Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Bipartisan Congressional Reform Act I introduced with Senator Whitehouse and many of my colleagues. Last month, the Senate Budget Committee approved our legislation-- that is the Senate Budget Committee--by a vote of 15 to 6, marking the first major legislation reported by the committee on a bipartisan basis in nearly 30 years. I am pleased that 21 Senators have now joined Senator Whitehouse and me as cosponsors of this bill. Since I became chairman of the Budget Committee, we have had more than a dozen hearings on budget process reform. We have met with budgeting experts, including some outstanding State officials, and we have listened to insights and concerns shared by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Along the way, we collected a lot of good ideas that we tried to incorporate into our bill, and I thank all those who contributed. Now, this legislation will not solve all of our fiscal challenges. It does, however, represent a good-faith, bipartisan effort to reform our budget process in a way that encourages long-term planning, realistic and responsible budget assumptions, and the end to the brinksmanship surrounding our Nation's statutory debt limit. This bill will also make evident what needs to be done next. I think we struck a pretty good balance. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says the bill ``would improve transparency and accountability in the budget process'' and would ``make the budget resolution into a more effective governing tool.'' According to the Concord Coalition, which was founded by some Democrats, ``This legislation would move the budget process in a very positive direction.'' Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Concord Coalition be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. The reason I am giving the speech is to clarify some misunderstandings of other groups that were commenting on most of the original version of the bill before amendments from both parties were adopted in committee. I will not detail all the reforms in this bill now, but I would like to highlight a handful of key elements of the bill and hopefully clear up some misunderstanding about it. First of all, our bill tries to ensure that we have better information on which to base budgets. Imagine this for a moment. It would require better information on which to base budgets and more active engagement from the tax-writing and each of the spending committees to ensure that every corner of the Federal budget is scrutinized and that budgets are realistic. It would also require the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office conduct portfolio reviews of Federal spending and tax expenditures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs. Here is what that means: It means grouping projects regardless of which Cabinet Department has jurisdiction so we can see all that we are doing. Use housing, for instance. We have 160 programs under 20 agencies. I can only see 5 reasons--not 160--and they should all be under one jurisdiction, not several Cabinet jurisdictions. So, currently, nobody is in charge of setting goals or seeing if they are effective. We are paying multiple administrators to argue over jurisdiction rather than results--160 of them. Secondly, our bill would reorient the budget process from a yearly to a biannual cycle. Right now, under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Congress is supposed to approve a budget resolution each year that sets discretionary spending levels and provides fiscal parameters for a legislation brought to the Senate floor. The budget resolution can also provide special instructions through a process called reconciliation. What that means is that instructions are given to authorizing and tax-writing committees to develop legislation to achieve hopeful and specific budgetary targets. For a variety of reasons, this process has not worked very well in recent years. Instead, Congress resorts to passing a series of 2-year deals that set discretionary spending limits rather than approving the budget. I need to explain that word ``discretionary.'' Out of all the Federal dollars spent, Congress only votes on about 30 percent of the money spent each year. Seventy percent of the spending is on autopilot. That is mandated to be spent. Discretionary spending is the little amount that Congress actually votes on. Under our bill, Congress would approve a budget resolution in the first year of a biennium that would, among other things, provide appropriators 2 years of discretionary spending totals, similar to a practice in recent years. Leadership, not the Budget Committee, has been negotiating these 2-year spending deals. Thirdly, the bill would make significant reforms to the content of the budget resolution. Discretionary spending totals would be included in the resolution text, where individual Members could amend them. Mandatory spending totals would be broken up by budget function so we could see trends in portfolios of Federal spending. Here is something really new. The budget resolution would also be required to include a target ratio of debt-to-gross domestic product, or GDP, which is generally viewed as the best measure of the country's ability to repay its debt. The hope is that by focusing on our debt-to- GDP target, we could put our country on a glide slope toward a more sustainable fiscal future. Under the reform bill, that glide slope can be cutting spending, raising revenue, or both. Fourth, the bill would provide a mechanism to conform our country's statutory debt limit to the levels in the resolution. This will help incorporate the debt limit into our fiscal planning and provide a powerful incentive to ensure that the targets set in the resolution are attainable. Neither side relishes voting to increase the debt limit, as it is easy fodder for political opponents. Yet there is nearly universal agreement that default would be unacceptable. Our bill tackles this issue in a way that it maintains the debt limit as a tool to ensure fiscal responsibility, while removing the brinksmanship surrounding the potential default. Fifth, our bill would provide a means to initiate reconciliation in the second year of the biennium if Congress isn't living by its fiscal plan. There has been a lot of confusion about this process, so let me take a moment to explain it. As I just mentioned, under our bill, each budget resolution would include 2 years' worth of discretionary spending levels and a debt-to- GDP target for the final year of the budget. That means each new Congress would set its own spending levels and debt targets in its budget agreement, and it would not be bound by the targets established by its predecessors. If, in the second year of the biennium, the Congressional Budget Office finds that Congress is not on track to meet its debt-to-GDP target, then a special reconciliation process is made available. This is akin to what can already be done under current law if you pass a budget resolution in the second year of Congress, but because we are giving appropriators 2 years of discretionary spending levels upfront, we created a new process in the second year if Congress misses its fiscal goals. Contrary to a misconception that has been circulated, however, there is nothing automatic about this process. Before reconciliation can proceed, the Senate Budget Committee, which will be renamed the Committee on Fiscal Control and the Budget, would need to approve a resolution providing deficit-reducing reconciliation instructions to one or more committees. That resolution, which would be amendable, would then be considered by the full Senate. We have added protections to ensure that Senators have the ability to offer amendments and have built in flexibility for unforeseen realities, including economic downturns. We also applied the existing burden rule to this process, which means it cannot be used to make changes to Social Security. Senators could offer amendments to reduce the amount of the deficit reduction called for or they can decide they don't want to proceed with this process at all. If they do decide to move forward with this special reconciliation, each committee that received an instruction would then report legislation within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit. The instructions themselves could not dictate what particular programs are to be included in the reconciliation legislation. That is left up to the authorizing and the tax-writing committees that have specific policy expertise. One thing the instructions could not do is increase the deficit. After each committee approves its instructions, all the recommendations would then be sent to the Committee on Fiscal Control and Budget, where, again, they would need to be approved and reported to the full Senate. After that step, the legislation would come to the floor, where it could be subject to unlimited amendments, giving every Senator another opportunity to support, amend, or oppose the legislation. Each of these steps affords the Members the opportunity to have their ideas incorporated into the special reconciliation or to try to stop it altogether. In addition, a similar process would have to play out in the House of Representatives, and the final bill would have to be signed by the President before any policy changes could be enacted. In general, our legislation does not attempt to prescribe House procedures. That is in deference to the House and the constitutional prerogative of each Chamber of Congress to develop its own rules. I have heard some concerns that this sets up a one-sided bet that could dictate spending cuts over revenue increases because only the House of Representatives can initiate revenue measures. That was never my intention, and during the Budget Committee markup to our legislation, a substitute amendment that Senator Whitehouse and I drafted was adopted that would allow the Senate to deem a revenue measure approved by the House as a special reconciliation vehicle. I look forward to working with the House on addressing the procedural issues. The intent of our special reconciliation process is to force a conversation about our growing debt and deficits, not to dictate what the outcome of that conversation will be. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, the criticisms that this bill is somehow a threat to low-income programs ``is largely misplaced.'' As the group said, ``The tool would not automate any changes to spending or revenue, but would instead establish a process to consider deficit reduction measures. These measures would have to pass the Senate and the House and be signed by the President (a veto override system is also possible). Unlike current reconciliation rules, which have been used to pass deficit-finance tax cuts, this process is limited to deficit reduction and could help policymakers agree to new revenue and to reforms to improve healthcare programs. And long-term deficit reduction can easily co-exist with near-term measures to counter a recession.'' Finally, our bill would prioritize budget transparency. It would give the Senate new budget enforcement tools, and it would remove one of the disincentives to bringing the budget to the floor by fixing the process known as vote-arama. In developing our legislation, I specifically set out to establish a process that would allow us to be thoughtful and deliberate in our fiscal decision making, while avoiding the automatic spending cuts over the last decade, known as sequestration. Under this bill, sequestration is gone. Our bill would not tilt the scales toward one party, ideology, or policy. Rather, it aims to create a neutral process to guide Congress in making reasoned budget decisions. Each Congress will decide what fiscal policy changes may be necessary, whether that means less spending, more revenue, or a combination of the two. We cannot be content to bury our heads in the sand as our more than $23 trillion debt grows unchecked, swallowing the opportunities of future generations. If you, like me, want to see Congress get back to actual budgeting and tackling the difficult fiscal issues that we all need to be addressed, then, please join me in supporting the bill. If you have suggestions on how to make it better, I want to hear them. We are always open to new ideas, and I think we have demonstrated it. With that, I recognize my colleague, who helped to work on this bill. In addition to working on this bill, he was on the special committee for the Budget. It was a joint effort between the House and the Senate, and many of the ideas he brought to this bill from that committee.

