Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for November 2018. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71, and 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 July 18, 2018. The information included in this report is current through November 13, 2018. Budget Committee Republican staff prepared Tables 1-6. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution and the fiscal year 2019 enforceable levels filing. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 10 of the 16 authorizing committees are not in compliance with their allocations. The six committees that are fully compliant with their allocations are the committees on Armed Services, Foreign Relations, Rules and Administration, Intelligence, Indian Affairs, and Small Business and Entrepreneurship. The aggregate 10-year reduction in budget authority shown in table 1 is largely the product of savings that are generated at the end of the enforcement window through changes to customs user fees, Miscellaneous Tariff Bill Act of 2018, P.L. 115-239; Orrin G. Hatch Music Modernization Act, P.L. 115- 264, or from the sale of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, P.L. 115-270. Tables 2-3 give 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 2018, shown in table 2, are consistent with the statutory limits. Table 3 shows that the Appropriations Committee is currently compliant with spending limits for fiscal year 2019. Currently, seven Appropriations subcommittees are operating under a continuing resolution, the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245). The fiscal year 2018 budget resolution contained points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPs. Tables 4, 5, and 6 track compliance with these points of order. Tables 4 and 6 show compliance with fiscal year 2018 limits for overall CHIMPs, $17 billion, and the Crime Victims Fund CHIMP, $11.2 billion, respectively. Table 5, which tracks the CHIMP limit of $15 billion for fiscal year 2019, shows the Appropriations Committee has enacted $7.7 billion worth of full-year CHIMPs for fiscal year 2019. The fiscal year 2019 CHIMPs were contained in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies division of P.L. 115- 245. This information is used for determining points of order under sections 4102, overall limit, and 4103, Crime Victims Fund CHIMP, of H. Con. Res. 71. 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. Because legislation may still be enacted that would have an effect on fiscal year 2018, CBO provided a report for both fiscal year 2018 and 2019. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending and revenue levels in the budget resolution under section 311 of the CBA. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending for fiscal year 2018 exceed the amounts in last year's budget resolution by $157.4 billion in budget authority and $106.3 billion in outlays. Revenues are $3.2 billion above the revenue floor for fiscal year 2018 set by the budget resolution. Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed by the resolution, while Social Security revenues are $446 million below these levels. For fiscal year 2019, CBO annualizes the effects of the current continuing resolution, P.L. 115-245, which provides funding through December 7, 2018. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Budget Committee historically excludes this temporary funding. As such, the current-law levels are $307.9 billion and $198.1 billion below enforceable levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Revenues are $309 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 $2 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 $377 million, $309 million revenue loss, $68 million outlay increase, over the fiscal year 2018-2023 period of $1,101 million, $698 million revenue loss, $403 million outlay increase, and over the fiscal year 2018-2028 period of $105 million, $689 million revenue loss, $584 million outlay decrease. Excluded from these figures are the budgetary effects of two direct spending and revenue bills: the VA Mission Act of 2018, P.L. 115-182, and the Support for Patients and Communities Act, P.L. 115-271. The exclusion of these budgetary effects is the result of the statutory inclusion of explicit directions to exclude the effects from the Senate's PAYGO scorecard. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71. Also included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the May 7 enforcement filing. Since my last report, one point of order was raised against a CHIMP provision in the Labor-HHS division of H.R. 6157 during its initial Senate consideration. Pursuant to section 314 of S. Con. Res. 70, the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, I raised a point of order against a $390 million Pell grant provision. The point of order was waived by a vote of 68-24. 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 yield back all time. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be our next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. Confirming Supreme Court Justices is one of the most important and sacred roles of the Senate. Supreme Court candidates represent individuals who have reached the highest level of their profession and are often the brightest legal minds of their generation. Beyond their stellar resumes, they must have a proven track record of approaching each case with care and a commitment to upholding our rule of law and the Constitution. Judge Kavanaugh easily exceeds these standards and is highly qualified for confirmation to our nation's highest court. I met with Judge Kavanaugh in July and got the chance to talk with him about his judicial philosophy and record. During our conversation, I was struck by his professionalism, commitment to the Constitution, and vast knowledge of our legal system. We discussed the important issues facing Wyoming, and I believe he understands my State's unique challenges. As a rural, western State, we are constantly battling Federal Government overreach from Washington, DC. Judge Kavanaugh has a long history of reining in executive agencies that stretch beyond their statutory authorities, which is a welcome relief for my State. Wyoming is a State full of citizens who expect our courts to uphold the Constitution as the framers originally intended it. I voted to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as a judge to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals over a decade ago. Since that time, Judge Kavanaugh has become widely regarded by his peers as one of the most respected circuit judges in the Nation. He is a prolific writer and has authored more than 300 opinions, demonstrating his firm commitment to the rule of law. Having reviewed his record, and based on his experience and writings, I believe Judge Kavanaugh will fairly and impartially interpret the law. Over a decade ago, when the Senate was considering the nominations of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, I gave a floor speech where I stated that ``[W]e have shifted into an era of judges who legislate. We must return to the elementary doctrines that [recognize] the important and distinct roles of each branch.'' That sentiment is more true now than ever. Elected representatives in Congress are held accountable to the people and must demonstrate their fidelity to their constituents' concerns to remain in office. There is no such check on our judiciary. Congress's job is to write the law, and the courts are tasked with interpreting the law and determining its adherence to the Constitution, not writing it themselves. I believe Judge Kavanaugh understands this distinction thoroughly and has a proven track record of refraining from rewriting laws from the bench. His confirmation to the Supreme Court will set a new standard for our judicial system that encourages this type of philosophy, one that shies away from activism and focuses on the true role of the courts to interpret the law. I also appreciate Judge Kavanaugh's commitment to service. Since the beginning of his career, he has spent several decades in various roles in the public sector, serving our Nation. From the Bush administration and now to the courts, he has dedicated his life to public service and served our Nation honorably. He is also a family man who volunteers his extra time at his church or helping deliver meals to other people. Of all of the shining spots on Judge Kavanaugh's resume, this may be the most