June he announced that the administration is reducing U.S. 
strategic warheads to as few as 1,000. This is 550 below the 
requirements under New START. This comes at a time that both Russia and 
China are modernizing their nuclear arsenals at a frenetic pace. Even 
more troubling, however, are the reports that the administration may 
seek to avoid Congress and undertake further nuclear reductions outside 
of the formal treaty process.
  The administration's views on our nuclear deterrent should come as no 
surprise to us or anyone who has

[[Page 19160]]

watched the development of these ideas since they were first offered 
for consideration. We've seen President Obama promise to do all that he 
can to reduce our nuclear arsenal--step by step. First, he rammed the 
New START Treaty through the Senate by promising commitments that he 
ultimately did not keep. One of those was the promise to modernize our 
nuclear force, which we're still waiting on.
  I have serious concerns about this policy position, because I believe 
maintaining a strong nuclear force, which includes ICBMs, is a critical 
part of protecting our country, which is why I voted against New START. 
ICBMs are not only cost-effective and reliable, they are a visual 
reminder that America stands ready to protect itself and its allies 
from any who would do us harm. By preserving our ICBM force, states 
like Wyoming play an important role in keeping America strong and free.
  Important issues like these are why we need to allow Senators to do 
their job--offer amendments, debate them, and take votes. This is the 
least we can do for our national security and the men and women who lay 
their lives on the line every day to protect our freedoms.
  We should also be addressing the fact that the coal industry is under 
regulatory attack in Washington. Since being sworn into office, 
President Obama's rule-making machine has released rule-after-rule 
designed to make it more expensive to use coal.
  Instead of encouraging production, the administration always seems to 
be busy trying to do everything it can to restrict production. When 
their policies cause a drop in supplies and prices go up they're 
mystified when they see that people are growing more and more concerned 
about their energy bills.
  Instead of running from coal, we should invest in its abundance, in 
its power and its potential. Instead of running from coal, America 
needs to run on coal. Coal supplies nearly half the Nation with low 
cost, reliable energy. Because we generate 87 percent of our 
electricity from coal, Wyoming's electricity rates are among the lowest 
in the Nation. The coal industry also provided--directly and 
indirectly--over 700,000 good paying jobs in 2010. It is no wonder it 
is so essential to the U.S. economy.
  Fortunately, we have coal champions in the House and Senate who fully 
realize that we have to work together to keep our coal industry active, 
vital and productive for the people they employ, the families in 
America who rely on inexpensive energy and our Nation's economy.
  I hope more of my Senate colleagues will join me in fighting back 
against President Obama's war on coal. Working together we can take a 
stand against this administration's goal of higher electricity costs.
  We should be working to address improper payments and duplication. 
These are a huge leak in our national finances. They are avoidable 
wastes of taxpayer dollars. They are obstacles to better and more 
efficient operations. Ending waste and duplication like this not only 
helps get our fiscal house back in order, but can help restore some 
confidence in the ability of the government to operate effectively.
  The Government Accountability Office has reported that 31 areas of 
the Federal Government are in need of reform to eliminate duplicative 
and unnecessary programs. Consolidating programs and agency functions 
that overlap would save 95 billion; 2013 is the third year the GAO has 
been producing its report on duplication. Unfortunately, Congress and 
the administration have only address a fifth of the recommendations 
that have been made to fix overlap and duplication.
  In fiscal year 2012, there were nearly $100 billion in improper 
payments. These are payments that shouldn't even be going out the door, 
to people who are no longer eligible for benefits or overpayments of 
benefits or, in the worst cases, payments to people who are deceased. 
To put the overpayments in perspective, the annual spending reductions 
required under sequestration are $85 billion. That's almost 15 billion 
less than the improper payments going out the door.
  We should be working on the problems that have arisen as a result of 
Dodd-Frank. In 2010, I voted against the Dodd-Frank act because I had 
serious concerns about the excessive regulations it created and the 
unintended consequences it would have for folks who had nothing to do 
with the financial crisis.
  The law requires a host of new regulations for banks and non-banking 
entities no matter what size they are. The big banks that have more 
funds and man power to handle the new regulations are fine; it's the 
small banks in our communities that don't have the resources to keep up 
with all the extra paperwork.
  The 300 plus new regulations from the act--only about 40 percent of 
the total expected--are already creating regulatory uncertainty as they 
are written and implemented. We are now seeing some of the consequences 
I spoke about in 2010. The problems are numerous and I am glad that 
some of my colleagues are starting to listen and help look for 
solutions.
  One of my constituents, Wesley from Jackson, WY, wrote to me with a 
great example of some of the unintended consequences of this law and 
its effect on small business. Here's what he had to say: ``I am writing 
to you as member of the Wyoming small business community to report on 
the implementation of an add-on to the Dodd-Frank act. Specifically 
section 1502, conflict minerals. This legislation is imposing a very 
severe burden especially on small businesses in the tech sector. I and 
others struggling to conform to the new requirements have found that 
they are usually impossible to meet in either the spirit or the letter 
of the law. I will explain. Section 1502 requires as I understand that 
publicly traded American companies must certify that their products do 
not contain conflict minerals--minerals obtained in the DRC--a noble 
goal indeed. The basic problem is that in practice, this certification 
is nearly impossible to meet. We are a small private company and are 
not explicitly subject to the regulation. However we have received 
numerous requests for these certifications from our (publicly traded) 
clients, which means that for them to meet the regulation, we must do 
so as well, and on down the line. Attempting to fulfill these 
requirements in order to keep our business will occupy 100s of man 
hours this year that we don't have. This chain of requirements goes all 
the way to the raw material suppliers, where the ore originates. This 
is perhaps hundreds of levels in the chain for us. For the vast 
majority of materials we would want to purchase, our suppliers (of 
finished parts) cannot provide the certification, which means that we 
cannot provide it to our clients, which means that they will not buy 
from us. It is not possible for any honest firm to actually meet the 
requirements, because it is not possible to buy certified parts in many 
cases. For example we purchase resistors, which are purchased from 
large wholesalers and may come from many different vendors. Some of 
these vendors are overseas, and will not provide the certification even 
though the products are probably conflict-free. This means that the 
wholesaler must either lie to certify his product to us, or provide a 
certification that says ``we don't know the status of our parts but are 
looking into it''. We must then do the same to our clients, and on up 
the chain. At no point in this process is it possible for an honest 
citizen to actually know the conflict status of their materials. We 
have received boilerplate ``we don't know'' certificates from nearly 
every vendor we have asked for certification, and this is happening all 
across the industry. No one can provide a real certificate: if anyone 
along the supply chain is foreign-owned, the chain of certification 
usually ends there. Nearly everything we would want to use in our 
products has some components that are foreign, and not certifiable. I 
would suggest that the burden of proof should be confined to companies 
that purchase the raw materials from smelters. At this level of the 
supply chain it would be possible to actually verify one's sources, but 
for thousands of small to large businesses across the nation, this is 
simply a severe paperwork burden which does not