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I would like to speak on a topic very important to my wife Diana, to me, and, for that matter, to all of Wyoming, and it should be important to all of America. It is a topic of great importance in Wyoming. It is a topic at the core of what makes Wyoming the Equality State. It is Wyoming Women's Suffrage Day tomorrow. I recently had the pleasure of introducing and, along with my friend Senator Barrasso, passing S. Res. 430, which recognizes tomorrow, December 10, 2019, as Wyoming Women's Suffrage Day. Wyoming Women's Suffrage Day celebrates the contribution of women to our great State and Wyoming's place in history as the trailblazer for women's suffrage. One hundred and fifty years ago, on December 10, 1869, the Wyoming territory approved the first law in legislative history recognizing women's inherent right to vote and to hold public office--50 years before the enactment of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in 1920. This historic step even preceded Wyoming statehood. The young territory granted women the right to vote 20 years before becoming the 44th State admitted to the Union. In fact, when Congress invited Wyoming to join the Union, they demanded that women's suffrage be revoked, and the Wyoming legislature--an all-men's legislature--said: ``We will remain out of the Union 100 years rather than come in without the women.'' This pioneering spirit is truly remarkable and something I keep in front of my mind every day as I continue my work in the Senate. Wyoming was not going to allow the acknowledgement of women's right to vote to be ceremonial or artificial. In fact, 1 short year after recognizing women's right to vote, women began holding public office throughout Wyoming, serving as the first women in the United States to do so. In 1870, Esther Hobart Morris became the first female justice of the peace, serving in South Pass City, WY. That year, Wyoming also saw the country's first all-female jury and the first woman bailiff in the room, Martha Symon Boies. Later, in 1894, Estelle Reel Meyer became Wyoming's superintendent of public instruction--the first female in the country to be elected to a statewide position. From 1920 to 1921, Jackson, WY, was the first town in the United States governed completely by women. These trailblazing women embodied the cowboy values we hold dear and showed that Wyoming truly has earned its title as an Equality State. Just as they did in 1869, women's voices and their votes continue to help build our economy and guide our democracy. Throughout history, Wyoming has been home to many remarkable women and today still recognizes how important women are to the success of the State. This continued dedication to being the Equality State has made Wyoming home to trailblazing women's organizations, such as the Wyoming Women's Legislative Caucus, a nonpartisan caucus that advocates for the support and leadership of women in all levels of government, and Climb Wyoming, which helps single mothers transition to long-term self-sufficiency through better paying jobs, including nontraditional jobs. That is the key to Wyoming's economy. Climb Wyoming does this through innovative programming that goes far beyond just job training. The Wyoming Women's Business Center supports aspiring female entrepreneurs and business owners through educational tools to help them plan, start, and grow successful businesses. As a former small business owner myself, I know how important these businesses are to the fabric of our great State. Wyoming Women's Suffrage Day is a testament to the contributions women make and have made and will continue to make in Wyoming and the values that make our State stand out as an example to the rest of the country. I look forward to working with Senator Barrasso and Congresswoman Cheney to ensure Wyoming continues to do things the cowboy way, striving to hold the tradition of excellence and equity and equality well into the future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for December 2019. This is my second scorekeeping report since I filed the deemed budget resolution for fiscal year 2020 on September 9, 2019, as required by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, BBA19. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts agreed to in BBA19. In the Senate, this information is used to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA. The information included in this report is current through November 25, 2019. Since I filed the last scorekeeping report on October 16, 2019, two measures with significant enforceable budgetary effects have been enacted. The first, the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Further Health Extenders Act of 2019 (P.L. 116-69), provided continuing appropriations and extended several authorizing provisions. Specifically, division A of that law extended discretionary appropriations through December 20, 2019, and division B extended a number of health programs, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, and certain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provisions. Division B also extended and increased benefits under the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund and repealed a rescission of highway funding that had been included in the 2015 highway bill. CBO estimated that division B would increase outlays by $1.1 billion over 10 years. The second measure with significant budgetary effects to be enacted was the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commemorative Coin Act (P.L. 116- 71). This law directed the Department of the Treasury to mint and issue silver coins to commemorate the women who played a vital role in rallying support for the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. CBO estimated that P.L. 116-71 would save $2 million in 2020 and be budget neutral over the 5- and 10-year windows. Budget Committee Republican staff prepared tables A-D. Table A gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the fiscal year 2020 deemed budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. The two enacted pieces of legislation that I mentioned earlier led to the Environment and Public Works Committee, EPW, exceeding its allocation (P.L. 116-69) and the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee generating $2 million in savings in 2020 (P.L 116-71). The House of Representatives' construction of division B of the P.L. 116- 69, which combined numerous authorizing matters into one division, contributed to EPW's breach of its allocation. As EPW's highway rescission repeal provided the largest single budgetary effect, the entire division's effects were assigned to EPW consistent with longstanding congressional enforcement practices. It is important to note that EPW's highway repeal alone was scored by CBO as not producing an outlay or deficit effect. A detailed discussion of CBO's scoring of a similar provision is included in CBO's formal August 2019 estimate of S. 1992, a bill to amend the FAST Act to repeal a rescission of funds, which was reported earlier this year from EPW. Table B provides 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 sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. The table shows that the Appropriations Committee is compliant with spending limits for current the fiscal year. Those limits for regular discretionary spending are $666.5 billion for accounts in the defense category and $621.5 billion for accounts in the nondefense category of spending. As no full-year appropriations measures have been enacted for fiscal year 2020, the amounts shown on the table reflect the budgetary authority effects of advanced or permanent appropriations made available in prior law. The 2018 budget resolution contained points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs, CHIMPs, in appropriations bills. Table C, which tracks the CHIMP limit of $15 billion for 2020, shows the Appropriations Committee has not yet enacted full-year CHIMPs for this fiscal year. Table D provides the amount of budget authority enacted for 2020 that has been designated as either for an emergency or for overseas contingency operations pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. Funding that receives either of these designations results in cap adjustments to enforceable discretionary spending limits. There is no limit on either emergency or overseas contingency operations spending; however, any senator may challenge the designation with a point of order to strike the designation on the floor. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by Congress. CBO provided a spending and revenue report for 2020, Table 1, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. In its report, CBO annualizes the temporary effects of the latest continuing resolution, which provides funding through December 20, 2019. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Budget Committee excludes this temporary funding. As such, the committee views current-law levels as being $1,173.2 billion and $668.4 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Details on 2020 levels can be found in CBO's second table. Current-law revenues are consistent with the levels assumed by the budget resolution. Social Security levels are consistent with the budget resolution's figures for all enforceable periods. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule, table 3. This rule was established under section 4106 of the 2018 budget resolution. The Senate PAYGO scorecard shows that there is currently $2 million in room in 2020 due to the enactment of the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commemorative Coin Act. Please note that the deficit effects of division B of the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Further Health Extenders Act of 2019 are excluded from the Senate's PAYGO scorecard pursuant to Title VIII of division B of that law. This submission also includes a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the enforcement filing on September 9, 2019. No budgetary points of order have been raised since that filing. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that this statement and the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have had the pleasure of serving in the Senate alongside Johnny Isakson for close to 15 years, and it has been a privilege to work and join with him on a number of legislative efforts, but, more importantly, Johnny is the big brother I never had, whom I aspired to be like. I will never have the speaking ability he does, but he is a brother because although we grew up across the country from each other, we shared many experiences that shaped our formative years and continue to influence our work in the Senate. We both served in the Air National Guard; we both were in business before entering politics; and we both were Sunday school teachers. Even our spouses, Dianne and Diana, have similar names. We both served in the State legislature before we came here. Besides his speaking ability, there are many things I will never match. Johnny served in the Georgia legislature for 17 years, beginning in 1974. After serving as the chairman of the Georgia Board of Education for 2 years, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1999 and then to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Throughout his time in both the State and Federal legislatures, Johnny was nothing short of a pioneer in the State of Georgia. He was the first Georgian ever to be elected to both Houses of the Georgia State legislature and both Houses of Congress. He is the first Republican in Georgia to be elected to a third term in the U.S. Senate, and he is the only Republican Senator currently serving as the chair of two committees at the same time. Now, despite these tremendous achievements, Johnny never lost sight of what was important and remains committed to legislation that is important to the folks in Georgia and across the country. I remember when I was chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, there was a mine accident in West Virginia. Senator Kennedy, who was the ranking member, and I decided to go down there to take a look, and Senator Isakson asked if he could come along. We went down, and we talked to the safety inspectors; we talked to the mine owners; and, most importantly, we talked to the families of the men who had been trapped in this mine. We learned the story of how coal mining had been decreasing over the years, so the people who sell the safety equipment quit inventing the safety equipment because they never had the market for it. Consequently, when coal mining started coming back up again, the equipment wasn't in place for it. We found out what was needed, but Johnny was the real salesman for it. He has a picture of one of the family members. He carried that picture with him everywhere, and anytime the subject of mine safety came up, he brought that picture out so everybody could see a real person--there it is--a real person whom we were trying to provide for the future and see that accidents didn't happen. I also had the pleasure of working with Johnny on the Senate Finance Committee. We passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reformed America's Tax Code for the first time in 30 years, and gave hard- working families more choices about how their hard-earned money should be used. We were both businessowners in the private sector before entering politics and understand the burden that heavy taxes and Federal regulations can place on families and businesses. His expertise and insight was invaluable when the Committee was considering this historic piece of legislation, and instrumental in helping it become law. Throughout his time in the Senate, Johnny remained committed to ending reckless Federal spending and reining in out-of-control national debt. This is an issue we cannot ignore anymore. It is a focus of mine as chairman of the Budget Committee. Senator Isakson has repeatedly introduced the biennial Budgeting Appropriations Act, which would take concrete, serious steps toward fixing our appropriations process. It has been a pleasure to work with a friend who understands how dire our situation is and has a commitment to finding lasting solutions that will not only secure a better future for today but also for generations to come. Johnny understood that the United States owes all its servicemembers, veterans, and families a great debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifice they have made. He knew our country would not be the Nation it is today without those who are willing to give so much of themselves. Johnny took those values to heart as chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and enacted policies that significantly improved the lives of our most vulnerable veterans. He was instrumental in the passage of the MISSION Act, which took significant steps toward reforming veterans' healthcare through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Senator Isakson truly understood that military service requires sacrifices not only for the servicemember but of the entire family. He ensured that those who gave so much for their country received not only the benefits they deserve but knowledge that those efforts in protecting their homeland did not go unappreciated. Probably most important, though, is that Johnny is a man of faith. Despite