impressive. Serious accusations were recently made against Judge Kavanaugh. It is a Senator's job when giving advice and consent on nominations to give such accusations, and the people making them, careful consideration. I do not condone sexual assault in any case, and allegations must be taken seriously. All parties deserve fair treatment. I believe they got it, and the committee rendered its decision. The situation surrounding these accusations included noise and political pandemonium the likes of which we have thankfully not had too many occasions to witness in the history of our country. That is why I was appreciative of how Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley conducted committee consideration of this nomination. He cut through the conjecture, speculation, frenzy, and focused the committee on fair consideration for accusers and accused. I made my decision to vote for Judge Kavanaugh based on my meeting with him, his long and meritorious record of public service and as a judge, which involved multiple FBI background checks, including the most recent supplemental review, and the Judiciary Committee's work on the nomination. That work included a day of questions about the accusations made against Judge Kavanaugh. At the conclusion of this process, no new facts were revealed and no corroboration of the accusations was presented. Like Justice Gorsuch before him, I believe Judge Kavanaugh would issue decisions adhering to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, free from outside pressure. I applaud President Trump for taking his responsibility to nominate qualified Justices so seriously. Thank you.

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 the House amendment to H.R. 302, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. Among other things, this amendment provides emergency funding to respond to recent natural disasters. The amendment would increase budget authority by $1,680 million and outlays by $25 million in fiscal year 2019. The amendment includes language that would designate its spending as emergency pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act of 1985. The inclusion of this designation makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. As a result, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2019 by $1,680 million in budget authority and $25 million in outlays. Further, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Appropriations Committee by $1,680 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority and $25 million in outlays for fiscal year 2019. 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, 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 the conference report to H.R. 6157, a spending measure covering programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Labor-HHSE. The Defense portion of this legislation includes funding designated as overseas contingency operations funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. The Labor-HHSE portion includes spending designated for various program integrity efforts pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(B), section 251(b)(2)(C), and section 251(b)(2)(E) of BBEDCA. The inclusion of these designations with these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. On August 16, 2018, I filed an adjustment relating to S. Amdt. 3695 to H.R. 6157, which contained appropriations for the same two appropriations subcommittees. The Defense portion of the amendment contained $67,914 million in revised security budget authority designated as overseas contingency operations and $37,285 million in outlays, and the Labor-HHSE portion contained $1,897 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority for program integrity initiatives with $1,573 million in outlays. The budgetary adjustment was made to accommodate this spending. Since the levels of budget authority for overseas contingency operations and budget authority and outlays for program integrity spending in the conference report are consistent with the previously filed levels and appropriately designated, those funds are now available for use in this conference report. However, the amount of outlays flowing from the overseas contingency operations funding in the conference report is estimated to be $214 million less than my earlier adjustment. Therefore, I am reducing the general purpose outlay allocation to the Appropriations Committee and budgetary aggregates to reflect this new estimate at this time. 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, 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 the conference report to H.R. 5895, a spending measure covering programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water, military construction and Veterans Affairs, and the Legislative Branch. The military construction portion of this legislation includes funding for military construction designated as overseas contingency operations funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. These provisions provide $921 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2019. The inclusion of the overseas contingency operations designations with these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. On June 18, 2018, I filed an adjustment relating to S. Amdt. 2910 to H.R. 5895, which contained appropriations for the same three appropriations subcommittees. The military construction portion of the amendment contained $921 million in revised security budget authority designated as overseas contingency operations, and the budgetary adjustment was made to accommodate this spending. Since the level of overseas contingency operations spending in the conference report is consistent with the previously filed levels and appropriately designated, those funds are now available for use in this conference report, and no further budgetary adjustment is warranted at this time.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I would like to honor the late Senator John McCain. I appreciate having this opportunity to celebrate the life and accomplishments of John McCain and to mourn him as he has lost his battle with cancer. 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. Senator McCain was a true patriot who dedicated his life to serving others. His dedication to his country and its defense was unmatched. After graduating from the Naval Academy, he served for two decades in the Navy. He was tested as only few men ever are after his plane crashed in Vietnam. He showed incredible resilience and moral fortitude during his time as a prisoner of war. After leaving the Navy, he represented the great State of Arizona in Congress for 35 years, first in the House and later in the Senate. His sense of duty, loyalty, honor, and compassion were bedrock strong and served to guide him in his long career of public service. He rightfully earned his Maverick moniker during his long public career with his iron strength of will to stand up and fight for what he believed was right, no matter the political consequences. He was renowned for his support of the military. John showed unwavering support to freedom, democracy, and the country he loved. He found it in himself to push to reopen ties to Vietnam, believing that was how we could begin to heal the wounds of war. He was a lively speaker, a straight talker, and a prodigious leader, but more than that, he was a good man. 1 had the opportunity to work with John on several pieces of legislation over time, and every time, I was impressed with his ability to cut right to the heart of an issue. He always put what he thought would be best for his constituents and America above any political concerns or niceties. He was passionate throughout his long years of service to the people of Arizona. John was a man of faith. He had a quiet faith, one that was beyond simple expression. It meant, when he did speak of his faith, it made it that much more impactful. He once recounted how it was his faith in God, faith in his fellow prisoners, and faith in his country that helped him make it through his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In an interview John gave in 2008, he shared what it meant to him to be a Christian, ``It means I'm saved and forgiven.'' During that same interview, he mentioned a guard at that prisoner of war camp in Vietnam who shared his faith one Christmas. ``He stood there for a minute, and with his sandal on the dirt in the courtyard, he drew a cross and he stood there, and a minute later, he rubbed it out, and walked away. For a minute there, there were just two Christians worshipping together.'' His moral compass was guided strongly by his faith in God, and it meant that he always did what he thought was right, rather than doing what was easy. I know that his quiet devotion and many of his other qualities earned him respect from Members on both sides of the aisle. While America is remembering a war hero, veteran, Senator, and Presidential candidate, his family is remembering a husband, a father, a brother and experiencing a world that seems incomplete without him in it. My wife Diana and I send our thoughts and deepest prayers to his wife Cindy and the entire McCain family, as we mourn the passing of an American hero. How can I adequately praise the life of a man who has had such a long and storied career, one with so many accomplishments? In an interview, John talked about how he would want to be remembered. He wanted people to remember him as a guy who ``served his country.'' I intend to do just that. John McCain served his country. He served it well. America will never forget that service. Thank you. God bless you. May you find peace.