Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Maryland for being willing to take a voice vote, knowing that would be in the minority.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2916.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate the senior Senator from Nevada protecting the bipartisan amendment that was put forward by the junior Senator from Nevada to make sure that stays in the bill. I suggest that we have a voice vote.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. This amendment would exempt individuals eligible for advanced premium tax credits from the larger tax credit repeal in the bill. As a matter of policy and fairness, I do not believe that just because an individual is eligible for an advanceable tax credit, they should be exempt from the larger repeal. I also object to the repeated attempt to pay for this amendment by increasing taxes on hard-working Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this message. The pending amendment No. 2919 would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Under ObamaCare, health insurance plans are decreasing, they are narrower, and they are giving sick individuals fewer choices and fewer options over their health care. Repealing ObamaCare is the first step in moving toward health care that is better for all Americans, including those who Senators Murphy and Stabenow intend to help. This amendment also again proposes the Buffett tax, taxing foreign inversion corporations as domestic, and expanding limitations on executive compensation deductibility. I believe the problem with Washington's finances is that our government spends too much and lives outside its means. I am continually working to put our country's finances on a sustainable path so that more Americans can keep more of their hard-earned money. We don't need higher taxes. I urge my colleagues to oppose the upcoming motion to waive. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 2918 would cause the underlying legislation to exceed the authorizing committee's 302(a) allocation of new budget authority or outlays. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for letting me interrupt at this time. We passed a bill earlier, and normally I would have spoken after final passage, but I didn't want to hold people up who had transportation plans, so I reserved my comments until later. I appreciate this opportunity to speak at this time. I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from California for the significant highway bill they passed tonight. I know there was a lot of work that went into that and a lot of good things will come out of it. It will make a difference for the economy in the United States. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I know if we can get the private sector to increase by just 1 percent, we bring in $400 billion more in revenue without raising taxes, and raising the economy by 1 percent in the private sector is significant.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today we also passed the most comprehensive and far-reaching repeal of ObamaCare that is possible under the reconciliation rules. We expect the House to pass this version shortly and soon this repeal will head to the President's desk for the first time in his tenure. Our bill will eliminate more than $1.2 trillion in ObamaCare tax hikes and save nearly $400 billion over 10 years. Lifting the burdens this law has placed on hard-working families will help move the Nation forward from ObamaCare's broken promises to better access to patient- centered health care for each and every American. As I noted earlier, our Nation has made great strides in improving the quality of life for all Americans, but these changes were always forged in the spirit of bipartisan compromise and cooperation. We still need health care reform, but it has to be done the right way. To have good health care, we will have to have ideas from both parties, not just one party. Tonight we made significant progress to pointing out a bunch of the flaws, and there were a lot of people who were involved in that and I wish to take this opportunity to thank them. We gave instructions to the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that they were each to save $1 billion. So Senator Hatch and his staff went to work on it, and Senator Alexander and his staff went to work on it, and they accomplished that task in conjunction with the House. So I thank them for their effort. I thank the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee, and especially my staff director, Eric Ueland; as well as my deputy staff director, Dan Kowalski; the parliamentarian, Tori Gorman; the senior budget analyst, Steve Robinson; the budget analysts, Greg D'Angelo and Tom Borck; the junior budget analyst, Kaitlin Vogt; the chief counsel, George Everly; the assistant counsel, Clint Brown; the director of regulatory review, Susan Eckerly; and the editor, Elizabeth Keys. I also wish to thank the people on my personal staff who had to put some of their projects kind of secondary at times and then had to pitch in and help with the budget as well. I also want to express my appreciation to the staff from Leader McConnell's office. Leader McConnell is a tremendous strategist and has opened the process for the Senate so that great things like the highway bill can be done, and that is done by allowing committees to do amendments, and then allowing the committee bill to come to the floor and have amendments from both sides of the aisle in an open process, and then to go to conference committee and have the conference committee do their work to make sure that the House and the Senate are together. Some of the chief people who worked on that are the chief of staff, Sharon Soderstrom; his policy advisor, Scott Raab; his budget and appropriations policy advisor, Jon Burks; and his policy director, Hazen Marshall. In addition, our floor and cloakroom staff has been very helpful, led by Laura Dove and Robert Duncan. Senator