the tremendous achievements, he never lost sight of what truly matters and never wavered in his commitment to God and to do what is right. My mother used to tell me: Do what is right, do what is best, and treat others as they wish to be treated. Johnny lives by these words and never forgets why he is here, which is to represent and serve the people of Georgia and the United States to the best of his ability. I am deeply saddened that Johnny will be leaving us soon. His experience, knowledge, and friendship will surely be missed as you can tell from the speeches here so far today. Diana and I send our best wishes and appreciation to Johnny and Dianne. We wish them all the best as they take time to spend with their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Together they have been great examples of the importance of public service. We wish them the best in whatever adventure they choose to pursue next. God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of the late Senator Kay Hagan. Her loss will be deeply felt by us here in the Senate, both by those who served with her as well as the many staff and individuals she worked with over time. Senator Hagan was a dedicated public servant who touched many lives faithfully serving her home State of North Carolina. Born in Shelby, NC, Senator Hagan attended Florida State University and then returned to North Carolina to attend law school at Wake Forest University. She worked at North Carolina National Bank, a predecessor to Bank of America, for 10 years, becoming a vice president in the estates and trust division. She was a loving wife and mother deeply committed to her family. She left the bank to raise her three children--Jeanette, Tilden, and Carrie--and became actively involved in the Greensboro community. Senator Hagan started early in politics helping her uncle, former Florida Governor and U.S. Senator Lawton Chiles, paste bumper stickers on supporters' cars. She was active in North Carolina politics and ran Governor Jim Hunt's campaign in Guilford County in 1992 and 1996. In 1998, she ran for the North Carolina State Senate and served there for 10 years, where she cochaired the budget committee. During her 6-year tenure as cochair of the budget, she increased North Carolina's Rainy Day fund and balanced five straight budgets. I commend her commitment to fiscal responsibility and achieving a balanced budget. In 2008, she won the election for the U.S. Senate seat and showed up in Congress ready to work for North Carolinians back home. One thing Senator Hagan was known for here in the Senate was the effort she put in to be as open and accessible to her constituents. As a dedicated public servant, Senator Hagan made constituent services a priority and often traveled the State hosting ``Conversations with Kay.'' It is difficult to pinpoint Senator Hagan's single most greatest achievement. During her political career at the local, State, and Federal level, Senator Hagan championed many important issues and served as a tireless advocate for her constituents. Representing one of the most military-friendly States in the Nation, Senator Hagan advocated for Active-Duty military, veterans, and their families in her role serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Coming from a military family, Senator Hagan understood the needs of those who serve our country and their families. Along with Senator Burr, she was key in getting documents released pertaining to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, giving families the answers they deserved. She was constantly reminding us all to remember and understand the sacrifices made by our military and their families, often telling their stories on the Senate floor. I had the privilege of working with Senator Hagan on issues before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. From her time in the State senate, Senator Hagan was a champion for financial literacy education, and I greatly enjoyed our work together on financial literacy initiatives for children. I worked very closely with Senator Hagan on the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which we offered as an amendment together, along with Senator Hatch, to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act when it was being considered in committee. She was instrumental in the creation of a new pathway for biosimilars, a lower cost alternative to biologic drugs. Our work together has fostered competition and improved choices for American patients. Senator Hagan understood the true value of bipartisan work and developed strong relationships with Members of both parties. I admired her commitment to work across the aisle and reconcile shared goals of bettering the lives of Americans. She was a committed woman of faith, serving as a Sunday school teacher for many years. A member of the Presbyterian Church, she was always one to do what she thought was right rather than what was easiest. My wife Diana joins me in sending our deepest condolences to her loved ones. We hope she will find eternal peace and happiness knowing she had a profound effect on all that knew her as a colleague, as a mother and as a friend.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I come to the floor to discuss legislation approved by the House of Representatives that would leave taxpayers holding the fiscal bag for a specific category of underfunded private pension plans. Throughout most of my professional life, from my days as an accountant, to my service as the mayor of Gillette, WY, and in the Wyoming Legislature, to my membership on the Senate's Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and then on the Committee on Finance, I have worked on pension policy. This experience has taught me many things about retirement security and the need for sound planning. My concern with the House-passed bill is not just with its immediate cost to the taxpayers but also with what it would mean down the road. The bill would send the signal to private pension plans that regardless of how underfunded they are or how risky their investments, the taxpayers will be there to bail them out. Pensions are an important source of retirement income for millions of Americans, but many of the private sector's multiemployer pension plans are seriously underfunded. These are plans that are sponsored by a group of private employers as part of collective bargaining agreements with their employees and are separate from the single employers' plans, which are generally better funded. According to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, multiemployers' pension plans are underfunded by more than $637 billion. That is $637 billion that is underfunded. Out of the 1,247 multiemployer pension plans that we have information on, 1,235 are underfunded. That would mean that 12 are not underfunded. In July of this year, the House of Representatives passed the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer Pensions Act of 2019, which would bail out some of the worst-funded multiemployer plans at the taxpayers' expense. The bill would provide a combination of low-interest loans and direct cash payments to the private sector's multiemployer plans that are currently insolvent or are designated as ``critical and declining.'' The official Congressional Budget Office's cost estimate of the bill states it would increase deficits by $49 billion over the next 10 years, but, as a separate analysis points out, which I requested from the budget office, the true cost and risk to taxpayers is actually much higher. First, the bill includes a handful of revenue provisions to help offset its cost, but the House included these same provisions in a separate bill it passed earlier this year. Without this $16 billion in double-counted revenues, the bailout bill's price tag jumps to $65 billion over the next decade. Second, the analysis projects that most pension plans would not fully repay their loans without the grant assistance provided in this bill. What that means is that these plan providers are going to use taxpayer dollars to help repay loans made to them by taxpayers. That is quite a deal. Further, the budget office's analysis shows that even with these taxpayer-provided grants, one-quarter of the plans receiving loans under the House bill would become insolvent within the 30-year loan period. CBO projects that most of the other plans would become insolvent in the decade after they repay their loans. All of this begs the question, then what? Now, third, as I alluded to a moment ago, much of the bill's cost doesn't show up in the first 10 years. When you consider the total amount of new spending the bill authorizes over the next several decades, along with the added interest costs we will have to pay, the total cost would be more than $100 billion. To add insult to injury, the House bill would not resolve the larger multiemployer pension crisis. The bill would apply only to those that are currently insolvent or critical and declining. It would not address the many other plans that are treading water now but will face insolvency in the future. You can bet that if this bill goes through, those plans would be expecting their bailout when the time comes. What a precedent. All of this is setting up for additional bailouts in the future, potentially putting taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars. Now, only about 12 percent of private sector workers participate in a pension plan, and an even smaller number participate in these multiemployer plans. This bill would put the vast majority of workers who don't have their own pension plans on the hook for bailing out the small percentage who do. That hardly seems fair. Hard-working Americans overwhelmingly agree that we can't afford a pension bailout. A recent poll shows that a majority of voters oppose a taxpayer-funded bailout of unfunded union pension plans. This is because voters know a bad deal when they see it. Before I close, I am going to remind my colleagues that the Federal Government already has its own unfunded promises that need addressing, and these are programs that will affect the vast majority of Americans. Trustees for Social Security estimate that Social Security's long-term benefit promises exceed its dedicated tax revenues by almost $17 trillion, and Medicare's long-term spending is projected to exceed its dedicated taxes and premiums by more than $40 trillion. We need to work to find solutions to address the Federal Government's own funding shortfalls for the vast majority of Americans and not bail out underfunded private sector pension plans for the few. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, 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. The Senate will soon consider S. Amdt. 948 to H.R. 3055, the Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2020. The Senate amendment provides appropriations for spending within the jurisdiction of all the subcommittees in the underlying bill except for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. The measure contains spending that qualifies for cap adjustments under current law. This measure includes $2,500 million in nonsecurity budget authority that is designated as being for the periodic U.S. Census pursuant to section 251 (b)(2)(G) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $1,800 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. This measure also includes $2,250 million in nonsecurity discretionary budget authority for wildfire suppression operations pursuant to section 251 (b)(2)(F) of BBEDCA. This budget authority and its associated outlays of $2,250 million qualify for an adjustment under BBEDCA. As such, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised nonsecurity budget authority by $4,750 million and outlays by $4,050 million in fiscal year 2020. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2020 by $4,750 million in budget authority and $4,050 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. Mr. President, I rise to announce a new use of an old requirement. I rise to speak about the latest Senate scorekeeping report which I filed this week in the Congressional Record. The Congressional Record is available to anyone online. This report could show overspending by committees and a number of other things. This is the first such report since I filed a current law budget for the fiscal year 2020 as authorized by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. This week's filing tracks the Senate's adherence to that current law budget and provides up-to-date budgetary information about the Federal Government for Congress and for the public. For the first time, a copy of the scorekeeping report can be found on the Senate Budget Committee's website to allow the American people to better track Congress's fiscal decision making. That is new. Let me repeat that. For the first time, a copy of the scorekeeping report can be found on the Senate Budget Committee's website to allow the American people to better track Congress's decision making. Since this is the first time the committee is posting the scorekeeping report on its website, I want to take this opportunity to explain the report for those taxpayers who are concerned, as I am, about our country's fiscal health and want to learn more. I hope the people will look at the future months and each monthly report. A current-law budget allows the Senate to enforce the budget spending levels projected under current law. While it will not put us on a path to stabilizing our debt and deficits, like the levels approved by the Senate Budget Committee earlier this year would do, it tells the Congress to stop making our fiscal situation worse--to stop making our debt and deficits worse. The scorekeeping report covers six primary areas. First, it shows whether authorizing committees are sticking to their allocation, which is just a fancy term for each committee's spending allowance. We track that for the 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year periods for this report. For the