Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague for what he just said, and I want to also applaud the colleagues who today took a stand against the regulatory onslaught and overreach being waged by the Environmental Protection Agency. In promulgating the waters of the United States rule, or WOTUS, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers have teamed up to promulgate one of the most expansive Federal power grabs across the Nation. Recently, I spoke to this body about the threat that the growth and expansion of Federal regulations pose to this country's economic well- being. The growth of Federal regulation and bureaucracy is a menacing threat to this country's security and success. What America needs now is a smaller, less burdensome regulatory framework that will permit our Nation's economy to thrive. With the $18 trillion of debt, we can only afford policies that will serve as a catalyst for economic growth. This waters of the United States rule is a prime example of a Federal agency coming up with regulations that do the precisely opposite. In the early 1970s, Congress passed the Clean Water Act and charged the EPA with protecting our Nation's navigable waters from pollutants. It has worked. Since then, the EPA and the Corps have been working to ever expand the definition and scope of ``navigable water,'' this time stretching the meaning all the way to the limits of common sense. With the waters of the United States rule, the administration has once again demonstrated a willingness to advance its own goal at any cost. Under this expansive new rule, the EPA may implement substantial additional permitting and regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act without any thought to the employees who will lose their jobs, to the businesses or industries this rule will cripple. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said earlier this week in a letter to this body, business owners and their employees in all sectors of the economy would be affected by the regulatory uncertainty of this rule, which is ``certain to chill the development and expansion of large and small projects across the country.'' Again, this is not the kind of regulation America can afford. The waters of the United States rule is so expansive that it would redefine the jurisdiction of bodies of water under Federal control all the way down to, for example, all water located within 100 feet of other jurisdictional water. This is my favorite: The rule further includes all waters located within 1,500 feet of any other jurisdictional water, if it also is in the 100-year flood plain. I don't know about you, Mr. President, but I won't stand for giving any Federal agency--much less the EPA--five football fields worth of leeway to enforce any rules or regulations. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I seldom hear any agency talking about having enough resources. The EPA is not an exception. They can't take care of what they already do, and now they want to bite off every body of water in the United States. There is a lot of water that can be cleaned up. There is a lot of water that has been cleaned up. You always start with what is worse. I always tell people that Jesse James robbed banks because that is where the money was. You start where the most pollution is, not where the least pollution is. States already know best what makes their waters navigable, and they don't need a Federal rule like waters of the United States to constrain them. This is particularly true for the Western States, where water is a rare and protected source and is respected accordingly. In Idaho, a State which historically relied on streams to support its timber industry, lawmakers consider a stream navigable if it will float timber in excess of 6 inches of diameter or if it is capable of being navigated by oar. Six inches--that is not a very big log. If the State of Idaho protects streams small enough to float logs that size, they don't need a rule like WOTUS to further constrict what is considered navigable. At some point, the overregulation by the EPA and this administration has to be stopped. Today we had an opportunity to do just that. By passing the resolution of disapproval, we have sent a message to the President, his administration, and all of its bureaucrats. Earlier this week, the body missed a keen opportunity to pass my friend Senator John Barrasso's bill to roll back this regulation. His bill would have sent the EPA and the Corps back to the drawing board to develop a new rule. It would have told them how to do it. It would have required them to conduct a thorough economic analysis and consult with States, consult with local governments, and consult with small businesses. Congress made a mistake in 1972 when it passed the Clean Water Act and left too much up to the EPA to define. We had a chance to fix that error with Senator Barrasso's bill. This rule allows the EPA to regulate any body of water that has a significant nexus to navigable water. Unfortunately, the rule leaves the definition of ``significant nexus'' open to the EPA's interpretation. Here is something that fascinates me. If you contest, guess who gets to make the ruling in the case. The EPA does. Guess how they are going to rule. As anyone from Wyoming would attest, never has a Federal bureaucrat missed an opportunity to make life a little more complicated for the folks out West. I can't possibly think of why I would give the EPA an opportunity to do so here. The Clean Water Act recognizes States as having primary responsibility for land and water resources within their boundaries. That is a responsibility taken very seriously in places like my home State of Wyoming, where so many