Cornyn and his staff did a marvelous job of helping to find out what difficulties there were and what things needed to be corrected. Senator Thune did a great job of lining up speakers, and Senator Barrasso did a great job with his staff in lining up some of the messaging. Thanks are due to the Senate Finance Committee, including the staff director, Chris Campbell; the chief health counsel and policy director, Jay Khosla; and the health policy advisor, Katie Simeon; the tax counsel, Preston Rutledge; and the health policy advisor, Becky Shipp. I extend my gratitude to the staff of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, as well as Senator Alexander, who has done a marvelous job there. I thank his staff director, David Cleary, his deputy staff director, Lindsey Seidman, his senior policy adviser and health council, Liz Wroe, and his health policy director, Mary Sumpter Lapinski. I also need to thank the former budget staff people who lent their expertise on this, particularly Bill Hoagland. We are in a process that may help with some of the future accounting for projects and things and that is to do some budget reform. A lot of people have talked about budgeting reform and we have been doing some hearings on budget reform. We will be putting together a bill, and to make it a bipartisan bill it will have to go into effect in 2017. At that point nobody will know who will be in the majority, so we will all work to have a process that will be fair to both sides just in case we happen to be in the minority or the other side happens to be in the minority. So we have a lot of people on both sides who have been working on that issue, and we will hold a number of hearings yet and hopefully come up with a process where we can get rid of old programs, eliminate duplication, and make the programs that we have be far better. Some of the people who have worked on that in the past have been Senator Domenici, who was the chairman of the committee; Senator Gregg, who was the chairman of the committee; and Senator Patty Murray, who was the chairman of the Budget Committee. One of the early ones, Senator Phil Gramm, has donated some of his time to come and work with both sides to take a look at what some of the future economic problems are, and he is also one of the foremost economic predictors, so we can make sure all of those things will come together as we work on future budgets. Of course, I would be grossly in error if I didn't mention the House chairman of the Budget Committee, Tom Price. He and I have been meeting at least once a week with our staffs and coordinating what is being done on both sides, both from a process standpoint, from a policy standpoint, from a bill standpoint, and from a budget standpoint. I think that paid off in what we are seeing tonight. Last and particularly not least, I need to think the Parliamentarians. I need to thank Elizabeth MacDonough, Leigh Hildebrand, Michael Beaver, Thomas Cuffie. These are some unsung heroes of the U.S. Senate who do a bipartisan--a nonpartisan job for us of kind of refereeing when asked, and when you are doing a reconciliation bill, you are forced to ask. I had no idea what the process was and the difficulty and the time that is involved, but all of that was spent by the Parliamentarians. We are all familiar with the rule book that is in every one of these desks and about this thick. That is a small part of it. In their office, they have file cabinets full of precedents. If you are drafting a bill that has to meet the kind of rules and the tight constraints that a reconciliation bill has, they have to meet with you on a regular basis and give their opinion and review all of these precedents to see if it can be put together the way we think it ought to be put together to be sure that when it comes to the floor, it can be voted on and when it is done, it actually is a bill that will be possible to send to the President's desk. So I thank the Parliamentarians for presiding. I know the tremendous job they do of advising whoever sits in the Presiding Officer's chair, but this was a whole new level of instruction as I found out all of the things that they have to have as a part of their knowledge, and I really appreciate the effort they go to, the knowledge they already have, and the important role they play in this process. I know I left out a lot of people, but to anybody who participated, I want to thank them for their efforts and hope that out of all of these budget processes, what we come up with is a better America. I yield the floor, and I thank the chairman.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 4305 of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation related to health care reform. The authority to adjust is contingent on the legislation not increasing the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016-2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016-2025. I find that Senate amendment 2916 fulfills the conditions of deficit neutrality found in section 4305 of S. Con. Res. 11. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations to the Committee on Finance, the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, and the budgetary aggregates to account for the budget effects of the amendment. I am also adjusting the unassigned to committee savings levels in the budget resolution to reflect that, while there are savings in the amendment attributable to both the HELP and Finance committees, the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation are unable to produce unique estimates for each provision due to interactions and other effects that are estimated simultaneously. The adjustments that I filed on Tuesday, December 2, 2015, are now void and replaced by these new adjustments. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, earlier this year, Congress approved its first balanced 10-year budget since 2001. In addition to helping make our government more efficient, effective, and accountable, this balanced budget resolution contained reconciliation instructions to provide for the repeal of Obamacare and pave the way for real health care reforms to strengthen the doctor-patient relationship; expand choices; lower health care costs; and improve access to quality, affordable, innovative health care. These instructions focused on the key congressional committees with jurisdiction over Obamacare--the Senate Finance Committee; Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; House Energy and Commerce Committee; House Education and the Workforce Committee; and the House Ways and Means Committee. Our friends in the House passed their repeal bill in October and November, which repealed key parts of Obamacare, including the individual and employer mandates, the Cadillac tax, and the medical device tax, which is pending here today. As most everyone knows, while the House and Senate are known collectively as Congress, they both have very different rules. This is why it is important to ensure that the House-passed repeal bill is in line with Senate rules and procedures. The reconciliation process is governed by a combination of statutory rules, budget resolution provisions, precedents--and the interpretations of all these applicable standards ensure that any legislation which says it qualifies for reconciliation does actually do so. The repeal bill passed by the House, H.R. 3762, contained material that qualified the bill in the House as meeting the conditions for reconciliation. The provisions were marked up and reported out of the three House reconciled committees, combined together by the House Budget Committee, improved upon by the House Rules Committee, and acted on by the full House of Representatives. The Obamacare repeal bill approved by the House contains provisions which fall in the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance and HELP Committees and satisfies the Senate reconciliation instruction by reducing the deficit well over $1 billion. However, while the House bill does qualify as meeting the essential standards necessary for reconciliation in the Senate, it is not immune from the Senate-specific requirements under the Byrd rule, which is the reason for the McConnell amendment offered earlier. The Byrd rule was crafted in an effort to ensure that matter inside a reconciliation bill has at its core a budgetary effect. The Byrd rule and the reconciliation instruction work together to evaluate the material inside H.R. 3762 for its consideration in the Senate. Working with the committees reconciled in the Senate, Leader McConnell and his leadership team, the House Budget Committee, the Senate Parliamentarian and her staff, the staff of the minority and the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, H.R. 3762 has been exhaustively examined, debated, and had decisions rendered as to how to evaluate it from a reconciliation and Byrd rule perspective. I think it is important for all Senators to understand what has been done to address those challenges to ensure that the House bill's provisions are not vulnerable to a variety of Byrd rule challenges. In H.R. 3762, section 1 contains both a short title and a table of contents that have no score and therefore do not qualify as reconciliation material. The McConnell substitute amendment does not contain section 1. Obamacare mandated that businesses with more than 50 employees automatically enroll their employees in Obamacare, the so-called auto- enrollment provision. H.R. 3762 eliminated that mandate. Subsequent to House passage, the administration struck a spending deal with Congress, which used the repeal of the auto-enrollment provision as an offset. Since that provision is now law, it does not score for purposes of reconciliation and was Byrdable. The House removed that language when it engrossed the bill and sent it to the Senate last month. It is no longer in the House bill and is not addressed in the McConnell amendment. Obamacare created a fund, the so-called Prevention and Public Health Fund, which has been used for a variety of purposes since 2010. The House bill in section 101 repealed that fund and rescinded its unobligated balances. The McConnell amendment does the same. In section 102 of H.R. 3762, a deficit reduction provision for Medicaid was included, creating a new class of prohibited entities for which Medicaid reimbursement is barred. While the House language qualifies for reconciliation consideration in the Senate, the McConnell amendment makes even clearer how the language is to apply to Medicaid, not any Federal spending. As well, it clarifies the tests applied to entities to determine whether or not they fall into the prohibited class. Section 103 of the House bill created new resources for community health center programs, and the McConnell amendment contains the same language. Obamacare imposed mandates to purchase health care insurance on both individuals and employers. Sections 201 and 202 of the House bill repealed those mandates. Unfortunately, this language does not qualify under the Byrd rule in the Senate. In the judgement of the Parliamentarian, the policy impact of these repeals outweighs their fiscal impact. As well, there is technical and conforming language in both sections 201 and 202 of the House bill that do not score and therefore are inappropriate for reconciliation in the Senate. As a result, the McConnell amendment addresses the mandates but in a different way. Rather than containing language that repeals them, the McConnell amendment repeals the penalties, which Obamacare instituted to punish those who wanted the freedom to choose in the health care insurance market. Obamacare imposed a tax on medical devices, which section 203 of H.R. 3762 repealed. The McConnell amendment does the same without the conforming and clerical amendments in this section that the House bill contains. Clerical and conforming amendments do not score and so do not qualify for consideration under the Byrd rule. Obamacare