October 2019 report, all committees are in compliance and no breaches have been recorded since I filed the current-law budget on September 9. That is good news, though with our debt approaching $23 trillion, going a month on the budget is not something to pat ourselves on the back over, but it is a good start. Second, the report tracks whether the Appropriations Committee is adhering to the discretionary spending limits imposed by the most recent Bipartisan Budget Act. For fiscal year 2020, the limit on regular discretionary spending for accounts in the defense category is $666.5 billion, and for the accounts in nondefense category, it is $621.5 billion. Since full-year appropriations measures for this fiscal year have not yet been enacted, the only budgetary effects recorded are for advanced or permanent appropriations made through our prior law. Third, the scorekeeping report tracks changes in mandatory programs. We call that CHIMPS, which is used by the Appropriations Committee. That is so we are not using the very important wording of ``changes in mandatory programs,'' actually making changes in mandatory programs without people knowing. The Appropriations Committee uses those changes in mandatory programs to offset new discretionary spending each year. In recent years, the Budget Committee has ratcheted down the total amount of changes in mandatory programs that can be used in a given year in an effort to hold the line on spending. This year's total limit is $15 billion--that is extra spending--and the report tracks the Appropriations Committee's adherence to that limit thus far. I know that many of my colleagues share my desire to finally end the practice of using changes in mandatory programs to inflate spending. Fourth, the report tracks the amount of emergency and overseas contingency operations spending in appropriations bills. Emergency spending is not constrained by discretionary spending limits that I talked about, but it has the potential to cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year. To date, for fiscal year 2020, there has been $8 million worth of emergency budget authority adjustments. These adjustments are the result of agriculture provisions and the additional supplemental appropriations for the Disaster Relief Act of 2019. Emergencies don't count against the budget, but they do go to increased debt. There is no requirement to adjust the budget to pay for emergencies. Fifth, included in the report is information provided to me by the Congressional Budget Office that compares topline spending and revenue amounts, known as aggregates, to the current-law budget levels. The report shows there is currently enough room on the spending aggregate to accommodate all outstanding regular appropriations and no additional room for revenue loss. Finally, the report includes the current balances of the Senate's pay-go scorecard. Pay-go stands for ``pay as you go,'' a unique concept around here. In other words, was it paid for? If not, the report shows it on the scorecard. The Senate's pay-go scorecard, which is enforced with a 60-vote point of order, tracks the budgetary effects of legislation moving through Congress affecting mandatory spending and revenues. This report shows a zero balance on the Senate's pay-go scorecard due to the filing of new budgetary levels just last month. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I try to come to the floor regularly to sound the alarm about our country's unsustainable fiscal course. We are on a perilous path with the Congressional Budget Office projecting our debt and deficits to skyrocket in the coming years. Debt is the cumulative amount. Deficits are the annual amount. The deficit for the fiscal year that ended September 30 reached $984 billion. While revenues were up $133 billion over the previous year, or 4 percent, compared to fiscal year 2018, spending was up $338 billion, or 7 percent, over the prior year. I can say that again. We overspent $984 billion. Revenues were up $133 billion, but spending was up $338 billion. The Congressional Budget Office projects the budget deficit for the current fiscal year to top $1 trillion. That is another trillion dollars added to our already high debt. That is overspending in spite of increased revenues. We are long overdue for an honest conversation about the country's finances. I hope the Senate scorekeeping report can contribute in a small way to that conversation. I believe the more we allow the public to follow the dollars, the more pressure there will be on all of us to finally address our overspending problem. I truly hope all Members view this report and come to see it as a valuable tool for getting our books in order. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for October 2019. This is my first scorekeeping report since I filed the deemed budget resolution for fiscal year 2020 on September 9, 2019, as required by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, BBA19. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts agreed to in BBA19. In the Senate, this information is used to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA. The information included in this report is current through October 11, 2019. Since I filed the deemed budget resolution, only one measure with significant budgetary effects has been enacted. That measure, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019, PL 116-59, provided continuing appropriations for discretionary programs through November 21, 2019, Division A, and extended several expiring health programs, Division B. Division A was charged to the Senate Appropriations Committee, while Division B was charged to the Senate Finance Committee. As the direct spending and revenue components of the measure were offset over the 2020 to 2024 and 2020 to 2029 periods, a deficit neutral reserve fund was used to accommodate the budgetary effects of this measure pursuant to section 3005 of H. Con. Res. 71--115th Congress--the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018, as updated by BBA19. Budget Committee Republican staff prepared tables A-D. Table A gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the fiscal year 2020 deemed budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. I am pleased to report that for this reporting period, all authorizing committees have complied with their allowable spending limits for each enforceable period. Table B provides 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 sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. The table shows that the Appropriations Committee is also compliant with spending limits for current the fiscal year. Those limits for regular discretionary spending are $666.5 billion for accounts in the defense category and $621.5 billion for accounts in the nondefense category of spending. As no full-year appropriations measures have been enacted for fiscal year 2020, the amounts shown on the table reflect the budgetary authority effects of advanced or permanent appropriations made available in prior law. The 2018 budget resolution contained points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs, CHIMPs, in appropriations bills. Table C, which tracks the CHIMP limit of $15 billion for 2020, shows the Appropriations Committee has not yet enacted full-year CHIMPs for this fiscal year. Table D provides the amount of budget authority enacted for 2020 that has been designated as either for an emergency or for overseas contingency operations pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. Funding that receives either of these designations results in cap adjustments to enforceable discretionary spending limits. There is no limit on either emergency or overseas contingency operations spending; however, any Senator may challenge the designation with a point of order to strike the designation on the floor pursuant to current budgetary statute. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by Congress. CBO provided a spending and revenue report for 2020, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. In its report, CBO annualizes the temporary effects of the latest continuing resolution, which provides funding through November 21, 2019. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Budget Committee excludes this temporary funding. As such, the committee views current-law levels as being $1,181.3 billion and $668.8 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Details on 2020 levels can be found in CBO's second table. Current-law revenues are consistent with the levels assumed by the budget resolution. Social Security levels are consistent with the budget resolution's figures for all enforceable periods. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go--pay-go rule. This rule was established under section 4106 of the 2018 budget resolution. The Senate pay-go scorecard shows that there is currently a zero balance. This submission also includes a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the enforcement filing on September 9, 2019. No budgetary points of order have been raised since that filing. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 3005 of H. Con. Res. 71, 115th Congress, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates and levels in the budget resolution for legislation related to the extension of certain healthcare policies. This adjustment authority, which was updated by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, is contingent on the legislation not increasing the deficit over either the period of fiscal years 2020-2024 or the period of fiscal years 2020-2029. I find that H.R. 4378, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Health Extenders Act of 2019, meets the conditions of deficit neutrality found in section 3005 of H. Con. Res 71. This determination has been made by looking at the deficit effects of the revenue and direct spending provisions of both Division A and Division B of H.R. 4378. Accordingly, I am revising the allocations to the Committee on Finance and the budgetary aggregates to account for the direct spending and revenue effects of the bill. Further, I am temporarily adjusting the Senate's PAYGO scorecard to reflect the $667 million deficit increase in Fiscal Year 2020 and deficit decreases of $477 million and $1 million over the 5- and 10-year periods, respectively. In recognition of the instruction to exclude the budgetary effects of division B from the PAYGO scorecard in title VII, the table accompanying this statement reflects only the prorated revenue effects of division A, which are not covered by the exception and whose adjustments will remain for PAYGO scorecard purposes. Section 124 of division A provides for additional budgetary resources for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and designates those resources as being for overseas contingency operations/global war on terrorism, OCO, pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. This designation makes this spending qualify for a discretionary cap adjustment under current statute. This provision has no effect on budget authority but would increase outlays by $128 million in Fiscal Year 2020. Therefore, I am revising the allocation to the Committee on Appropriations and further modifying the spending aggregate for Fiscal Year 2020 to accommodate these 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 to call attention to our Federal Government's unsustainable fiscal path. Earlier this month the Congressional Budget Office reported that Federal revenues are up 3 percent, or $102 billion, compared to the same time period last year. The problem is that Federal spending grew by 7 percent, or $271 billion, over that same period. CBO projects the deficit for this year to reach $960 billion, which means that 22 cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed. All of that borrowing doesn't come cheap. In the first 11 months of the year, net interest payments on the public debt totaled $391 billion. That is up $48 billion, or 14 percent, over the previous year. To put that in context, $391 billion is roughly 2\1/2\ times what we spend each year on the U.S. Air Force. It is more than 12 times the size of the budget of the entire U.S. Department of Justice and more than 5 times the size of the budget for the U.S. Department of Education. That is $391 billion spent with nothing to show for it. It is just like running up credit card debt and owing a whole bunch of interest without getting anything for it. That is what our future generation is really going to have to worry about. What is worse, unless something is done to change our current trajectory, annual net interest costs are projected to more than double in the next 10 years. CBO projects that over the next decade we will spend more than $5.8 trillion on net interest costs. All the while, our debt will continue to mount. That doesn't pay down anything; that just pays the interest, and that is calculated at a pretty low interest rate. We could be faced with higher interest rates, which could easily double what we are paying right now. We have been fortunate that despite Congress's spendthrift ways, the U.S. dollar remains the dominant global reserve currency, which allows our government to borrow more cheaply than anybody else. But what if that changes? What if foreign interests decide that our fiscal dysfunction is simply too great and the dollar is no longer a safe bet? The threat of a fiscal crisis is not something anyone should take lightly. Last month, the CBO--that is the Congressional Budget Office, which does all the calculations--warned: ``If Federal debt as a percentage of [gross domestic product] continued to rise at the pace the Congressional Budget Office projects that it would under current law . . . [t]hat debt path would [ultimately] pose significant risks to the fiscal and economic outlook.'' While the Congressional Budget Office notes that those risks are not currently apparent in financial markets, it goes on to warn that the projected path of rising debt