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, immediately following some comments I will be raising a budget point of order. I find this circumstance to be unfortunate, given that I have filed an amendment that would have cured the budget violation. The substitute increases the maximum discretionary Pell grant award. Under the Pell Grant Program's complicated funding structure, this increase triggers a point of order for a change in mandatory spending, or CHIMP, which results in a net increase in spending and would increase mandatory spending by a total of $390 million. While we are unable to consider my solution--one supported by the National Taxpayers Union and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--I believe the only alternative I have as Budget chairman is to enforce the budget rules we have agreed to. In this case, the budget rule being violated is bipartisan. It was first created by the Senate Democrats in 2008. If this point of order is sustained, the bill can still move forward, but together we will have prevented $350 million in increased direct mandatory spending from being rolled into the baseline where it will evade budget enforcement. Now is the time to enforce our budget rules. I urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and not to waive this point of order. The provision on page 270 of the pending substitute amendment in division B, title III, lines 7 and 8 under ``Student Financial Assistance'' would result in a net increase in the cost of mandatory programs affected by the bill. Therefore, I raise a point of order against that provision pursuant to section 314(a) of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment aimed at helping to ensure the integrity of the budget enforcement process in future years. Before I do so, I would like to again acknowledge the hard work the Appropriations Committee has put into the fiscal year 2019 spending bills. We have made significant progress so far this year, particularly considering that this is the first Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill to be brought to the Senate floor for amendment in nearly 11 years. I commend the committee and its leaders for their efforts and the spirit of cooperation that has made this feat possible. As it stands now, this appropriations bill is subject to a point of order under section 314 of S. Con. Res. 70, the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution authored by former Democratic Senator and Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad. That point of order aims to prevent mandatory spending increases on appropriations bills. My amendment remedies this violation while maintaining the proposed increase to the maximum award. The amendment I am offering relates to the budgetary effects of the substitute amendment's proposed increase to the maximum discretionary Pell Grant award for the award year 2019-2020. If anybody has been able to follow that so far, you ought to be on the Budget Committee. Now I am going to give a lot more detail that will be equally as difficult, because it needs to be a part of the record to show why we need the amendment that I am talking about in order to avoid a point of order and to get the increase for this year that is being requested. As former chairman of the HELP Committee, I understand how important Pell Grants are in making college more affordable and accessible, especially for students from my home State of Wyoming. That is why I want to be very clear that my amendment would not cut Pell Grant funding for the 2019-2020 award year or prevent future increases in the maximum annual award. My amendment simply deals with how we account for such increases in the Federal ledger. First, a little background may be helpful on the Pell Grant program, which has one of the most complicated funding profiles in the entire Federal budget. The Pell Grant program is funded by a mix of annual discretionary appropriations, a so-called mandatory add-on award, and a permanent mandatory funding stream. My amendment deals with the interaction between the discretionary and the mandatory add-on funding streams. Each year, the Appropriations Committee includes a provision in the Department of Education spending bill specifying the maximum discretionary Pell Grant award for the upcoming award year. The substitute amendment would increase that maximum award for the award year 2019-2020 by $100 to $5,135. CBO estimates that this change, which follows a $175 increase to the maximum award provided in fiscal year 2018, will increase mandatory spending on the add-on by $39 million in fiscal year 2019. It is pretty complicated. There are a lot of dollars, a lot of different places. Even though the substitute specifies the maximum discretionary award is $5,135 for award year 2019-2020, under scoring rules--that is how we keep track of how much money we are going to owe--the CBO has to assume this maximum award extends through 2028. That means the $39 million annual mandatory cost of this provision also extends through 2028, giving it a 10-year score of $390 million. The substitute amendment includes an offset for the $39 million cost in the first year but leaves the remaining $351 million in mandatory spending scored to the fiscal year 2019 bill unpaid for. Again, under scoring rules, once that $350 million in estimated future spending is incorporated into the baseline, it will not be subject to budget enforcement in future years and will never need to be paid for. That is a problem we face regularly around here, and this is the problem my amendment aims to address. My amendment would maintain the maximum discretionary award for 2019- 2020 to $5,135, preserving the $100 increase proposed by the Appropriations Committee, while it would prevent the estimated $351 million increase in estimated future year spending from being rolled into the baseline where it could escape enforcement or even notice in future years. It would require Congress to offset future mandatory spending increases just as the substitute amendment would do for the first year. If we can do it now, we should be able to do it in the future. Let me repeat. My amendment would not reduce the maximum Pell grant for the 2019-2020 award year or prevent future increases to the maximum award. In fact, it would maintain the proposed increase to the maximum Pell grant for the 2019-2020 award year. Let me repeat. As it now stands, this appropriations bill is subject to a point of order under section 314 of S. Con. Res. 70 of the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, which was authored by former Democratic Senator and Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and passed. That point of order aims to prevent mandatory spending increases on appropriations bills. My amendment remedies this violation while maintaining the proposed increase to the maximum award. This is just a good-government amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Let's not be spending into the future until we know where the money is coming from. Let's go ahead and make the award for this year, and let's find a way to pay for it next year. 