imposed a tax on high-quality health insurance, the so- called Cadillac tax. H.R. 3762 repealed that tax, but the repeal contained technical and conforming language that violates the Byrd rule. As well, according to CBO, the House language created a possible deficit sometime well after the reconciliation window, which is another violation of the Byrd rule. To address these problems, the McConnell amendment removes the technical and conforming language that violates the Byrd rule and sunsets the Cadillac tax repeal at the end of 2024. The McConnell amendment also contains an additional policy. Working in concert with the Senate Finance Committee, the McConnell amendment contains reconciliation-compliant language to recapture excess exchange subsidies that have been paid but which were not supposed to go out the door. Over 10 years, this will have a significant deficit reduction impact. The pending McConnell amendment, then, addresses the Byrd rule challenges contained within the House bill. It has a deficit reduction impact equal to the House-passed bill. It is reconciliation compliant. It will be the pending language to which amendments should be drafted and offered during consideration of the repeal bill. The Budget Act calls for a submission for the Record of Byrdable material contained in the reconciliation bill, and I will ask that the list of Byrdable material in H.R. 3762 be printed in the Record. Mr. President, pursuant to section 313(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I submit for the Record a list of material considered to be extraneous to H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015. The inclusion or exclusion of a provision on this list does not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent the list be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. For the information of Senators, this UC does not alter the existing traditions that prohibit the use of such devices in the Chamber by Senators in general, officers, and staff. It also does not allow the use of videos or pictures, the transmitting of sound, even through earpieces, for any purposes, the use of telephones or other devices for voice communications, any laptop computers, any detachable keyboards, the use of desktop computers or any other larger devices.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in quorum calls requested during Senate consideration of H.R. 3762 be equally divided and come off of the reconciliation bill.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the Senate's consideration of H.R. 3762, the majority and Democratic managers of the reconciliation bill, while seated or standing at the managers' desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet devices. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. ENZI. I also ask unanimous consent that two scores from CBO be printed in the Record: a score of H.R. 3762 as received in the Senate and a score of the McConnell amendment.

Mr. ENZI. I think Members are looking forward to an open and spirited debate about the future of America's health care system and the importance of restoring the trust of hard-working taxpayers. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Oklahoma needs to respond.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following staff members from my staff and from Senator Sanders' staff be given all-access floor passes for the duration of the consideration of H.R. 3762: Greg D'Angelo, George Everly, Tori Gorman, and Clint Brown from my staff; and Mike Jones, Josh Smith, Jill Harrelson, and Josh Ryan from Senator Sanders' staff.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, section 4305 of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation related to health care reform. The authority to adjust is contingent on the legislation not increasing the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016-2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016-2025. I find that Senate amendment 2874 fulfills the conditions of deficit neutrality found in sec. 4305 of S. Con. Res. 11. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations to the Committee on Finance; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP; and the budgetary aggregates to account for the budget effects of the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for December 2015. The report compares current law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts provided in the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016. This information is necessary to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. It has been prepared by the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. This is the fourth report I have made since adoption of the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution on May 5, 2015. My last filing can be found in the Congressional Record on October 27, 2015. The information contained in this report is current through November 30, 2015. This will be the final scorekeeping report for calendar year 2015. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee is below or exceeds its allocation under the budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocation pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, CBA. Over the fiscal year 2016-2025 period, which is the entire period covered by S. Con. Res. 11, Senate authorizing committees have spent $3.3 billion less than the budget resolution calls for. Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds the statutory spending limits. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in section 312 and section 314 of the CBA. While no full-year appropriations bills have been enacted for fiscal year 2016, subcommittees are charged with permanent and advanced appropriations that first become available in that year. Table 3 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds its allocation for overseas contingency operations/globaI war on terrorism, OCO/GWOT, spending. This separate allocation for OCO/GWOT was established in section 3102 of S. Con. Res. 11 and is enforced using section 302 of the CBA. No bills providing funds with the OCO/GWOT designation on a full-year basis have been enacted thus far for fiscal year 2016. The budget resolution established two new points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPS. Tables 4 and 5 show compliance with fiscal year 2016 limits for overall CHIMPS and the Crime Victims Fund CHIMP, respectively. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 and section 3104, respectively. No full-year bills have been enacted thus far for fiscal year 2016 that include CHIMPS. In addition to the tables provided by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting additional tables from CBO that I will use for enforcement of budget levels agreed to by the Congress. For fiscal year 2016, CBO annualizes the effects of the Continuing Appropriations Act, P.L. 114-53, which provides funding through December 11, 2015. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Senate Budget Committee historically excludes this temporary funding. As such, the current law levels are $882.6 billion and $521.6 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Revenues are $413 million above the level assumed in the budget resolution. Finally, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016, while Social Security revenues are $18 million above assumed levels for the budget year. CBO's report also provide information needed to enforce the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule. The Senate's pay-as-you-go scorecard currently shows deficit reduction of $16.7 billion over the fiscal year 2015-2020 period and $77.5 billion over the fiscal year 2015-2025 period. Over the initial 6-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that would increase revenues by $12 billion and decrease outlays by $4.6 billion. Over the 11-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that would increase revenues by $24.2 billion and decrease outlays by $53.3 billion. The Senate's pay-as-you-go rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, shortly we will be getting on a bill to repeal ObamaCare. It comes as a part of the budget operation. It is a special debate that can result in the passage of a bill with 51 votes in the Senate. There will be a limit on the debate of 20 hours--10 hours for each side--to convey any messages that Senators may have about the bill and also to handle any amendments. At the end of the process there could be another vote-arama if there are a lot of amendments left over. This is an amendable bill. It has quite a few rules that fall under the budget process that make this a bit more difficult than just a wide-open bill, so there are rules that have to be met in order for an amendment to not affect the outcome of the bill. Many of you have heard of the expression, I am sure, ``caveat emptor,'' which means buyer beware. The President and the Democrats in Congress should have heeded this warning before forcing the country to purchase ObamaCare, which still remains unworkable, unaffordable, and more unpopular than ever. For millions of Americans the law today represents nothing more than broken promises, higher costs, and fewer choices. It is no surprise that a Gallup poll published last month, more than 5 years after the law was passed and several years into actual implementation, shows that most Americans still oppose this unprecedented expansion of government intrusion into health care decisions for hard-working families and small businesses. Another poll I found interesting showed that more people were concerned about what has happened with health care than they do about climate change. That is appropriate for this week. The law is saddling American households with more than $1 trillion in new taxes over the next 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will cost taxpayers more than $116 billion a year. In fact, on average, every American household can expect more than $20,000 in new taxes over the next 10 years because of this bill. ObamaCare's crushing regulations mean smaller paychecks for families while holding back small businesses from expanding and hiring new workers. For every American, ObamaCare has meant more government, more bureaucracy, and more rules and regulations, along with soaring health care costs and less access to care. When we were debating this bill 5 years ago, I remember talking about 30 million people in the United States being uninsured. Today there are 30 million people in the United States uninsured, it is just a different 30 million people. The ones who couldn't be insured are insured and the ones who were insured can't afford the insurance. Of course, there was a lot of talk about health care companies gouging the insured. We put in risk corridors so those who were making an excess profit would put in money that would go to those who didn't figure on the right number of people or how healthy the people would be who they insured. We now know that didn't work. The amount of money that went into the fund was rather insignificant, so those who undercharged aren't getting much and companies are going out of business. Today we take a crucial step forward in beginning to lift the burdens and the higher cost of this law that has been placed on all Americans. As I mentioned, this is a special budget operation that only requires 51 votes. The House has already passed a bill with more than a significant majority. By the time we are done, the legislation the Senate passes will eliminate more than $1 trillion in tax increases placed on the American people while saving more than $500 billion in spending. Most importantly, this bill begins to build a bridge from the President's broken promises to a better health care system for hard-working families across the country. Let's talk about the broken promises. As a Presidential candidate, then-Senator Obama promised Americans they could keep