farmers, ranchers, and small business owners rely on water for their livelihood. In Wyoming, folks know that you have to take care of the land or the land will never take care of you. You won't find better stewards for land and water anywhere, so if the folks in Wyoming tell you a rule governing the use of water is no good, you can take that to the bank. As the State's Governor Matt Mead said, this rule was bad from the start. In his words: The EPA failed to properly consult with states or consider states' concerns. The rule unlawfully seeks to expand federal jurisdiction over water, undercuts state primacy and burdens landowners and water users in the West. Wyoming has joined 30 other States in suing the EPA and the Corps of Engineers to block this rule. If over 60 percent of the States in this Nation are spending time and money to ask the courts to block this rule, then this resolution should pass with flying colors. In fact, if the 2 Senators from each of the 31 States that are suing were to vote for either the resolution before or this resolution, the previous one would have passed cloture. This one didn't require cloture. So in passing this joint resolution of disapproval, our actions appropriately reflected what our States are telling us to do: Stop this rule. Two Federal courts have already recognized the fallacy of this rule and issued stays to prevent it from being enforced. Those courts have recognized what we should all recognize: the massive scope of this rule and the potential damage it could cause. Wyoming was lucky in that it got some relief from a U.S. district court judge before the rule could be enforced in late August. In that ruling by which the court stayed the rule's enforcement, the court said: The rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to navigable- in-fact water. I couldn't have said it better. What the EPA is doing is more out of control than protection. It is an overreach, it is power, and they can't afford it. For the sake of farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and small businesses and their employees, it is time to stop this outrageous regulation. I thank the majority leader, Senator Barrasso, and Senator Ernst for recognizing how important it is to fight this bad EPA rule and bring legislation to the floor to push back. I urge my colleagues in the House to pass this resolution of disapproval so that we can send a clear message to the President that this Congress will not continue to accept ill-thought-out, ever- expansive, unendingly complicated regulations from this administration, ones that the courts have already ruled on three times. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 4380 of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation that increases sharing of cyber security threat information while protecting individual privacy and civil liberties interests. The authority to adjust is contingent on the legislation not increasing the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016-2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016-2025. I find that S. 754, as amended, fulfills the conditions of deficit neutrality found in section 4380 of S. Con. Res. 11. Accordingly, I am revising the allocation to the Select Committee on Intelligence and the budgetary aggregates to account for the budget effects of the amendment. As the budgetary effects of S. 754, as amended, are insignificant under our accounting methods, budgetary figures remain numerically unchanged.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for October 2015. The report compares current law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts provided in the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016. This information is necessary to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. It has been prepared by the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. This is the third report I have made since adoption of the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution on May 5, 2015. My last filing can be found in the Congressional Record on September 10, 2015. The information contained in this report is current through October 26, 2015. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee is below or exceeds its allocation under the budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, CBA. For fiscal year 2015, which ended on September 30, 2015, Senate authorizing committees have increased direct spending outlays by $7.8 billion more than the agreed upon spending levels. Over the fiscal year 2016-2025 period, which is the entire period covered by S. Con. Res. 11, Senate authorizing committees have spent $2.2 billion less than the budget resolution calls for. Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds the statutory spending limits. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in section 312 and section 314 of the CBA. While no full-year appropriations bills have been enacted for fiscal year 2016, subcommittees are charged with permanent and advanced appropriations that first become available in that year. Table 3 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds its allocation for overseas contingency operations/global war on terrorism, OCO/GWOT, spending. This separate allocation for OCO/GWOT was established in section 3102 of S. Con. Res. 11 and is enforced using section 302 of the CBA. No bills providing funds with the OCO/GWOT designation on a full-year basis have been enacted thus far for fiscal year 2016. The budget resolution established two new points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPS. Tables 4 and 5 show compliance with fiscal year 2016 limits for overall CHIMPS and the Crime Victims Fund CHIMP, respectively. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 and section 3104, respectively. No full-year bills have been enacted thus far for fiscal year 2016 that include CHIMPS. In addition to the tables provided by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting additional tables from CBO that I will use for enforcement of budget levels agreed to by the Congress. CBO provided a report for both fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under section 311 of the CBA. CBO's estimates show that current law levels of spending for fiscal year 2015 exceed the amounts in the deemed budget resolution enacted in the BBA by $8.0 billion in budget authority and $1.0 billion in outlays. Revenues are $79.8 billion below the revenue floor for fiscal year 2015 set by the deemed budget resolution. As well, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed for fiscal year 2015, while Social Security revenues are $170 million above levels in the deemed budget. This will be CBO's final report to the Senate Budget Committee for fiscal year 2015, as the fiscal year is now closed. For fiscal year 2016, CBO annualizes the effects of the Continuing Appropriations Act, P.L. 114-53, which provides funding through December 11, 2015. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Senate Budget Committee excludes this temporary funding. As such, the committee views current law levels as being $885.9 billion and $526.4 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Revenues are $144 million above the level assumed in the budget resolution. Finally, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016, while Social Security revenues are $18 million above assumed levels for the budget year. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule. The Senate's pay-as-you-go scorecard currently shows deficit reduction of $1.4 billion over the fiscal year 2015-2020 period and $6.1 billion over the fiscal year 2015-2025 period. Over the initial 6-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that would increase revenues by $4.1 billion and increase outlays by $2.7 billion. Over the 11-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that would reduce revenues by $1.3 billion and decrease outlays by $7.4 billion. The Senate's pay-as-you-go rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for her very thorough and passionate explanation of the problems with the VA. It is time we got it straightened out. We have a new director because there was a problem. We gave them more money because there was a problem. We did the Choice Act because there was a problem. I think the VA is kind of fighting the Choice Act because they want to make sure they keep it within their own clutches. But it is time that we got it straightened out and that we got some action. All of us are getting calls from veterans we should never get. We could go into a variety of them. But I would like to work with the Senator, and I appreciate the comments she just made. I thought they were very bipartisan and very much needed.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, it is often said that there are two constants in life--death and taxes--but I would like to add one more for your consideration: regulations. We often talk about the threat that America's growing debt poses to our economy and to our future, but the growth in Federal regulations also poses a serious threat to our Nation's long-term job creation and economic growth. According to the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, the potential growth rate of our economy--or the rate of growth that is possible given the education of our workers, the quality of capital equipment, and the business formation rate--averaged 3.3 percent for the period from 1950 through 2014. However, CBO expects that annual rate to fall 2.1 percent in the period of 2015 through 2025. That is a 36-percent reduction in the potential growth rate of the economy. Why is this so critical? According to the President's own Office of Management and Budget, a 1-percent increase in the economy's growth rate will yield more than $400 billion in new revenues without raising taxes. Yes, that is according to the President's own Office of Management and Budget. A 1-percent increase in the economy's growth rate--we are talking about the private sector, not the government sector; the private sector is where the revenues come from--would yield more than $400 billion in revenues without raising taxes. We are always talking about the need for more revenues, but we are doing the opposite. The administration is doing the opposite of what it takes to get that growth to happen. When the growth rate falls, when we grow more slowly than we could and aren't meeting our full potential, government revenues also fail to keep up with budget projections. If we reduce by 1 percent, we lose another $400 billion in revenues. So what happens when the government revenue comes up even shorter in the face of growing overspending? That results in more borrowing, and it results in bigger overspending and in expanded debt. Senators from the Western States know all too well the economic effects of regulations coming out of bureaucracy-bloated agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency. Today I want to focus not just on the impact of recent regulations on my home State of Wyoming's economy but the drag they are creating on the economy nationwide. And at the same time, they are hiring ad agencies at billions of dollars to improve their image. They can improve their image just by doing their job without putting more burdens on the American people and eliminating jobs. The State of Wyoming is the largest coal-producing State in the Nation. Coal