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 is considering S. Amdt. 3695, a ``minibus'' spending measure covering programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. The defense portion of this amendment includes provisions designated as overseas contingency operations funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. These provisions provide $67,914 million in revised security budget authority and $37,285 million in outlays for fiscal year 2019. The inclusion of the overseas contingency operations designations with these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment also includes provisions designated as program integrity spending pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(B), section 251(b)(2)(C), and section 251(b)(2)(E) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates these provisions will increase budget authority by $1,897 million and outlays by $1,573 million in fiscal year 2019. The budget authority from these provisions is categorized as nonsecurity spending. Accordingly, I am increasing the fiscal year 2019 budgetary aggregate by $69,464 million in budget authority and $38,556 million in outlays. Further, I am revising the budget authority allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $67,914 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $1,897 million, and outlays by $38,858 million in fiscal year 2019. 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 speak on behalf of Hight Proffit, 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 State. During his life, Hight displayed a special talent for agriculture and was a dedicated public servant for his neighbors and friends. Hight is a well-deserved recipient of this great honor. Hight moved to Wyoming at a young age during the middle of the Great Depression when it wasn't easy to make a living, let alone to be a rancher. Much like he would show throughout his life, he showed what you can accomplish through hard work and resolve and learned to make the best out of everything. He is remembered as a handyman, as well as an innovator. Hight excelled in improving agriculture and left his mark on the long, proud history of Wyoming agriculture. He worked hard to improve not only his ranch, but also the community around him, from fairly distributing water to expanding electric power. Among his many accomplishments, perhaps the greatest was the dedication he showed to his family. By his side for over 60 years, was his loving wife, Dorothy. As his son Don puts it, Hight and Dorothy ``established a ranch with the help of the Federal Land Bank on the Bear River, where they raised cattle, sheep and horses, as well as four children.'' Hight and Dorothy were then blessed with numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Not only did he serve as a role model for his family, but his community as well as a dedicated public servant. Hight served on numerous boards and committees, as a Unita County commissioner, a State representative, and as a State senator. He also served as a mentor to countless young people through 4-H, Boy Scouts of America, Farm Bureau, and his church. Although it has now been 16 years since Hight has passed, his memory lives on and his example continue to inspire others. I want to extend my congratulations to the family of Hight and Dorothy. Hight truly lived the code of the West, and I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize his achievements and his memory as an inductee into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming is well served by his lasting and continuing contributions to our State.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on recent legislation extending the National Flood Insurance Program on a short-term basis. The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, was created in 1968 in response to the lack of flood insurance available at the time. The program's intent was to encourage folks to protect their homes and communities to adopt sound floodplain management standards. I would like to reiterate the findings of the 1966 Presidential Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy: ``A flood insurance program is a tool that should be used expertly or not at all. Correctly applied it could promote wise use of flood plains. Incorrectly applied, it could exacerbate the whole problem of flood losses. For the Federal Government to subsidize low premium disaster insurance or provide insurance in which premiums are not proportionate to risk would be to invite economic waste of great magnitude'' In less than a year, we have extended the program seven times, most attached to must-pass bills, without any needed reforms. The program is over $20 billion in debt, even though we forgave $16 billion of that debt just last year. With our Federal debt now above $21 trillion, we need to address the solvency of the NFIP as soon as possible. We can begin doing that by bringing some meaningful reform to the program, including moving towards more risk-based premiums. More importantly, interest from the private flood insurance market is growing. Their involvement means more flexible flood policies, integrated coverage with other insurance policies, and lower-cost coverage for some customers. Increasing private insurance's participation in flood insurance markets would reduce the financial risk obligations of this program for the Federal Government. I hope Congress will further clarify private insurers' role in the flood insurance market. As it stands, the NFIP cannot stand on its own feet, and it requires significant reforms to put it on sound financial footing. I urge my colleagues to find bipartisan, sustainable reforms to this program. We must stop kicking the can down the road on the necessary reforms needed to make this an effective program.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and his committee for their efforts to address these concerns. I am hopeful reform is just around the corner, and I encourage my colleagues to continue to support reform of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I want to begin by thanking my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for his commitment to the students who will benefit from the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and for the bipartisanship that helped us to reach this point. I also want to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for prioritizing the effort to reauthorize Perkins CTE. Their recognition of the importance of this work was key to getting past an impasse that only a few months ago looked unlikely to break. Senator Casey and I have had a lot of hours of working together to come up with a bill that would make a difference for people who want to work with their hands. I have a favorite book that talks about this, and part of the title is ``From Coal Miners to Cowboys,'' referring to the people who get their hands dirty every day to provide what we need. This is a segment of the economy we really need. I know that if you need an electrician or a plumber, you want them right away, and you want them trained. That is what this bill emphasizes and provides for. I do need to thank the administration, and Ivanka Trump Kushner, in particular, for putting the spotlight on the reauthorization of Perkins CTE and workforce development generally. With a laser-like focus on strengthening the economy, the President and his administration have rightly recognized that a strong and prosperous economy requires a skilled and ready workforce. This combined, bipartisan effort resulted in the Senate unanimously passing its amendment to the House's own bipartisan bill. We did it by voice vote, and that is as bipartisan as it gets around here. Now the House has taken that bill and approved of the changes that were made, which we coordinated with them during the time that we were negotiating, and they have taken the same action. So that bill is now on the way to the President, who emphasized that we need to do it. Passing this reauthorization is particularly important to Wyoming, where one-sixth of school districts have chosen not to participate in Perkins CTE because the compliance and reporting burdens were too heavy to justify the funds they would receive. That changes with this bill. For years, States have been leading the effort to tackle the national workforce skills gap and ensure that they, and our country at large, have a workforce that is capable of meeting the challenges of an increasingly dynamic, competitive, and global economy. Unfortunately, States have been meeting these challenges under a program that was last authorized