would increase ``the risk of a fiscal crisis . . . in which the interest rate on federal debt rises abruptly because investors have lost confidence in the U.S. government's fiscal position.'' As a father and a grandfather, this is a concern that keeps me up at night. What kind of burden are we placing on our children and on our grandchildren? They could face a future of less growth and economic opportunity as a result of our refusal to make difficult fiscal decisions. What if we actually had to make massive cuts? We don't make cuts at all. What if we had to do massive cuts? Of course, we could raise revenue, but there is always the side effect of raising revenue, which costs jobs and then reduces revenue. There are a lot of tricky balances that have to be done. This problem didn't arise overnight, and it will not be fixed overnight either. Congress should be working together with the administration now to begin the long process of fiscal course correction. Unfortunately, we are not off to a great start. Prior to the August State work period, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which increased discretionary spending caps for fiscal years 2020 and 2021 by a combined $322 billion. That is the increase. This essentially marks the end of the Budget Control Act period of federal budgeting. In a form that was all too common, a tool that was meant to bring fiscal constraint met its end with a whimper, when it probably should have been a scream. The last cap deal--which CBO tells us will cost nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years if we continue spending at those levels over that time period--featured $77 billion in offsets. What is an offset? That is finding some money to cover the amount of spending. I think you heard correctly there. The cap deal put us on a path to spend nearly $2 trillion over the next 10 years with $77 billion--billion with a ``b''--in offsets, which is money to cover the debt. To make matters worse, those offsets will not even begin to kick in until the latter part of the next decade. In other words, we are saying there is a little patch of money out there that we haven't spent in the future yet, and it isn't going to come in for 10 years, but let's go ahead and spend it right now, and we will call that an offset to reduce the amount of debt we are creating. Boy, everybody wishes they could do that with their own spending, I am sure. The offsets--the money to cover the debt, which is the mere $77 billion on $2 trillion--will not come in until the latter part of the next decade. In other words, we are spending money from 10 years down the road right now and calling it payment on the money we are spending. Even with this turn of events, everyone seems to agree that discretionary spending is not the main source of our budget challenge. The Congressional Budget Office projects America's debt will continue to increase rapidly over the next several decades because of mandatory spending. What is mandatory spending? That is spending we don't make a decision on at all. Those payments go on no matter what, and they are pretty important ones because they include things like Social Security and the major health programs and interest on the debt. That is mandatory. We can't bankrupt on paying the interest, so Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt are some of the main expenditures we make, and we never make any decisions on them. We do not change them. We don't improve them. For decades, nonpartisan experts warned of budget pressures we would face as baby boomers aged and began to retire. That is already happening, but that crisis is always tomorrow. We only handle today's crises. I can't imagine how tomorrow's people are going to handle the crisis that is being created at the present time. The combination of aging population, longer lifespans, and rising per beneficiary healthcare costs put enormous pressure on our budget. These warnings from the Congressional Budget Office, the actuaries, and many other people, you name it, continue to be ignored. We are now in a world where these pressures are very real and something we will need to face before we go off the cliff in a few short years. We know the Social Security trust fund and Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are now paying out more than they are taking in. We also know Social Security's combined trust funds will be exhausted in 2032. ``That is way down the road.'' No, it is not. The Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund--which covers inpatient hospital services, hospice care, skilled nursing facilities, and home health services--is projected to be depleted in 2026. That is not very far. If we continue to do nothing once their respective trust funds are exhausted, these programs will still be able to pay out some money, but they will only be able to pay out as much in benefits as they have coming in. I mentioned that we have a lot less coming in than we are paying out. For Medicare, that means we will only be able to pay 86 percent of hospital-related Medicare spending. For Social Security, revenue is projected to cover only 76 percent of scheduled benefits. I don't know many seniors who can afford a 24-percent cut. I want to make sure Social Security and Medicare are able to provide benefits to current beneficiaries, as well as those who need them in the future. That will require being clear-eyed about the problem and working together in a bipartisan manner to ensure that these programs are solvent. The normal technique on trying to solve any of these problems is to point the finger at the other side and say it is their fault and they are not doing anything about it. Well, we are all going to have to do something about it. We are talking about a 24-percent cut in Social Security. The longer we wait to address the imbalance, the more severe the changes will be and the fewer options we will have. I remember looking at these problems in the year 2000, and at that time there were quite a few options, but all were rejected. Today there are a lot less options and a bigger cliff. We need to change the way we do things in Washington. We simply cannot afford to continue ignoring the challenges our country faces. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, PL 16-37, included an instruction to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to file allocations, aggregates, and budgetary levels in the Senate as soon as practicable. Today, I rise to submit the required filing found in that act. Specifically, sections 204 and 206 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 require the chairman to file, No. 1, allocations for fiscal year 2020 for the Committee on Appropriations; No. 2, allocations for fiscal years 2020, 2020 through 2024, and 2020 through 2029 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations; No. 3, aggregate spending levels for fiscal year 2020; No. 4, aggregate revenue levels for fiscal year 2020, 2020 through 2024, and 2020 through 2029; No. 5, aggregate levels of outlays and revenue for fiscal years 2020, 2020 through 2024, and 2020 through 2029 for Social Security; and, No. 6, a list of accounts eligible to receive advance appropriations. The figures included in this filing are consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 and the Congressional Budget Office's May 2019 baseline, as adjusted to reflect legislation enacted since the publication of the baseline. In instances where enforceable discretionary levels are required to be adjusted for spending designated as an emergency pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as amended, including funding in both the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2019, PL 116-20, and the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Border Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019, PL 116-26, those adjustments are included. In addition to the update for enforceable limits above, section 204 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 allows for the deficit-neutral reserve funds included in title III of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution--H. Con. Res. 71, 115th Congress--to be updated by 2 fiscal years. Pursuant to this authority, all deficit- neutral reserve funds in the aforementioned title of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution are updated and available for use. For purposes of enforcing the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule, which is found in section 4106 of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, I am resetting the Senate's scorecard to zero for all fiscal years. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables detailing enforcement in the Senate be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for July 2019. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, BBA18. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA. This is my sixth scorekeeping report this year. My last filing can be found in the Congressional Record for June 26, 2019. The information included in this report is current through July 26, 2019. Since my last filing, Congress has cleared four pieces of legislation with significant budgetary effects. The first, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019, P.L. 116-26, provided nearly $4.6 billion in emergency funding to address needs at the Nation's southern border. The second measure with significant budgetary effects, P.L. 116-29, provided for a 2-week extension of the Medicaid community health services demonstration program. The third, the Protecting Affordable Mortgages for Veterans Act of 2019, P.L. 116-33, revises loan seasoning requirements related to a refinanced Veterans Affairs housing loan. The fourth, the Never Forget the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez Permanent Authorization of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Act, P.L. 116-34, appropriates such sums as necessary for the Victims Compensation Fund to pay claims to eligible victims through fiscal year 2029 and fully compensate claimants who have received reduced awards in the past because of declining balances in the fund. Budget Committee Republican staff prepared Tables A-C. Table A gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the fiscal year 2019 enforceable levels filing required by BBA18. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 9 of the 16 authorizing committees are not in compliance with their allocations. Over the current 10-year enforceable window, authorizing committees have increased outlays by a combined $13.0 billion. Of the bills clearing Congress this reporting period, P.L. 116-34 added to the Judiciary Committee's existing violations, including an increase in spending of $9.4 billion over the 10-year window, P.L. 116-33 reduced the Banking Committee's allocation violation by $3 million in each enforceable window, and P.L. 116-29 added $5 million to the Finance Committee's existing fiscal year 2019 violations. Table B provides 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 sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. Appropriations for fiscal year 2019, displayed in this table, show that the Appropriations Committee is compliant with spending limits for the current fiscal year. Those limits for regular discretionary spending are $647 billion for accounts in the defense category and $597 billion for accounts in the nondefense category of spending. The fiscal year 2018 budget resolution contained points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPs. Table C, which tracks the CHIMP limit of $15 billion for fiscal year 2019, shows the Appropriations Committee has enacted $15 billion worth of full-year CHIMPs for this fiscal year. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by Congress. For fiscal year 2019, CBO estimates that current-law levels are $2.9 billion above and $3.3 billion below enforceable levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. These levels were adjusted to accommodate the budget authority and outlay effects of P.L. 116-26, as that funding was designated as an emergency and qualified for an equivalent and concurrent increase in enforceable levels under existing statute. Revenues are $426 million below the level assumed in the budget resolution. Further, Social Security revenues are at the levels assumed for fiscal year 2019, while Social Security outlays are $4 million above assumed levels for the budget year. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The PAYGO scorecard shows deficit increases in fiscal year 2019 of $1,959 million, $427 million revenue loss, $1,532 million outlay increase; over the fiscal year 2018-2023 period of $3,409 million, $907 million revenue loss, $2,502 million outlay increase; and over the fiscal year 2018-2028 period of $797 million, $798 million revenue loss, $1 million outlay decrease. During this reporting period, P.L. 116-33 reduced the deficit by $3 million over the fiscal year 2019, fiscal year 2018-2023, and fiscal year 2018-2028 periods, and P.L. 116-29 increased the deficit by $5 million in fiscal year 2019. P.L. 116-34's budgetary effects are not included in this table or the PAYGO scorecard pursuant to the direction included in the statutory text. This submission also includes a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the enforcement filing on May 7, 2018. Since my last report, no new budgetary points of order were raised. 