represents almost 40 percent of our share of electricity generation across the United States. My county provides 40 percent of all of the coal in the United States. It is abundant, it is affordable, and it is stockpilable. It is the only energy that is stockpilable. This is an energy source which has the potential to power our country for hundreds of years, to support jobs for thousands of people, and doesn't put us at the mercy of unstable regimes overseas, but this administration continues to denigrate and regulate coal out of existence. Since 2012, two EPA rules--the mercury and air toxic standards rule and the ozone rule--are estimated to have cost in the tens of billions of dollars. Let me talk just about the mercury and air toxic standards. That is supposed to help save, with benefits--without seeing any scientific evidence where these benefits come from--over a period of years, maybe $500 million. What is the cost? The cost is $73 billion a year. Why would anyone go for that small of a benefit at that big of a cost? We are an inventive country. If we put incentives of just a couple billion dollars out there, people will solve the problem and get those benefits permanently for a very small number, not $43 billion to $73 billion a year. Those two rules don't include the billions of dollars lost to thousands more rules imposed by the EPA and other agencies every year. If all those rules weren't onerous enough, in August the EPA doubled down on its war on coal when it released the final rule on the Clean Power Plan. With an estimated price tag of at least $366 billion, this rule will not only devastate the coal industry by mandating unrealistic carbon reductions, it will also distress American families by causing double-digit electric rate increases in more than 40 States. The coal industry in Wyoming is feeling the impact. The coal industry and businesses and the people who work there and rely on it are facing higher regulatory costs at the same time as energy producers are seeing a tougher market than they have in years. This is a bad combination for economic growth and job creation. At the end of July, Wyoming had 15 percent fewer energy industry jobs than it did a year earlier, and these are good-paying jobs. That is according to the U.S. Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Most of those lost jobs are in coal, oil, and gas, and the businesses that rely on them. We forget about that ripple effect. Given that close to half of Wyoming's GDP comes from this sector, and that nearly half of our State is federally owned and much is removed from development activity, we have always been concerned about any unnecessary government intrusion in our economic livelihood. Why do we provide 40 percent of the Nation's coal? It is because it is a cleaner coal, lower in sulfur and other chemicals, than any other State in the Nation. We ship coal to other coal States so they can mix it with their coal to meet the clean air standards. But that is not good enough. The economic impact of the EPA and other Federal regulations is not just hurting Wyoming's economy and costing my State jobs. They are a major reason why the economy nationwide is not operating at its full potential for economic growth, and it has been stuck around 2 percent since the beginning of the so-called economic recovery. We are doing it to ourselves. Remember, a 1-percent reduction in the gross national product is $400 billion less in taxes. The onslaught of Federal regulations targeted directly at the coal industry are not just concerns; they are real threats to people's economic livelihood--the ability to support their families, the ability to support education in most of these States, and the ability to support entire communities across the country. With our $18 trillion in debt, we can't afford to accept the notion that we are in what some are calling a new normal of economic anemic growth. We need to help our economy reach its potential, which will help each and every American. This cannot be done if the number and cost of significant Federal regulations continues to rise. The Obama administration continues to push Federal regulations, such as the waters of the United States rule, which significantly expands Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. That rule has been taken to three courts already, and in each of those cases, it has been ruled illegal. They are still pursuing other avenues. The recent National Labor Relations Board rulemaking redefined the meaning of an employer. These regulations, taken by themselves, have the potential to impose billions of dollars in economic costs--on family farms, ranches, and particularly small businesses--which hinder the growth of America's entrepreneurial spirit, not to mention the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It sounds like a great entity, but in banks alone, they have had to hire twice as many people to do paperwork as they used to have to have, just to keep from getting fined by an agency that has no control. I tried to get an inspector general to be over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. After we got him, he said: You know, I don't have any authority to look at any of this stuff. Where are the fines going? We don't know. We are not allowed to see that. That is because they get their money from the Federal Reserve before the money from the Federal Reserve comes from the U.S. Government. We shouldn't have anything as out of control as that. I was meeting with some community bankers. I said: Well, my wife is kind of interested in expanding our kitchen in Gillette, and I was thinking maybe we ought to get a loan and do that. The house is all paid for. I was wondering how long it