their health plan if they liked it. When he was in office and the bill was there, he said: If you like your plan, you can keep it. Millions soon learned they can't. This is because ObamaCare has drastically reduced America's choice among health care plans through a Federal Government takeover of the insurance marketplace. In fact, the President's promise, ``If you like your plan, you can keep it,'' was named PolitiFact's ``Lie of the Year'' in 2013 after the health care plan cancellations were mailed to over 4 million Americans. Let's talk about the higher costs. Americans were also promised lower health care costs, but even the administration admits ObamaCare is failing to address costs and said average premiums are expected to rise by 7.5 percent this year. Recent headlines from across the country actually show much more dramatic increases. In Minnesota insurance policies on the exchange have rate hikes in the double digits--between 14 and 49 percent. In Oregon premiums for the benchmark plan on the exchange will go up about 23 percent. In Alaska the premium hike will be more than 31 percent for the benchmark plan. In Oklahoma the second lowest cost silver plan premiums will increase more than 35 percent. In Utah plans on the federally run exchange will be 22 percent higher next year. The President of the United States himself promised that this bill was not a tax. In fact, this was one of the law's top selling points because Democrats knew it would never pass if they said it was a tax, but while they got the bill passed and signed into law, the Supreme Court later ruled it is a tax. This law was deceptively sold to the American people and now these hidden taxes are being passed on to hard- working families in the form of higher fees and costs. It is time for Democrats in Congress and the President to admit that ObamaCare is a $1 trillion tax hike that families and employers simply can't afford. We can talk about fewer choices. ObamaCare's mandates and taxes on employer-sponsored health care plans are not only leading to higher out-of-pocket expenses but also fewer choices and services for 150 million Americans who have relied upon job-based health benefits for decades. It eliminated some of the competition, and competition is the real way to bring down prices. I remember when we did Medicare Part D. I was a little concerned because there were only two companies that were providing the pharmaceutical benefit in Wyoming, and I thought they would maybe drop out of the program, but Medicare Part D increased competition. What did increased competition do? It brought down the price of the pharmaceuticals by 25 percent before it even went into effect. ObamaCare didn't provide for more competition. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, employees who have job-based insurance have witnessed their out-of-pocket expenses, on average for an individual, climb from $900 in 2010 to $1,300 in 2015. Employees working for small businesses now have deductibles of over $1,800. Since ObamaCare became law, several large employers have stopped offering benefits to part-time employees, including Walmart, Target, Home Depot, and Trader Joe's. The premiums have gone up and the deductibles have gone up. There are fewer choices and higher costs. So this was supposed to build a bridge to better care. Over the past 50 years, our Nation has made great strides in improving the quality of life for all Americans, but these transformative changes were always forged in the spirit of bipartisan compromise and cooperation. These qualities are essential to the success and longevity of crucial programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. Shortly before he retired in 2001, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat from New York, said: Never pass legislation that affects most Americans without real bipartisan support. It opens the doors to all kinds of political trouble. Senator Moynihan correctly noted that the side that didn't support the law will focus on each and every misstep. More importantly, he predicted that the measure's very legitimacy would always be in doubt and that the majority of Americans would have trouble supporting it in the long run unless it unquestionably achieved all of its goals. We have seen each of these scenarios play out over the past 5 years as the health care law has polarized America like nothing before. Bipartisan support, of course, means that both sides get some things into the mix of the bill. That did not happen even though we had a very extensive amendment process in committee and on the floor. Essentially, the Republican ideas were all thrown out. Both sides weren't included, so it was not a bipartisan bill. After passage of the bill, we had a special time at the Blair House where there were half Republicans and half Democrats who got to speak with the President for a day. The amazing thing at that meeting was that every time a Republican mentioned an idea, the President blasted it immediately. When the Democrats suggested an idea, those were all good. At the end of the day, it turned out to be very much a waste of time because not a single idea was even considered that was brought up at that time by the Republicans. We still need health care reform, but it has to be done the right way--not comprehensive. In my opinion, ``comprehensive'' means so large that nobody can understand it, and that is kind of what happened with this bill. We have to do it step by step. They can be pretty big steps, but if we do it step by step, we can bring the American public along. They can understand it, and they can tell us the unintended consequences, and those can be fixed. It would be correctable. This bill hasn't been correctable. We have known the flaws. The President has put waivers on to keep us from noticing them sooner. We have offered to make corrections but have never been taken up on our offer. Providing access to high-quality, affordable health care is something I am confident that Democrats and Republicans should be able to do. It is time to build a bridge from the broken promises to better health care for each and every American once and for all.