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, I rise to talk about the need to fix our broken budget and spending process. Picking up efforts we began in the 114th Congress, the Senate Budget Committee has spent the last several months holding hearings and meetings with Members of Congress, State officials, the administration, and stakeholder groups to listen to their budget reform priorities. Along the way, we have collected a lot of good ideas. Today, I come to the floor to outline the fiscal reform plan that incorporates a lot of the feedback we received. It reflects suggestions from Members on both sides of the aisle and from groups that span the political spectrum. These reforms are not driven by politics but, instead, are rooted in fixing our broken budget and spending process in favor of a system that works for everyone. In developing this plan, my focus was on creating a durable system to substantially manage our country's finances, to improve transparency, to improve oversight, to improve accountability in the budget process, and to end the brinksmanship in our fiscal debates. I have broken the plan down into four separate discussion drafts, which I am sharing this week with Senate Budget Committee members. Each of the drafts tackles a different aspect of the broken budget and spending process. The first proposal is the most ambitious. It would reorient the budget process around long-term planning and shift the Federal Government to a biennial budgeting and spending system. There are 20 States, including my home State of Wyoming, that have some form of biennial budgeting and appropriations. I have long believed that one of the most important reforms we could do at the Federal level would be to move to a biennial process to have the problem only every other year. The plan proposes to maintain the budget resolution as a concurrent resolution but with a few important changes. First, it would change how we write the budget. Topline discretionary figures would be clearly stated in the resolution, while mandatory spending would continue to be displayed on a portfolio basis. This new approach will allow each individual Member to have more of a say in the budget through the amendment process. Second, it would require the budget resolution to include debt-to-GDP targets to focus Congress on creating a path to stabilize our debt levels and sustainably manage our finances. It could even provide an estimate of anticipated revenues. Third, the plan would allow for, upon adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the automatic enrollment of a bill that would set discretionary spending caps--something that has taken until right now to get done this year--enforced by both Congress and OMB and increase the debt limit in line with the levels assumed in the resolution. It saves a lot of time. The proposal seeks to encourage Congress and the President to reach agreement on a fiscal framework early in the budget process while maintaining the budget resolution as a congressional document. The budget resolution would be enforced whether or not the President signs the joint resolution. To encourage Congress to adhere to its budget blueprint, the proposal would create a special reconciliation process that would be triggered if the Congressional Budget Office finds that Congress is not on a path toward meeting the budget resolution's fiscal target that everybody voted on. This process would allow Congress to make surgical changes to achieve the debt target and could only be used for deficit reduction. The Byrd rule, which prohibits changes to Social Security in reconciliation, would apply. The plan also seeks to get legislative committees more involved in the budget process. It would require them, at the beginning of the process, to share their plans to address spending on unauthorized programs in their jurisdiction, as well as programs that Agency-based inspectors general and the Government Accountability Office have identified as ``in need of improvement.'' For that budget cycle, the committee would have to suggest a dollar amount for those programs listed as ``such sums.'' It would change our committee's name to the Fiscal Control Committee to better reflect the committee's focus on setting spending and revenue guardrails. It would also require the chairs and ranking members of the Appropriations and Finance Committees, if not already members of the Fiscal Control Committee, to serve as nonvoting members of the committee. This change is intended to increase the input in the primary spending and taxing committees in developing fiscal plans. The second discussion draft I am releasing deals with congressional budget enforcement. Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote that ``sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant.'' In keeping with this principle, the proposal would require reports tracking Congress's adherence to its budget plan to be regularly printed in the Congressional Record and posted on a publicly accessible website. This would help ensure that Members of Congress and the leadership of each committee are accountable for their fiscal decisions. The other two components of this draft deal with Senate budget points of order, which are the means through which the body enforces congressional budgets and rules. These points of order are supposed to create a meaningful obstacle to breaching the budget, but in recent years they have been routinely ignored or waived. The discussion draft proposes to make it harder to rewrite ``inconvenient'' budget rules. There have been a number of attempts in recent years to rewrite budget rules outside of the normal budget process to allow for more spending. There is already a point of order against this practice under the Congressional Budget Act, but that point of order lies against the whole measure, making it a very blunt instrument. The discussion draft would make the current point of order surgical so it would target only the offending provision without threatening to shut down the whole bill. In a similar vein, the discussion draft would disallow global waivers for surgical points of order. Right now, any Senator can make a single motion to waive all budget points of order that lie against a measure. These global waivers allow numerous budget rules to be broken with one vote, regardless of whether the points of order that lie are surgical or apply to the whole measure. These waivers have even been used to preemptively prevent surgical points of order that could alter the bill text from being raised. The discussion draft aims to end that practice and ensure the ability of Senators to raise points of order that could remedy a budget violation without killing the bill. The third discussion draft I am releasing deals with Congressional Budget Office operations and transparency. The CBO serves a vital role in the budget and legislative processes. While the Agency's longstanding mission has been to produce timely, objective, and accurate information for Congress, there have been growing calls for increased transparency in the estimating process. The discussion draft aims to build on bipartisan transparency reforms already underway at the CBO in a number of ways. No. 1, it would require CBO to report on its transparency initiatives, review past estimates to see where the Agency got it right or got it wrong, and produce underlying data for its estimates of major legislation. No. 2, it would require interest costs to be included as supplemental information in cost estimates, ensuring that lawmakers and the public have better information about the true costs of legislation. No. 3, it would require public cost estimates of appropriations legislation. Unlike legislation reported from authorizing committees, there is not currently a requirement for CBO to provide public estimates of legislation reported by the Appropriations Committee. No. 4, it would require CBO and the Government Accountability Office to conduct ongoing portfolio reviews of Federal programs to help lawmakers identify spending on duplicative, overlapping, and fragmented programs, as well as long-term funding trends and liabilities. That was my third discussion draft. My fourth discussion draft relates to how budget resolutions are considered on the Senate floor. The Congressional Budget Act provides special expedited procedures for consideration of a budget resolution on the Senate floor. These procedures were meant to ensure that the budget is considered and adopted in a deliberate but efficient manner. However, arcane floor procedures and a quirk of the act have undermined this intent by allowing a marathon of votes known as a vote-arama. Once debate on the budget has ended, we have a vote-arama. Without time for debate or analysis of what is being proposed, this process is not conducive to substantive consideration of fiscal policy and serves as a major deterrent to considering a budget on the floor. The discussion draft aims to establish a more orderly process for Senate consideration of the budget resolution that ensures the ability of Senators from both sides of the aisle to offer and have votes on amendments. It would change the current 50-hour rule on debate of a budget resolution to a limit on consideration and force the Senate to consider amendments after all allotted general debate time expires. Amendments would alternate between those offered by the minority and those offered by the majority, and the maximum debate time on the first-degree amendments would be reduced from 2 hours to 1 hour, to allow for the consideration of more amendments. Under this proposal, even if the maximum debate time was burned on each amendment, 24 amendments could be considered. Coincidentally, 24 is both the average and the median number of rollcall votes on budget resolutions since 1976. Of course, it isn't 1 minute of debate. It would be an hour of debate. This proposal would apply only to the Senate consideration of budget resolutions. It would not preclude adoption of a managers' package, apply to reconciliation bills, or change House procedures. We can all agree that the current budget and spending system has broken down. Reforming this dysfunctional system has been a goal of mine since entering the Senate and is one of my top priorities before I leave this body at the end of this Congress. I encourage my colleagues to consider the reform ideas I have laid out today and invite their feedback. I am hopeful that through this process, we will be able to reach bipartisan agreement to end the current dysfunction and put our country back toward a sustainable fiscal future--and on time so we will not have government shutdowns. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to recognize Dick Hiser, who is being inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Every year since 1992, Wyoming has recognized individuals who have made substantial contributions to agriculture in our great state. With nearly 60 years of involvement in the agriculture community in Wyoming and beyond, Mr. Hiser is well deserving of this honor. A native of Saratoga, WY, Mr. Hiser spent the early portion of his career working for the University of Wyoming as an extension agent in Carbon County. During his time in this position, Mr. Hiser led the Wyoming 4-H program in Carbon County to much success. He was critical in helping Carbon County students succeed, encouraging their efforts in everything from judging livestock to earning valuable academic scholarships. He is remembered by many in Wyoming that participated in the 4-H program for always being willing to share his knowledge and experience with the younger generation so they could be successful on their own journeys in the agriculture industry and beyond. Fortunately for Wyoming, Mr. Hiser's contributions include not only his unwavering commitment to youth programs, but Wyoming's ranching community as well. Many know him for his stalwart commitment to sustainable and high-quality cattle and remaining true to his three qoals: ensuring cattle were functional in their environment, structurally sound to compete in the marketplace, and would grade well once prepared for final sale. This commitment to Wyoming's agriculture community was reflected in Mr. Hiser's many successes in national cattle shows like the National Western Stock Show and the Arizona National Livestock Show. He has also been recognized as an outstanding alumni of the University of Wyoming College of Agriculture and is honored in the Carbon County 4-H Hall Of Fame. Mr. Hiser has dedicated much of his time to agriculture interest groups across the State, including the Wyoming Livestock Board, Wyoming Beef Council, Wyoming Stock Growers Association, and Wyoming State Board of Veterinary Medicine. In addition to his tremendous contributions to the agriculture, education, and 4-H communities in Wyoming, Mr. Hiser showed what it means to be a truly upstanding member of the community while serving as a Carbon County commissioner. Mr. Hiser's values, dedication, and work ethic exemplify the Wyoming way of life. I want to extend my congratulations to Mr. Hiser and thank him for his service and years of hard work. Mr. Hiser truly lives the Code of the West, and I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize his achievements as an inductee into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming is well served by his lasting and continuing contributions to our great State.