would take. They said: Well, about 78 days, and then you get 1 week. In case you don't like the deal you made, you can rescind it. I remember the last time we needed to do something in the house before it was paid for. I had to get a second mortgage, and I got it in a matter of a couple of days. They could just write the check so I could go ahead and do it. Now it is 78 days plus another week. That is what government regulations are doing. That doesn't speed up the economy. There isn't a contractor that can go to work until they get an assurance of being paid. Over the next few months and weeks, I am going to share with my colleagues new information from leading economists that shows there is a real relationship between the growth of regulations and our struggling economy. This is a relationship that is clear to the people who experience the difficulties of complying with more and more regulations that make it harder to succeed. I hope that what is clear to business owners, to their employees, and to the communities across the country can be understood here in Washington. I will share new statistics and data showing the lost income and jobs due to Federal regulations, the effects of regulation on key industries, the breakdown of how specific Federal agencies are impacting our economy, and the regulatory burden the Federal Government has placed on hard-working Americans in economic sectors in every State. It is crucial for lawmakers and hard-working Americans to understand the true cost of the regulations that are being issued by this administration. Shining a light on these regulations and the burden they impose on each and every American is the only way to hold government accountable and to begin the process of reining in out-of- control agencies so we can halt the flood of regulations choking our economy. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits, while section 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allows the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocation, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. Today, the Senate passed H.R. 719, the TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act of 2015, with Senate amendment 2689, the continuing resolution. This measure included a provision providing $700 million to the wildland fire management account for the U.S. Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture that was designated as emergency funding 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 revising the budgetary aggregate for 2016 by $700 million in budget authority and $700 million in outlays. I am also revising the 2016 allocations for budget authority and outlays to the Appropriations Committee by $700 million in budget authority for the revised nonsecurity category and $700 million in outlays. 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 rise today in support of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which protects unborn babies who are capable of feeling pain from abortions. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Senate version of this bill and applaud our Leader for bringing the bill to the floor. According to the National Library of Medicine, a baby's major systems and structures develop at week 5 of fetal development. Blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells develop at this time; and the baby's brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop. During the sixth and seventh weeks, a baby's brain forms into five different areas and a baby's heart beats at a regular rhythm, with blood pumping through the main vessels. Lungs start to form during week 8, and all essential organs have begun to grow by week 9. The National Library of Medicine reports that a baby's face is well- formed between weeks 11 and 14. Bones become harder between weeks 15 and 18, and the baby's liver and pancreas produce secretions. Between weeks 19 and 21, a baby can hear and swallow. Some of my colleagues are aware that this issue is very personal for me. Our daughter Amy was born three months premature. She weighed 2 pounds and the doctor's advice was to wait and see. We took Amy to Wyoming's biggest hospital to get the best kind of care we could find. When my wife, Diana, and I would visit her, the nurses often told us it wasn't looking good. We were even asked if we had had Amy baptized. When we said she was, a relieved nurse said, ``Good. We've never lost a baptized preemie.'' Amy is a fighter, and she lived. Today, she is a teacher in Wyoming, and Diana and I were so proud to see her get married last year. What I learned from watching Amy is how hard a 6-month old baby struggles to live. I want babies like Amy to be protected. I firmly believe that every life demands our respect as a special gift from God, and I urge my colleagues to support the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act as a step in the right direction.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to offer my congratulations to Dennis and Ruth Ditch as they celebrate their 50th wedding anniversary on September 25. Dennis and Ruth are the parents of David Ditch, one of my staffers on the Budget Committee. They are also the parents of three daughters, Lori, Lynn, and Barbara, and have two grandchildren, Lana and Ginger. Dennis and Ruth Ditch both grew up in western New York, and their five decades together demonstrate the best qualities of a married couple. They have supported one another in raising four children, moved cross country twice for work opportunities prior to settling in Bloomfield, NY, and spent 25 years operating a small business they started together. Their commitment to one another never wavered even during the trying period when Ruth underwent chemotherapy to overcome an aggressive form of lymphoma. In recent years, they have become leaders for Gideons International in their area. As successful parents, entrepreneurs, and active members of their community, Dennis and Ruth Ditch exemplify the values that make America great, whether in my home State of Wyoming or in New York. I give them my best wishes for the future.