[[Page 19161]]

actually serve to meet the intended goal. Please let us get back to our 
work.''
  First let me say I love representing folks in Wyoming. They 
understand the issues and offer great common sense solutions. What 
Wesley pointed out in his letter is what I talked about when we debated 
this bill--the unintended consequences associated with a massive bill 
like this one that the majority crams through without consideration in 
the committee of jurisdiction will be many and they will be complex. It 
is unfortunate that businesses like Wesley's are being stymied by 
regulations while trying to maintain honest business practices. As a 
former small business owner, I have been an advocate for small business 
and have worked to scale back the inundation of federal regulations on 
businesses large and small.
  Dodd-Frank also created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 
which has no congressional oversight and is funded not through the 
congressional appropriations process but by the FED. I have serious 
concerns about this agency and the lack of oversight and transparency.
  The Bureau, as allowed by the Dodd-Frank act, could spend up to $600 
million every year, but is not subject to the congressional 
appropriations process, the same congressional appropriations process 
that approves the budgets of other agencies like the Securities and 
Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Instead, the 
agency is funded through revenues from the Federal Reserve, funds that 
are supposed to be remitted to the Treasury for deficit reduction. The 
CFPBs cut is 10 percent for fiscal year 2011, 11 percent for fiscal 
year 2012, and will be 12 percent for fiscal year 2013 and beyond. This 
means 12 percent of the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve 
System, which was $4.98 billion in 2009. At that time, 10 percent would 
be just under $500 million.
  We are giving all this money to an agency to look into, and track, 
the financial decisions of American consumers. That's right. News 
reports in April 2013 indicated the CFPB was collecting information on 
as many as 10 million Americans and compiling sophisticated, layered 
consumer profiles including credit card, overdraft, mortgage and 
student loan information on individuals. Most recently, reports 
indicate the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking to monitor 
four out of every five U.S. credit card transactions this year--up to 
42 billion transactions. The agency also has the goal of monitoring up 
to 95 percent of all mortgage transactions.
  When the Dodd-Frank act was under consideration in the Senate, I 
filed an amendment to require the CFPB to obtain the written consent of 
the consumer before they could collect any financial data. My amendment 
was not allowed to come up for a vote. I most recently filed a similar 
amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA, to address 
this issue. Right now consumers have no say; the CFPB can and will 
collect their financial data with no input from consumers at all. I 
have long believed in the importance of financial literacy and consumer 
protections, but I can't condone the CFPB putting together a ``Google 
Earth'' of the financial transactions of American citizens.
  Any conversation I have with the banking community in my home State 
of Wyoming invariably turns to concerns over the regulatory burden 
being passed down to them by the CFPB. Just last month a longtime 
member of the banking community in Wyoming relayed that a small 
community bank in Lusk, WY--population around 1,550--has discontinued 
residential real estate lending because they don't have the man power 
to comply with new regulations from the CFPB.
  The bad actors this agency is supposed to weed out is hitting the 
folks who provide needed services in our country's smallest communities 
with their one-size-fits-all regulations and requirements. This is only 
the tip of the iceberg.
  Mr. President, these are not the only issues we need to address, but 
they are some of the most important. And the United States would be 
better served if we were working on these issues than voting on non-
essential nominations.

                          ____________________