in 2006. By modernizing Perkins CTE, we are taking the important step of better aligning the primary Federal career and technical education program with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act. We like these all to work together--and these are all achievements that have been done in recent years--because, far from working independently, these programs are all pieces of the larger workforce development puzzle. Because it can be hard to know what programs to provide when you don't know which ones are needed, this legislation also promotes collaboration between the stakeholders so that local businesses are brought to the table to communicate their needs to States and local educators as strategies and programs are developed. We want people hired after they get training. So the training needs to be for the jobs that are going to be available. Crucially, by enabling the limited funds provided by this program to be more effectively spent on education and less on complying with Federal reporting requirements, this legislation will better reflect that the investment made by the Federal Government in career and technical education represents pennies on the dollar when compared to the investment of money and effort made at the State and local levels. This bill takes the important step of providing States with greater authority to determine the levels at which they will be held accountable under this program. However, as States continue to compete for investment, accountability will ultimately come in the form of employers who will vote with their feet and their capital, hiring people. Ask any businessperson what their biggest challenge is, and they will likely tell you it is finding workers with the right skills and knowledge to fill their open jobs. States and communities that recognize this need and rise to the challenge of preparing their residents for those jobs are the ones that will succeed in this economy. These improvements, along with many others included in this bill, underscore why passage of this legislation has long been a priority for so many people, and it is only appropriate that one of the clearest displays of bipartisanship in the 115th Congress would be in support of our workforce and the students preparing to join it. I once again thank my friend Senator Casey for his support in this effort, and I will also express my disappointment in how little publicity there has been. If there is a controversy, if people are cursing each other or making unusual comments, that makes the paper. But to actually do something--to actually get something done and to get it done in a bipartisan way with people working together virtually unanimously--well, that must have been too easy. If it were easy, we wouldn't have been working on it for three years, but we got it done. It is on its way to the President, and I am proud of it. Again, I thank Senator Casey for his superb effort in reaching agreement on this. 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 July 2018. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71, and 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 Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act (CBA). This is the fifth scorekeeping report this year and the second since I filed new enforceable levels on May 7, pursuant to BBA18 requirements. My last filing can be found in the Congressional Record for June 6, 2018. The information included in this report is current through July 16, 2018. Republican Budget Committee staff prepared Tables 1-6. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution and the fiscal year 2019 enforceable levels filing. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 10 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations. During this reporting period, Congress cleared two pieces of legislation with significant budgetary effects scored to authorizing committees. The first bill was H.R. 770, the American Innovation $1 Coin Act. This measure requires the Secretary of the Treasury to mint, beginning in 2019, new $1 coins ``in recognition of American innovation and significant innovation and pioneering efforts of individuals or groups from each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories.'' CBO estimates that H.R. 770 would increase direct spending in the near term by $3 million but would be deficit- neutral over the entire budget window. This bill was charged to the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. The second bill was H.R. 5956, the Northern Mariana Islands U.S. Workforce Act of 2018. This bill modifies U.S. immigration policy regarding the Northern Mariana Islands, thereby reducing the number of people able to claim asylum and receive means-tested benefits. CBO estimates that this bill would save $3 million over the budget window. H.R. 5956 was charged to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Tables 2-6 remain unchanged from my last filing. 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. Because legislation can still be enacted that would have an effect on fiscal year 2018, CBO has provided a report both for fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending and revenue levels in the budget resolution under section 311 of the CBA. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending for fiscal year 2018 exceed the amounts in H. Con. Res. 71 by $157.4 billion in budget authority and $106.3 billion in outlays. Revenues are $3.2 billion above the revenue floor for fiscal year 2018 set by the budget resolution. Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed by the resolution, while Social Security revenues are $446 million below the levels in the budget. For fiscal year 2019, CBO estimates that current-law levels are below the fiscal year 2019 enforceable aggregates by $1,142.2 billion in budget authority and $646.1 billion in outlays. The allowable spending room will be reduced as appropriations bills are enacted. Revenues are $5 million below the level assumed for fiscal year 2019. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in the fiscal year 2019 enforcement filing. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. After accounting for enacted legislation during this reporting period, the PAYGO scorecard shows deficit increases in fiscal year 2019 of $25 million--$5 million revenue loss, $20 million outlay increase--over the fiscal year 2019-2023 period of $332 million--$47 million revenue loss, $285 million outlay increase-- and over the fiscal year 2019-2028 period of $487 million--$108 million revenue loss, $379 million outlay increase. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71. Included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the May 7 enforcement filing. On June 18, 2018, Senator Bernard Sanders raised a Senate PAYGO point of order against H.R. 5515, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. That point of order was waived by a vote of 81-14. H.R. 5515 has yet to be enacted and is currently in conference. 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 today to express my opposition to the nomination of Mark Bennett to be a circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Bennett has had a long legal career and has served as the attorney general of Hawaii. My concerns lie not in his resume, but in his public history of opposing constitutionally protected freedoms essential to our way of life. I have been and always will be a defender of the right of people to keep and bear arms. Wyoming is a State full of law-abiding gun owners who grow up learning to respect firearms and how to use them responsibly. Folks use them for a variety of purposes, everything from self-defense to hunting to work. As Hawaii's attorney general, Mr. Bennet joined four other State attorneys general in an amicus curie brief on behalf of the District of Columbia in the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief argued that the Second Amendment protects no individual right to bear arms. This position worries me that he would not uphold Supreme Court precedent on the Second Amendment. At a time when so many critical issues are being litigated in our courts, I cannot vote to confirm a nominee with a background of opposing fundamental constitutional rights. Therefore, I must oppose the nomination of Mr. Bennett. Thank you. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I am so glad that you are presiding at this time because I know you are part of the Joint Select Committee on Budget Reform. I want to address that a little bit. Earlier this week, the Senate passed its version of the fiscal year 2019 Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs spending bills. Prior to this week, the last time the Senate had passed its version of a regular appropriations bill--not a supplemental or an omnibus bill--was more than 2 years ago. I commend Chairman Shelby and the members of the Appropriations Committee for their work in getting us this far and for their commitment to restoring a more regular process for the consideration of appropriations measures. I hope that in the weeks to come, we will be able to process more such measures in a similarly productive manner. It was a long road getting to this point. Last February, after a brief government shutdown that followed an immigration policy dispute and a yearlong stalemate on appropriations, Congress and the administration agreed to legislation establishing new discretionary spending caps for this fiscal year and the next and providing a process for budget enforcement--something normally done by the Budget Committee. This latest budget agreement follows a string of 2-year budget deals, each reached under the threat of a shutdown. In fact, frustration with the current process has grown so great that through the February legislation, Congress created the Joint Select Committee tasked with improving our broken budget and appropriations process. I commend the Joint Committee and its leaders, Co-Chairman Womack and Co-Chairwoman Lowey, for their work on this subject. Our budget and appropriations process is clearly in need of reform, and I wish them success in this effort. Today, I rise to share some of my thoughts and experiences on this subject, having led bipartisan efforts in the Senate Budget Committee to explore and reform the budget process. As my colleagues know, the Senate Budget Committee sets the top-line spending levels that the Appropriations Committee then divides each year among the various departments and accounts. The Appropriations Committee does the specific spending. While there are many potential improvements we could make in this process, I will focus my remarks at this time on just three points. First, the annual spending process will never truly improve so long as we are willing to hold it hostage to larger ideological or political battles. Both sides have been guilty of this in the past, and until we are willing to say ``no more,'' no process reform will succeed. I am hopeful that the progress we are seeing now on fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills is a sign that we have reached a tipping point and are willing to work together, as the American people expect us to do. The second topic I want to address is the need to move to a biennial funding cycle. I have been pleased to hear some members of the joint committee voice support for this concept, and I hope that consensus on this point continues to build. The appropriations process--the spending process--has rarely worked as intended. In all but 4 years between 1977 and 2018, continuing resolutions, or CRs, were enacted because of the failure of Congress to complete all of the regular appropriations bills before the beginning of the new fiscal year. We have actually had more than 180 continuing resolutions signed into law over the last four decades. In this fiscal year alone, we required five. These short-term continuing resolutions keep the government funded while we continue our work, but their recurring nature demonstrates the problems with our current process. The individual agencies have to operate on last year's budget until something new is approved. All too often, by the time Congress can agree on how to appropriate money for a given year, the result is a massive omnibus that funds the entire government. Members are then presented with a choice--either pass the bill or shut down the government. I have long believed that one of the most important things we can do is fix this process. The way to do that would be to move to a biennial appropriations system. By providing funding for 2 years instead of 1, Congress would immediately make the consideration of regular appropriations measures more likely. Instead of subjecting itself to a nearly perpetual annual cycle of developing and attempting to pass 12 appropriations bills for the next fiscal year, which starts October 1, Congress could spread those bills over 2 years, allowing more time to develop and scrutinize them and give 2 years' worth of planning to everybody. Not only would a biennial appropriations process help Congress execute its power of the purse, it would also benefit the Federal agencies too. Agencies would have more time to devote to developing and to executing long-term strategies and would finally have some certainty in their budgets. Nowhere is the need for this more obvious than at the Department of Defense. The Budget Committee has heard repeatedly from Defense Department leaders that the one thing they want more than anything is budgetary certainty. Annual spending fights and the inability to plan under continuing resolutions have wreaked havoc on the Department's workforce and contracting efforts. Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer recently delivered public remarks in which he identified $4 billion in waste due to a lack of financial stability. He said: Since 2001, we have put $4 billion in a trash can, poured lighter fluid on top of it, and burned it. It's enough money that it can buy us the additional capacity and capability that we need. Instead, that $4 billion of taxpayer money has been lost because of inefficiencies [caused by] continuing resolutions. Transitioning to a biennial appropriations process could help solve that problem. Last Congress, I introduced legislation that would continue the budget resolution process on an annual cycle in order to allow for top- line adjustments and reconciliation instructions as events warrant but would move toward a bifurcated biennial appropriations process. Under such a proposal, appropriations would continue to be divided among 12 different bills, 6 of which would be adopted in the first session of Congress, and 6 would be adopted in the second session. Maybe we could even make it so the six toughest ones would be done right after an election and the six easier ones, just before an election, to take more of the politics out of it. By cutting in half the number of bills required to be adopted annually, Congress could create space for itself to devote more time and attention to oversight and other national priorities. If adopted, I believe this proposal would yield a more sustainable and successful budget and appropriations process--a goal I believe both parties share. I thank Speaker of the House Ryan for his comments this morning in which he suggested that we should do it on a biennial basis and that they should be divided into two segments of six, each for a 2-year period, so they would stagger how they are approached. My third suggestion is a minor one but could have some of the most significant impact on the budget. The first one is, change the name of the Budget Committee. People think that we actually make all of those spending decisions. We don't. We set the top line for the Appropriations Committee, which is also improperly named, so they can do their work. My suggestion would be that we stop calling the Budget Committee the Budget Committee and call it the Debt Control Committee. We ought to be and are responsible for seeing how much revenue is coming in and what some of the different allocations are and doing a lot of reviews of that and checking to see what the debt-to-GDP ratio is going to be and how much the debt limit is going to go up, which becomes another subject of debate. If that were the Debt Control Committee, all of that could be done in committee, with one approval here on the floor. The other half of that suggestion is that the Appropriations Committee ought to be called the Budget Committee because they really are the ones in control of the spending, in control of the budget. In every State in the Nation, the committee that actually does the appropriations is the budget committee. That would stop the flood of people who come in right after the President's budget comes out and before the Senate Budget Committee does their work, where they think they have to come in and ask for the details on their expenditures at that time. If it was the Debt Control Committee, they would have a whole different perspective on what it was that committee is trying to do, and they would take their suggestions to the appropriate committee, which would be the Appropriations Committee, renamed the ``Budget Committee'' so they would understand what they are doing. As the Joint Select Committee continues to work, I encourage my colleagues here and in the other body to consider biennial appropriations as a necessary reform. I wish them success in their endeavor. I yield the floor.