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to supplement my remarks from last week with some insights from Alan Dershowitz's book ``The Case Against the Iran Deal.'' All of us received a copy of this last week. I read it last week. Incidentally, Mr. Dershowitz has been a consultant to several Presidential commissions and has advised Presidents, U.N. officials, Prime Ministers, Governors, Senators, and Members of Congress. He has sold more than 1 million copies of his books worldwide in a dozen different languages, and he is a law professor emeritus at Harvard. He is an accomplished attorney and has been active in politics. I make that point because Mr. Dershowitz endorsed President Obama in 2008. So I think his comments might be particularly telling. I want to start by discussing the point Mr. Dershowitz makes that I find the most intriguing. ``The President is not the Commander in Chief of Foreign Policy.'' Mr. Dershowitz notes that the Constitution does not make the President Commander in Chief, period; rather, article II, section 2, clause 1 of the Constitution makes the President ``Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States.'' Mr. Dershowitz points out that this language does not make the President Commander in Chief for purposes of diplomatic negotiations, and his involvement in international diplomacy is as chief negotiator whose deliberations are subject to the checks and balances of the legislative and judicial branches. Specifically, Mr. Dershowitz writes that the President ``cannot make a treaty without the approval of two- thirds of the Senate. He cannot appoint ambassadors without the consent of the Senate.'' And this is probably the most important one: ``And he cannot terminate sanctions that were imposed by Congress without Congress changing the law. . . . Our Constitution separates the powers of government--the power to command--into three coequal branches.'' Mr. Dershowitz goes on to describe the President's actual constitutional role as the ``head of the executive branch of our tripod government that stands on three equal legs.'' I would remind my colleagues that this argument is being made by a prominent scholar on U.S. constitutional law. This point reminds me of what a former colleague who carried a copy of the Constitution in his pocket said in June of 2004. When debating the 2004 Omnibus appropriations conference report, Senator Byrd said: Why so deferential to presidents? Under the Constitution, we have three separate but equal branches of government. . . . How many of us know that the executive branch is but the equal of the legislative branch--not above it, not below it, but equal. I wonder what the former Senator from West Virginia would think of the ways the President has sought to diminish the role of Congress with regard to the Iran deal. According to Mr. Dershowitz, those actions include declaring the Iran agreement to be an ``executive agreement'' instead of a treaty or joint agreement, promising to veto any congressional rejection of the deal, agreeing to submit the deal to the U.N. Security Council before Congress considered it, trying to marginalize opponents of the deal as politically motivated, and describing the only alternatives to the deal as Iran quickly developing nuclear weapons or war with Iran. Another discussion I found interesting in ``The Case Against the Iran Deal'' relates to the President's assertion that if we don't accept this deal with Iran, the only other option is war. Mr. Dershowitz argues that this ``sort of thinking out loud empowers the Iranian negotiators to demand more and compromise less, because they believe-- and have been told by American supporters of the deal--that the United States has no alternative but to agree to a deal that is acceptable to the Iranians.'' He also writes that while numerous administration officials have said ``no deal is better than a bad deal'' with Iran, he views the United States as negotiating on the belief that the worst possible outcome would be no deal. In addition, Mr. Dershowitz notes that ``diplomacy is better than war, but bad diplomacy can cause bad wars'' and points out that Israeli, French, Saudi, and other leaders have expressed concern ``that the Iranian leadership is playing for time--that they want to make insignificant concessions in exchange for significant reductions in the sanctions that are crippling their economy.'' That leads me to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's 2013 United Nations speech, which Mr. Dershowitz argues was distorted by the New York Times. The Prime Minister said: Last Friday, [Iranian President Hassan] Rohani assured us that in pursuit of its nuclear program, Iran--this is a quote--Iran has never chosen deceit and secrecy, never chosen deceit and secrecy. Well, in 2002 Iran was caught red-handed secretly building an underground centrifuge facility in Natanz. And then in 2009 Iran was again caught red-handed secretly building a huge underground nuclear facility for uranium enrichment in a mountain near Qom. What strikes me about the Prime Minister's words is that they give us a clear picture of whom we are dealing with in Iran. And if we need more evidence, just last week Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, predicted that Israel will not exist in 25 years and referred to the