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio for his outstanding comments on faith-biased security and the immigration crisis that we are facing and the solutions he suggested. We have a lot of work to do there. Now you get to hear from the accountant. I come to the floor today to call attention to the Federal Government's unsustainable fiscal outlook. Yesterday in the Senate Budget Committee we had a hearing on fixing our broken budget and spending process, with a focus on securing our country's fiscal future. Our witness was the Comptroller General of the United States, the head of the Government Accountability Office. In April of this year, GAO issued its third annual update on the nation's fiscal health. The report concluded that the Federal Government is on an unsustainable fiscal path. A Congressional Budget Office report released this week on the long- term budget outlook painted a similarly bleak picture, noting that our surging Federal debt is putting our Nation at risk of a ``fiscal crisis.'' This is one of the charts we got to see. I know it is pretty hard for people to read. We are figuring out a way to make this bigger. The impact will be tremendous. It shows that, in 2019, Social Security spending passed the $1 trillion mark annually. In 2021, the highway trust fund will be unable to meet all obligations. In 2022, the discretionary spending caps will expire, allowing unlimited spending. In 2025, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation multiemployer fund will be depleted. It will be insufficient to pay full benefits to insolvent pension plans. In 2025, CBO projects the net interest spending will surpass the spending on national defense. In 2026, the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will be depleted. With some incoming revenue, it will be sufficient to pay 91 percent of hospital- related Medicare spending, which is already forced to be low. In 2030, the net interest spending will exceed $1 trillion annually. The interest will exceed $1 trillion annually. In 2031, mandatory spending and interest will consume all Federal revenue. It means we will not get to make any decisions on anything that isn't mandatory, which we don't get to make decisions on right now. In 2032, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted. The amount of money coming in that will be paid out right away will only pay 77 percent of the scheduled benefits. I will cover that more later. Those are a few of the fiscal cliffs we are facing that could be solved now, that have to be solved now. If they are solved now, they have simpler, less impactful problems than if we wait until the cliff gets here. The Federal Government is swimming in a sea of red ink that threatens to drown America's future generations. If current laws don't change, debt as a percentage of GDP, will soar to unprecedented levels over the next 30 years. Let me repeat that. If current laws don't change, debt as a percentage of GDP--that is production--will soar to unprecedented levels over the next 30 years. By 2037, our debt-to-GDP ratio--that is debt-to-production--will surpass the historical records set in the aftermath of World War II. By 2049, debt will stand at 144 percent of GDP. That is how bond investors determine the likelihood of getting their money back. Interest rates reflect that fact and go up as risk increases. As that percentage goes up, the risk increases. The amount we have to pay to borrow any money will go up, if people still loan us money, which gets us to what is on the chart. In 2030, net interest will exceed $1 trillion a year annually. That is not buying anything; that is paying the interest. In most of the Nation's history, we have only seen periods of high spending and debt during wars and other emergencies, and the increase has been temporary, but today's fiscal situation is different. We are facing a demographic fiscal storm. For decades, nonpartisan experts, including the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office, have warned of the budget pressures that we would face as baby boomers aged and began to retire. We heard yesterday from the GAO that, on average, more than 10,000 people per day turn 65 years of age, and in the next few years, that number will rise to more than 11,000. Here is a little chart of how those thousands per day grow. Some of us were under the impression, of course, that the baby boomers eventually would die. That is kind of an inevitable sort of thing. What we didn't count on was the extra longevity that everybody will have and the fact that there are other generations coming up. So the chart does not tail off here on the end. The chart continues to grow, even though the birth rate is down. The combination of aging population, longer lifespans, and rising per-beneficiary healthcare costs put enormous pressure on our spending. According to the CBO, the projected explosion in debt we will see over the next few decades and beyond occurs because of mandatory spending--particularly Social Security and major healthcare programs, specifically, Medicare and Medicaid--not to mention the interest payments on the national debt that will permanently grow faster than Federal revenues. This autospent money--spending that is never looked at--has already grown from about 36 percent of the Federal budget 50 years ago to 70 percent today. If left unchecked, CBO projects that more than 80 cents of every dollar the government spends will be on mandatory spending, guaranteed to be spent without further approval, not to mention the interest by 2049. Because mandatory spending operates on autopilot, not subject to the annual appropriations process, it often escapes congressional scrutiny and proper oversight. It would be one thing if mandatory spending programs bypassed the appropriations process because they were fully funded through their own dedicated source of revenue, but that is not the case. As this chart shows, many of the largest mandatory programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps, don't have their own source of funding and instead rely entirely on money from the Treasury's general fund. You can see the blue here. That is money that will be coming in. The red is the extra money that has to be spent to meet the obligations. On some of these, you will note that there is no blue at all. That means this is coming out of the general fund, which is where we expect to be able to get defense, education, and all of the other things we do. So there is enough spent right here on excess that doesn't have a source of revenue that forces everything else we do to be borrowed, and I already mentioned the problems of borrowing. Even though some of these programs do collect some revenue--and a few of them do collect their own revenue--they often spend more than they take in. It didn't used to be the case. We used to have a lot more people working and paying into Social Security than were receiving Social Security, and there used to be a huge surplus, which we spent and then put as bonds in the drawer. We are now drawing down on those bonds, even though there is no real money to back them up, but that is about to be depleted as well. Over the next 10 years, CBO projects that Social Security spending will total $14.4 trillion, but the program's dedicated tax revenues will only cover $11.8 trillion of that. That is $14.4 trillion going out and $11.8 trillion coming in. You can't do that very long. CBO projects that under current law, Social Security's combined trust funds would be exhausted through 2032. You may say: That is a long time into the future, 2032. Well, that is 3 years earlier than the Social Security trustees estimated just earlier this year. How many times can we have that accelerated by 3 years before we are at the cliff? Total Medicare spending will amount to $11.5 trillion over the next 10 years, but the program just collects $6 trillion in dedicated taxes and premiums--again, $11.5 trillion going out and $6 trillion coming in. CBO and the Medicare trustees both projected Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which covers inpatient hospital services, hospice care, skilled nursing facilities, and home health services, will be depleted in 2026. Spending on military and civilian retirement programs will total nearly $2 trillion, but Federal employees' contributions toward their pension will only be $70 billion. I don't like that word ``trillion.'' It is kind of hard to wrap your head around it. Billions are tough enough, but $2 trillion is $2,000 billion. That is what is going out, $2,000 billion. What is coming in is $70 billion. There is a little bit of a gap. Just as with most other spending programs, this difference will be made up with general fund revenues, which today are all borrowed funds. Social Security and much of Medicare is supposed to be different though. Under current law, once their respective trust funds are exhausted, those programs will still pay out money, but they will only be able to pay out as much in benefits as they have coming in. We heard yesterday from the Government Accountability Office that, for Medicare, that means only being able to pay 91 cents on the dollar for hospital- related Medicare spending. How long do you think doctors will put up with that? How many hospitals will that put out of business? For Social Security, revenue is projected to be sufficient to cover only 77 percent of scheduled benefits. Who on Social Security will be able to afford a cut of 23 percent? That is the fiscal cliff. Of course, this shouldn't be news to lawmakers. For years, the warnings that these programs are on an unsustainable fiscal course have gone largely unheeded, hoping that the next Congress, the next President, or maybe the next generation would be more willing to deal with the problem. To be clear, I want to make sure Social Security and Medicare are able to continue providing benefits to current beneficiaries, as well as those who may need these programs in the future. That will require us to work together in a bipartisan manner to ensure these programs' solvency. If we don't make changes to the way these programs currently operate, a lot of people in the future will just be out of luck. There are levers that can be pulled on these. If any one is pulled, it would be a tragedy to whomever it affects. If they are all pulled, it is less noticeable but still noticeable based on how long it is before we ever reach a solution on these problems. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away and, in this case, the opposite is true. The longer we wait to address this imbalance, the more severe the changes will need to be, and we will have fewer options. We need to change the way we do things around here. Too often we wait to make the difficult decisions that everyone knows has to be made until we have a crisis on our hands. In the Budget Committee, we are focused on trying to put together bipartisan budget process reform proposals that will help us confront these thorny fiscal issues in a more reasoned, timely, and responsible way. I am hopeful we will get there. I am encouraged with the conversations we have had that we will get there. These issues are too important to ignore, and we are going to need to work together if we are to put our country on a more sustainable fiscal course. We owe it to future generations to try. We have handled some crises around here. Recently, we handled one of national disasters. The national disasters don't have to be paid for. They aren't a part of the budget caps--they should be a part of the budget caps, but they don't have to be a part of the budget caps--so they just get exempt as long as they are voted on, but everybody wants to help everybody with a problem, so we go ahead and pass those straight to debt. One week, at the beginning of the week, when we proposed it, it was $13 billion. When it actually passed it, it was up to $19.1 billion. That all went to additional debt. It is a crisis. We need to plan for it. We need to prioritize for it. We need to fit that in, but we can't do everything, continue to escalate everything, and consider that things we haven't look at for years are OK to keep doing the same way we are doing them or to have the duplication. We are doing hearings all the time on ways this problem can be solved, but it is important that we start solving it soon or future generations will be drastically affected. In fact, the dates I had up here earlier, present generations will be affected. We need to get everyone on board looking for solutions and biting the bullet now to do them. I have had a penny plan for a long time. Under the penny plan, if we just stopped spending 1 cent out of every dollar we spend, not counting Social Security, no change in Social Security--if we just found ways to do things 1 percent better, and we did that for 7 consecutive years, our budget would balance. If we started with a penny, I am pretty sure we would say: That really didn't hurt too bad. How about if we do 2 cents? Now we cut it back to 4 years, and we can start paying down debt, which we have to do for our future generations, if our kids and grandkids are going to have the kind of life we had. I am working for and hoping for everybody working together to solve these problems. If we just talk about them, and we don't work on them, it is pretty depressing but not as depressing as it will be hurting. I ask my colleagues to take a look at this and help come up with solutions. I am impressed with those who are working with me on it. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, 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. The Senate will soon consider S. Amdt. 901 to H.R. 3401, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019. This measure provides supplemental appropriations to address humanitarian assistance and security at the border. The measure contains spending that qualifies for cap adjustments under current statute. This measure includes $4,586 million in budget authority that is designated as being for emergency purposes pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. Of that amount, $145 million is for spending in the security category and $4,441 million is for nonsecurity spending. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $1,048 million in outlays in Fiscal Year 2019. As a result of the aforementioned designations, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $145 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $4,441 million, and outlays by $1,048 million in Fiscal Year 2019. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for Fiscal Year 2019 by $4,586 million in budget authority and $1,048 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. Mr. President, I wish submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for June 2019. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 BBAl8. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA. This is my fifth scorekeeping report this year. My last filing can be found in the Congressional Record for May 22, 2019. The information included in this report is current through June 24, 2019. Since my last filing, Congress has cleared three pieces of legislation with significant budgetary effects. The first, the Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2019, P.L. 116-20, provided $19.1 billion in emergency discretionary appropriations to address recent natural disasters. The second, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019, H.R. 299, increased compensation for certain veterans and modified veteran home loan programs. The final bill, the Taxpayer First Act, H.R. 3151, modified several rules that govern the organization of and operations at the Internal Revenue Service. Budget Committee Republican staff prepared Tables A-C. Table A gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the Fiscal Year 2019 enforceable levels filing required by BBA18. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 9 of the 16 authorizing committees are not in compliance with their allocations. Over the current 10-year enforceable window, authorizing committees have increased outlays by a combined $3.6 billion. Of the bills clearing Congress this reporting period, H.R. 299 added to the Veterans' Affairs Committee's existing violations, including an increase in spending of $394 million over the 10-year window, while H.R. 3151 reduced spending scoreable to the Finance Committee by $201 million over the same time period. Table B provides 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 sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2019, displayed in this table, show that the Appropriations Committee is compliant with spending limits for the current fiscal year. Those limits for regular discretionary spending are $647 billion for accounts in the defense category and $597 billion for accounts in the nondefense category of spending. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget resolution contained points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMP. Table C, which tracks the CHIMP limit of $15 billion for Fiscal Year 2019, shows the Appropriations Committee has enacted $15 billion worth of full-year CHIMPs for this Fiscal Year. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by Congress. For Fiscal Year 2019, CBO estimates that current-law levels are $2.9 billion above and $3.3 billion below enforceable levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Revenues are $426 million below the level assumed in the budget resolution. These figures remain unchanged since the May Scorekeeping Report, as the appropriation provided in P.L. 116-20 was accompanied by a concurrent and equivalent increase in aggregate spending levels pursuant to section 314 of the CBA. This adjustment can be found in the Congressional Record for May 23, 2019. Further, Social Security revenues are at the levels assumed for Fiscal Year 2019, while Social Security outlays are $4 million above assumed levels for the budget year. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The PAYGO scorecard shows deficit increases in Fiscal Year 2019 of $1,957 million, $427 million revenue loss, $1,530 million outlay increase; over the Fiscal Year 2018-2023 period of $3,412 million, $907 million revenue loss, $2,505 million outlay increase; and over the Fiscal Year 2018-2028 period of $800 million, $798 million revenue loss, $2 million outlay increase. During this reporting period, H.R. 3151 had the effect of reducing deficits by $37 million over both the Fiscal Year 2018-2023 and Fiscal Year 2018-2028 periods, while H.R. 299 increased deficits by $76 million and $394 million over the same periods, respectively. This submission also includes a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the enforcement filing on May 7, 2018. Since my last report, no new budgetary points of order were raised. On May 23, 2019, however, a Senator made a preemptive motion to waive all applicable points of order against the supplemental appropriations bill that would become P.L. 116-20. 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, I ask unanimous consent that at its next printing, the name of the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cruz, be added as cosponsor to S. 663 to S. 1790, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, today I wish to honor the life and legacy of the late Senator Thad Cochran. I appreciate having this opportunity to celebrate the life and accomplishments of Senator Cochran. His loss will be deeply felt by all of us here in the Senate, not only by those of us who served with him, but also by the many staff and individuals he has worked with over time. Elected to the House of Representatives in 1972, Senator Cochran touched many lives in his 46 years faithfully serving his State of Mississippi in Congress. As the son of a school principal and a math teacher, Senator Cochran understood the value of hard work and dedication. He emerged as a leader among his peers from a young age. He was an Eagle Scout who helped establish a new troop and valedictorian of his class in high school where he earned varsity letters in football, basketball, baseball, and tennis. At the University of Mississippi, Senator Cochran was a fraternity president, student body vice president, and a member of Omicron Delta Kappa, a national honorary leadership fraternity. Senator Cochran began his service to our country while at the University of Mississippi as a company commander in the Navy ROTC and, once graduated, was commissioned an ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve and assigned to duty aboard the USS Macon. As a fellow Eagle Scout, Senator Cochran demonstrated core scouting values like trust, loyalty, courtesy, and reverence. He displayed these values not only in his nearly five-decade-long career in Congress, but also as a father to his two children, Kate and Clayton. Described as gentle and soft-spoken, Senator Cochran was a defender of Senate procedure and often worked across the aisle. Senator Cochran was known to hold strong opinions; yet he developed close working relationships with members of both parties. Senator Cochran was determined that, if you look hard enough, there is common ground to be found with everyone. He earned his nickname of the Quiet Persuader through a determined yet respectful approach to negotiations. I had the honor of working with Senator Cochran in his role as chairman of the Appropriations Committee while I was chairmen of the Budget Committee. He was a hard worker and always guided by his core values. As a good statesman, he didn't let party politics get in the way and always did what he thought was right. In a nearly five-decade-long career in Congress, it is difficult to pinpoint Senator Cochran's single greatest achievement. Following Hurricane Katrina's devastation, Senator Cochran played a central role in security relief funds for Gulf States, especially for his home State of Mississippi. During his tenure as chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Cochran was a champion of the farm bill's nutrition programs. Senator Cochran served as a tireless advocate for farm families and America's agricultural industry. Senator Cochran authored the Mississippi Wilderness Act, which was the first Federal legislation ever passed for the perpetual protection of lands in the State of Mississippi. He was greatly involved in land and wildlife conservation in Mississippi, a legacy of his that will endure for future generations to enjoy. Senator Cochran was an effective lawmaker who was a tireless advocate for his constituents. His model of public service was that the constituents are always right. He said we are in Congress to serve, not to be served. Senator Cochran's model of public service is one to look up to and his style of leadership will serve as an inspiration for future generations to come. Senator Cochran was a committed man of faith. A member of the Southern Baptist Church, he was always one to do what he thought was right rather than what was easiest. My wife Diana joins me in sending our deepest condolences to his loved ones and know he will find eternal peace and happiness knowing he had a profound effect on all that knew him a colleague, as a father, and as a friend.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, 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. The Senate will soon consider S. Amdt. 250 to H.R. 2157, Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2019. This measure provides appropriations to address recent natural disasters and contains spending that qualifies for cap adjustments under current statute. This measure includes $19,121 million in budget authority that is designated as being for emergency purposes pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. Of that amount, $2,693 million is for spending in the security category, and $16,428 million is for nonsecurity spending. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $5,364 million in outlays in fiscal year 2019. As a result of the aforementioned designations, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $2,693 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $16,428 million, and outlays by $5,364 million in fiscal year 2019. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2019 by $19,121 million in budget authority and $5,364 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. Mr. President, this year, the Cody Stampede Rodeo is celebrating its 100th anniversary. This is a milestone for the Stampede, for Cody, and for Wyoming. One hundred years of the Cody Stampede Rodeo represents 100 years of us living life the cowboy way. The cowboy and the rodeo is an integral part of our culture, and this 100th anniversary is a chance to celebrate this long standing history. The rodeo has long been a part of Wyoming history. Wyoming is often referred to as the Cowboy State as a reference to its cowboy culture. At the heart of cowboy culture lies the rodeo. We hold rodeos all over the State in almost every single town. Rodeo is in some ways the West's ambassador to the world. With our bucking horse license plate and visitors' conceptions of the Wild West, cowboys and rodeo are what they see and expect to see first. Through the efforts of all who participate, the sport of rodeo continues to grow. It is a part of western tradition that can be shared and enjoyed by visitors and residents alike. The rodeo is a part of our livelihood that is unique to the Cowboy State and the West. The relationship between the rodeo and the West is much like the relationship between a cowboy and his horse. Few pairings have produced a more perfect partnership and the image of a cowboy and his horse remains an American icon. When one imagines a cowboy, he is rarely without his horse companion. The American cowboy represents the greatest parts of the American West: our courage, honor, and hard work ethic. The cowboy way provides an ethical code for cowboys to live by. All rodeo participants embody this cowboy way when competing in the arena, providing the world with a prime example of the code all Wyomingites live by. Cody is nicknamed the Rodeo Capitol of the World. Rodeo in Cody began over 100 years ago with William Frederick ``Buffalo Bill'' Cody and his Wild West Show. The Wild West Show was never formally held in Cody but the tryouts for the show were held right behind the Irma Hotel. In 1913, Buffalo Bill closed his Wild West Show. He hosted one last parade and rodeo in Cody for the prince of Monaco. In 1917, Buffalo Bill passed away and with that ended a fascinating chapter in the story of the American Wild West. In 1919, Clarence Williams led the effort to establish a rodeo celebration in Cody to commemorate Buffalo Bill and the Old West he personified. Every summer since 1919, people from all over come to watch cowboys compete in the Cody Stampede Rodeo, as well as the rodeos held every night from June to Labor Day. For its centennial year, the Cody Stampede Board is being inducted into the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Hall of Fame. This is a great accomplishment for the town and the Stampede. Caroline Lockhart was the founder and first president of the Cody Stampede Board. Caroline was considered a liberated, independent women ahead of her time. She was described as someone ``with a spirit as wild as the West.'' Last November, she was inducted into the Cowgirl Hall of Fame. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote across the country, it is important to recognize Wyoming's history of women leaders, like Caroline. Caroline Lockhart is a great example of the trailblazer nature of our great State. As a trailblazer State, women in Wyoming were voting long before the 19th Amendment was passed. Wyoming is coming up on the 150th anniversary of women's suffrage. In December 1869, Wyoming's territorial legislature became the first government in the world to grant women the right to vote. Called the Equality State, we have the distinction of having the first woman to serve as Governor and the first woman to vote in the world. Rodeo exemplifies the nature of the Equality State through its history of inclusion and acceptance. There are many great sports, but there are probably none as demanding or difficult as Rodeo. That is why it continues to grow in popularity and participation. It requires a tremendous combination of athletic ability, concentration, and dedication from its participants. It takes a lot of courage to face the challenges of the sport and give it your very best. Rodeo also does a lot to build character and increase the self- confidence of those who participate in the sport. Best of all, it is something the whole family can take part in, either in the arena or in the stands, cheering family and friends on to victory. The hard work of those who compete in rodeos represents the ``can do'' spirit of the West. It is great to see the entire community come together year after year as volunteers, participants, and fans for the Cody Stampede Rodeo. Again, I congratulate Cody on their 100th anniversary of the Cody Stampede Rodeo and wish the best for another 100 years of doing things the Cowboy way.