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 is considering S. Amdt. 2910, a ``minibus'' spending measure covering programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and the Legislative Branch. This legislation includes funding for military construction designated as overseas contingency operations funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. These provisions provide $921 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2019. The inclusion of the overseas contingency operations designations with these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. Accordingly, I am increasing the fiscal year 2019 budgetary aggregate by $921 million in budget authority. Further, I am revising the budget authority allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $921 million in fiscal year 2019. I ask unanimous consent that this notice and the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for June 2018. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71, and 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 Senate 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 fourth scorekeeping report this year and the first since I filed new enforceable levels on May 7, pursuant to BBA18 requirements. My last filing can be found in the Congressional Record for April 12, 2018. The information included in this report is current through June 4, 2018. Republican Budget Committee staff prepared Tables 1-6. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution and the Fiscal Year 2019 enforceable levels filing. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 10 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations. Two committee allocation violations were recorded since my last report. The first violation stems from passage of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, S. 2155, P.L. 115-174, which increased direct spending within the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee over the Fiscal Year 2019, Fiscal Year 2019-2023, and Fiscal Year 2019-2028 period. The second violation resulted from passage of the VA MISSION Act of 2018, S. 2372, which increased direct spending within the Veterans' Affairs Committee over all enforceable periods. Tables 2-3 give 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 2018, shown in table 2, are consistent with the statutory limits. Table 3 shows that the Appropriations Committee is currently compliant with spending limits for Fiscal Year 2019. As of this filing, subcommittees have only been charged with permanent and advanced appropriations that first become available in Fiscal Year 2019. The Fiscal Year 2018 budget resolution contained points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPS. Tables 4, 5, and 6 track compliance with these points of order. Tables 4 and 6 show compliance with Fiscal Year 2018 limits for overall CHIMPS, $17 billion, and the Crime Victims Fund CHIMP, $11.2 billion, respectively. Table 5, which tracks the CHIMP limit of $15 billion for Fiscal Year 2019, shows the Appropriations Committee has not passed a bill with a CHIMP for Fiscal Year 2019. This information is used for determining points of order under sections 4102, overall limit, and 4103, Crime Victims Fund CHIMP, of H. Con. Res. 71. 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. Because legislation can still be enacted that would have an effect on Fiscal Year 2018, CBO provided a report for both Fiscal Year 2018 and Fiscal Year 2019. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending and revenue levels in the budget resolution under section 311 of the CBA. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending for Fiscal Year 2018 exceed the amounts in last year's budget resolution by $157.4 billion in budget authority and $106.3 billion in outlays. Revenues are $3.2 billion above the revenue floor for Fiscal Year 2018 set by the budget resolution. Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed by the resolution, while Social Security revenues are $446 million below the levels in the budget. For Fiscal Year 2019, CBO estimates that current-law levels are below the Fiscal Year 2019 enforceable aggregates by $1,142.2 billion in budget authority and $646.1 billion in outlays. The allowable spending room will be reduced as appropriations bills are enacted. Revenues are $5 million below the level assumed for Fiscal Year 2019, a result of enacting S. 2155. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in the Fiscal Year 2019 enforcement filing. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. In my enforcement filing on May 7, I reset the Senate's PAYGO scorecard to zero for all enforceable periods. While two bills that increase the deficit have passed since the reset, only S. 2155's budgetary effects will be recorded, as the VA MISSION Act included a provision excluding its deficit increases, $4.5 billion, from the scorecard. As such, the PAYGO scorecard shows deficit increases in Fiscal Year 2019 of $22 million, $5 million revenue loss, $17 million outlay increase, over the Fiscal Year 2019-2023 period of $329 million, $47 million revenue loss, $282 million outlay increase, and over the Fiscal Year 2019-2028 period of $490 million, $108 million revenue loss, $382 million outlay increase. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71. Also included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the May 7 enforcement filing. No points of order have been 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, as we approach Memorial Day weekend, we will soon pause to honor and remember the members of our Armed Forces who have paid the ultimate price in service to our country. As Americans, we honor all our veterans who have sacrificially fought for our freedoms--certainly those who have paid with their lives but also those who have returned home, determined that we not forget their fallen brothers- and sisters-in-arms. Among the most meaningful ways Congress can honor our veterans is to uphold the promises that have been made to them. One such promise and responsibility is to ensure that America's veterans have access to the quality medical care they earned through their service. I thank Chairman Isakson and his staff for all the effort they have put into the bill before us. His tireless work on behalf of America's veterans has produced the compromise legislation now pending that aims to reform the VA's broken community care programs. I particularly appreciate Chairman Isakson for sending his staff to Wyoming to understand the problems our veterans and providers have had with VA Choice. Since the VA Choice Program was enacted in 2014, I have received hundreds of letters and calls from people across Wyoming who were so frustrated with the program that they felt they had no other choice but to call their Senator. I have been contacted by veterans who could not access timely followup care or critical screenings because of unpaid claims, leading to providers dropping patients. Some veterans are even facing collections from the Choice Program's failure to pay the providers' claims. Similarly, many providers have not been paid for medical services they have provided. That has led some of Wyoming's physicians to stop participating in VA Choice. We are the least populated State in the Nation, but earlier this month, we had 3,130 pending claims in Wyoming, with 1,025 of them being over 30 days old. To get those numbers to even that level has required multiple meetings with the Department of Veterans Affairs and the administrator of the VA Choice Program for Wyoming. At the end of March, there were 5,319 pending claims and 3,214 more that were more than 30 days old. A number of my colleagues have participated in those meetings, and I appreciate their shared interest in improving care for our veterans in rural States. Despite those meetings, I still hear reports about how difficult it is to get simple questions answered. Whether dealing with the VA directly or with contractors who are supposed to administer the program, the process of receiving and paying for healthcare services is broken. I believe the problems faced by Wyoming's veterans and doctors will be improved by this bill. I thank the Senator from Georgia for including provisions related to healthcare providers, veteran education, prompt payment to providers, tools for the VA to resolve payment issues, and VA flexibility to enter into agreements between VA facilities and healthcare providers. However, I do have one disappointment. I do have one concern with the bill. It is not paid for. I believe we must acknowledge that borrowing more money to pay for this program isn't an ideal way to honor our veterans. CBO estimates that Federal outlays will total more than $56.6 trillion over the next 10 years--that is $56,600 billion--and yet nowhere in that budget can we find $4.5 billion to offset the cost of this program? I believe we should care for our veterans in a fiscally responsible manner. In fact, I believe this is the best way to ensure their care long term, as well as the care for veterans of the next generation. I ask for support of the bill. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, P.L.115- 123, included an instruction to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to file allocations, aggregates, and budgetary levels in the Senate before May 15, 2018. Today I rise to submit the required filing found in that act. Specifically, section 30103 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 requires the chairman to file: No. 1, an allocation for fiscal year 2019 for the Committee on Appropriations; No. 2, an allocation for fiscal years 2019, 2019 through 2023, and 2019 through 2028 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations; No. 3, aggregate spending levels for fiscal year 2019; No. 4, aggregate revenue levels for fiscal years 2019, 2019 through 2023, and 2019 through 2028; and, No. 5, aggregate levels of outlays and revenue for fiscal years 2019, 2019 through 2023, and 2019 through 2028 for Social Security. The figures included in this filing are consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 and the most recent baseline from the Congressional Budget Office, CBO. CBO's most recent baseline was released in April 2018. In addition to the update for enforceable limits above, section 30103(c) of the act allows for the deficit-neutral reserve funds included in title III of H.Con.Res. 71, the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, to be updated by 1 fiscal year. Pursuant to this authority, all deficit-neutral reserve funds in the aforementioned title of last year's 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 H.Con.Res. 71, 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 this statement and 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 April 2018. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA. The enforceable levels included in this report reflect all of the numerical adjustments made to the resolution since its passage. The information contained in this report captures legislative activity from passage of the budget resolution through April 9, 2018. The only law enacted with significant budgetary effects since my last filing, on February 28, 2018, was the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, P.L. 115-141. Republican Budget Committee staff prepared tables 1 to 4 of this report. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 10 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations. As previously reported, the Senate Veterans' Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Finance; and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committees are in breach of their allocations. Since my last report, several committees' allocations were affected by changes in the nonappropriations provisions included in the omnibus appropriations bill. Still, the only new committee creating a breach was the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which spent $100 million more in both budget authority and outlays through Division P of the omnibus, Ray Baum's Act of 2018, than allowed under the budget resolution. Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds the statutory spending limits. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. Appropriations for 2018 are consistent with the statutory limits as modified by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. The budget resolution contains two points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPS. Tables 3 and 4 show compliance with fiscal year 2018 limits for overall CHIMPS $17 billion, and the crime victims fund CHIMP, $11.2 billion, respectively. This information is used for determining points of order under sections 4102 and 4103 of H. Con. Res. 71, respectively. CHIMPS included in the 2018 omnibus comply with the existing limits. 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 fiscal year 2018, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. CBO's estimates, which now include the full effects of appropriations for this year, show that current-law levels of spending for fiscal year 2018 are above the amounts assumed in the budget resolution by $152.2 billion in budget authority and $105.5 billion in outlays. For fiscal year 2018, Social Security outlay levels remain consistent with the budget resolution's assumption Current-law revenues continue to be in excess of the levels assumed by the budget resolution. On-budget revenue levels currently exceed assumed levels by $3.2 billion in fiscal year 2018, $39.8 billion over the fiscal year 2018-2022 period, and $94.2 billion over the fiscal year 2018-2027 period. For fiscal year 2018, Social Security revenues are $446 million below levels assumed in the budget resolution. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The Senate's PAYGO scorecard currently shows deficit reduction of $24 million in fiscal year 2018, but deficit increases of $10 million over the fiscal year 2017-2022 period and $11 million over the fiscal year 2017-2027 period. For fiscal year 2018, legislation has been enacted that would reduce outlays by $24 million. Over the fiscal year 2017-2022 period, legislation has been enacted that CBO estimates will decrease outlays by $13 million and decrease revenues by $23 million. Over the fiscal year 2017-2027 period, legislation has been enacted that CBO estimates will decrease outlays by $11 million and decrease revenues by $22 million. Consistent with recent congressional practice, the direct spending and revenue provisions included in the non-Appropriations Committee portion of the fiscal year 2018 omnibus, which increased deficits by $2.8 billion over 10 years are being excluded from PAYGO calculations. This is due to provisions in the omnibus that mandated the exclusion of those budgetary effects both from the Senate and statutory PAYGO scorecards. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71. Also included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since Congress adopted the budget resolution. Two points of order were raised since my last filing. On March 14, 2018, Senator Sanders raised a PAYGO point of order against S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act. This point of order was waived by a vote of 67 to 31. On March 21, 2018, Leader McConnell raised a PAYGO point of order against Senator Wyden's amendment, S. Amdt. 2213, to H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017. This point of order was sustained with a vote of 21 to 78 on Senator Wyden's waiver motion. 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, on March 22, 2018, I filed adjustments to enforceable budgetary levels to accommodate spending in H.R. 1625, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, P.L. 115-141. Included in the spending that qualified for cap adjustments was program integrity funding that is classified as off-budget. The previous adjustment correctly increased the allocation to the Appropriations Committee to accommodate this spending but also increased the spending aggregate for fiscal year 2018. Under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the spending aggregate should only reflect on-budget amounts. As such, I am reducing the spending aggregate by $295 million in budget authority and $257 million in outlays. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying table be printed in the Record.