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4 p.m. today, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits, while sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. Today the Senate agreed to consider H.R. 2577, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The bill includes a provision related to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's administrative costs for disaster relief activities that results in $1 million in outlays. This provision is designated as an emergency pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act of 1985. The inclusion of this designation makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. As a result, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for 2016 by $1 million in outlays. I am also increasing the 2016 allocations to the Appropriations Committee by $1 million in outlays. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to speak about this battle and regulatory war being waged by the Environmental Protection Agency. Just 2 weeks ago, the Senate considered two measures aimed at rolling back ill-thought-out rules by the EPA--the waters of the United States rule. The body did the right thing in stating our bipartisan resolve against the rule. Unfortunately, here we are again, another week, another proposed rule to massively expand the EPA's power, and another attempt by this administration to stomp out America's coal industry. That is exactly what the Clean Power Plan is--a miscalculated regulation aimed at keeping coal in the ground at any cost. This latest travesty of a rule, known as the Clean Power Plan, requires States to develop and implement plans to reduce carbon emissions between 2022 and 2030 in order to accomplish interim and final emission goals established by the EPA. Let me clarify that. This is actually not one rule but three separate rules which, taken together, would be more aptly named the ``No Power Plan.'' The Clean Power Plan includes a final rule to revise carbon pollution standards for new, modified, and reconstructed power plants; a final rule to revise carbon pollution standards for existing power plants; and thirdly, a Federal plan for enactment and enforcement of the other two rules. Simple, right? No. Under the guise of flexibility and cooperation, the CPP requires States to choose between two types of plans, described by the EPA as an ``emission standards'' approach or a ``state measures'' approach. Some States, such as my home State of Wyoming, will have some terrible choices to make under the CPP. Under the final rule, by the year 2030, Wyoming's carbon emissions will have to be 44 percent lower than in 2005, which is the baseline year the EPA uses for the plan. That is more than double the 19-percent reduction the EPA imposed upon Wyoming in the proposed rule, which was released about 18 months ago, in June of 2014. As Wyoming's Governor Matt Mead said recently when my home State joined 23 others in suing the EPA to strike down the rule, ``The fact that the agency more than doubled the damage to Wyoming in the final rule shows arbitrary and capricious action.'' Not only that, this plan puts the onus on the States to figure out how they are going to do it, and that is so the EPA can avoid a cost- benefit analysis that they are required to do. But not if they force the States to do it! But, of course, if the States don't do it, then the EPA will have to do it, which means the agency should have done a cost-benefit analysis to begin with. But the EPA doesn't have a very good track record on cost-benefit analyses. One of the regulations, the mercury air toxins rule, is going to provide about $500 million in benefits over a 10-year period. It is hard to determine what those benefits are or how the EPA did the calculations. None of it is transparent. But the compliance cost for that $500 million in benefits is up to $43 billion a year. Couldn't we incentivize somebody to come up with a better system for a whole lot less than $43 billion a year, to save $500 million over 10 years? That is another example of an arbitrary and capricious action. So how does Wyoming wind up with such a huge burden under the Clean Power Plan? Because the Clean Power Plan supposes it will achieve carbon emission reductions from electricity generating units that burn fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas. States that produce these fuels are the hardest hit. Wyoming is the largest coal-producing State in the Nation. Wyoming produces 40 percent of the Nation's coal, and coal represents almost 40 percent of the electricity generated in this country. It is abundant, affordable, clean and, most important, it is stockpilable. If the power plants that produce energy from fossil fuels like coal are forced to shutter their doors to make dramatic structural changes, it will have tangible negative impacts on fossil fuel consumers. If that doesn't alarm you, it should, because according to the National Mining Association, every person in America uses 20 pounds of coal a day. Of course, when we are talking about CO2, we are also breathing CO2, and plants need CO2. There is an interesting invention in Wyoming. A guy figured out how to grow plants vertically, and Whole Foods has some of his mechanisms to be able to do that, and you can actually cut your own vegetables while you are in the store. I asked him why he isn't doing greenhouses with this. He said: Not enough CO2. Yes, plants rely on CO2 to live. I suggested that he locate near a power plant, where they can absorb the CO2 and use the waste heat from any power plants and help feed America at the same time. We need to be more innovative in what we are doing instead of just trying to put businesses out of business because we don't like the business. As I said, under the Clean Power Plan, Wyoming will have to reduce its carbon emissions by 44 percent. That isn't just a problem for Wyoming or the 27,000 people employed in the coal industry and the ripple effect it has on people who work with the things that people in the coal industry use. If you represent Illinois or Missouri, you should be worried about CPP, too, because in 2013 each of those States received more than 10 percent of Wyoming's coal. Wisconsin, Kansas, Arkansas, and Michigan each got 5 percent of Wyoming's coal. Wyoming's coal was distributed to Georgia, Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, and Arizona. If I didn't list your State, don't think this issue doesn't affect you. More than a dozen other States and foreign entities got smaller amounts of Wyoming coal in 2013. According to the National Mining Association, which commissioned the report on the Clean Power Plan after it was released, the plan would cost $366 billion and bring double-digit electric rate increases to 43 States. That is more than a 10-percent increase to 43 States. All this because of the administration's vendetta against coal and power plants that burn it and provide energy. Just this week the EPA held a hearing in Denver and received public comments on the proposed Federal plan to implement the Clean Power Plan. That is right. Even though 26 States are suing the EPA to block the plan's implementation, the Agency is going ahead with a rule to implement it. At that hearing, Mickey Shober, a county commissioner from Campbell County, WY, also known as the energy capital of the Nation, had a chance to speak. Campbell County has 11 surface mines that produce over 340 million tons of coal every year, the majority of which is delivered by train to about 30 States across the country for electricity generation. All in all, Campbell County coal provides about one-quarter of the Nation's electricity every year. That is one county. So when a Campbell County commissioner gets up to talk about power generation, everyone should pay attention. As Commissioner Shober pointed out, the coal industry has historically stepped up and dealt with every new regulation and challenge the Federal Government has thrown at it, but the new technology and innovation--the type that will have to be utilized, if there is any way for new and existing power plants to comply with this rule--takes time and takes money. As the commissioner said, America's energy industry always rises to the challenge, but the EPA isn't fighting fair this time. This rule needs to be scrapped in its current form, and that is exactly what these joint resolutions of disapproval will do. Congress has provided billions of dollars in incentives for solar and wind energy. Wyoming produces a lot of solar and wind--primarily solar, because Denver is the Mile High City and you have to go uphill to get to Wyoming. There are high plateaus across the southern part of the State. The first wind turbines that went in Wyoming had to be redesigned because the wind blew so hard that it blew the rotors off. At 80 miles an hour, the rotors on wind turbines will not stand up. They will generate a tremendous amount of power. Most of that power goes out of State, and other States use it but claim offsets from their wind power because it doesn't carry any of these bad connotations from the EPA. Wyoming has to claim all of carbon emissions from the coal and the coal-fired power plants, though most of the electricity produced is sent out of State. So Wyoming gets no credit for the energy it provides, but we get all the disadvantages associated with providing energy. General Electric wanted to build a test facility in Wyoming to figure out better ways to burn coal. They went through all the permitting process to the point of building it. Then they said: Wait a minute. Under this President, who is trying to get rid of coal, who would we sell our product to? So they postponed the project. I have spoken of why this rule is bad for my home State of Wyoming and why it is bad for any State that consumes fossil fuels, but I would be remiss if I didn't address the reasons the Clean Power Plan is bad for the United States. At the end of this month, the President is going to send his team of environmental experts and negotiators to the U.N. Climate Summit in Paris. That summit aims to map out a global accord to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The emissions goals described in CPP, which have been rejected by industry and rejected by almost half the States, are at the heart of this administration's plan to contribute to the overall global emissions reduction. To make commitments to our allies based on the plan which doesn't have the support of the American public is nothing short of irresponsible and disingenuous. We are living in a dangerous, complicated, frightening world--a world that forces our Nation to rely daily on its friends for priceless assets, such as shared intelligence and safe havens at which to strategically position our military troops around the globe. The very least America can give our allied partners in return is our candor. Incidentally, I heard the comments about the growing cases of asthma. There has been a reduction in the amount of CO2, so why would these coal-fired power plants be elevating that health problem? One problem that we have out West is called regional haze here, but we call it smoke from forest fires. This summer we had tremendous smoke from forest fires and it wasn't just smoke, it was ash as well. There hasn't been a power plant putting out ash in decades, but when we don't do the proper stewardship of our forests, we let them burn. If we allowed some of that to be cut into boards for houses, it could reduce the cost of housing, and the CO2 would be trapped forever, not burned up and released into the air and blamed on coal. I am hoping my colleagues will come together today to show our constituents where we and the world stand on the Clean Power Plan. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.