United States as the Great Satan. What level of trust can we have for this regime? Even if this agreement were a good deal for the United States, what makes us think Iran will abide by the terms of the deal? In other words, do you trust Iran? And to be clear, this is not a good deal. As Mr. Dershowitz writes, ``All reasonable, thinking people should understand that weakening the sanctions against Iran without demanding that they dismantle their nuclear weapons program is a prescription for disaster.'' Mr. Dershowitz goes on to ask if we have learned nothing from North Korea and from Neville Chamberlain. For those in the Chamber who are not history buffs, let me explain how I interpret Mr. Dershowitz's question. In 1994, the United States and North Korea agreed to a roadmap for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Several rounds of six- party talks were held between 2003 and 2009, but North Korea continues nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches. The President seems to be heading down a similar path with Iran. As for Neville Chamberlain, he was the British Prime Minister when England entered World War II. He is best known for his policy of appeasing Germany in advance of World War II, signing the Munich Pact that gave part of then-Czechoslovakia to Germany. Hitler violated that pact and invaded Czechoslovakia, then Poland. Should we expect a stronger commitment to this deal from a country whose Supreme Leader refers to the United States as Satan? How can Mr. Dershowitz label this deal as a prescription for disaster? He does so by pointing out the ``enormous difference between a deal that merely delays Iran's development of a nuclear arsenal for a period of years and a deal that prevents Iran from ever developing a nuclear arsenal.'' Mr. Dershowitz says that if this deal is meant to prevent Iran from ever developing nuclear weapons, the President must clearly say so and the Iranians must agree with that interpretation. That has not happened. How did we get to such a bad deal? Mr. Dershowitz says the first mistake was taking the military option off the table when the administration declared that they weren't militarily capable of ending Iran's nuclear weapons program. He says the second mistake was taking the current sanction regimen off the table by acknowledging that many of our partners would reduce or eliminate sanctions. Lastly, he says we took rejection of the deal off the table by indicating that rejecting a deal would be worse than accepting a questionable deal. Mr. Dershowitz writes that ``these three concessions left our negotiators with little leverage and provided their Iranian counterparts with every incentive to demand more compromise from us.'' He adds that our negotiators ``caved early and often because the Iranians knew we desperately need a deal to implement President Obama's world vision and enhance his legacy.'' While this deal might implement the President's world vision in the near term, I question whether it will enhance his legacy because I do not think it makes the United States or the world more safe. I am disappointed that the President didn't submit this deal to us as a treaty for our approval. I am disappointed that the minority has filibustered even allowing us to vote on disapproving the deal. I wish we had paid more attention to the fact that sanctions put in place by Congress have to be terminated by Congress, not by the President. I urge all of my colleagues to read Mr. Dershowitz's book because I think it provides some invaluable insights and might change their thinking. I think we need a different outcome. I thank the leader for the amendments he has put up that will make a difference. I think one of those should have been done before any negotiations, and that is that the American hostages be released. That would have been a good starting point. They should have walked away several times to show that the deal was in favor of Iran rather than the United States. It has to be some of the world's worst negotiating. I hope everyone will read Mr. Dershowitz's book, ``The Case Against the Iran Deal.'' We all got a copy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of legislation which designates the mountain and populated place at Devils Tower National Monument as Devils Tower. This is legislation I am introducing today with the support of Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming and in conjunction with Representative Cynthia Lummis who is introducing this same measure in the House. Devils Tower National Monument is not an ordinary national treasure. There are approximately 117 national monuments, but Devils Tower has the distinction as being America's first national monument. Established by President Theodore Roosevelt on September 24, 1906, Devils Tower National Monument preserves the unique geologic, cultural, and aesthetic values of this breathtaking feature. Devils Tower has a rich cultural history, and has many meanings to different cultures, including the many peoples and Native American tribes that have historical and geographic ties to Northeastern Wyoming. The Geographic Names Information System, GNIS, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, acknowledges there are sixteen documented variant names to Devils Tower. Documents submitted to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names cite approximately 94 different published names for Devils Tower. Meanwhile, official Federal records indicate the name Devils Tower has existed for over 130 years. This is why I am glad there was an opportunity for public comment and debate on the most recent petition to rename Devils Tower. The results of that 5 month public comment period demonstrated there is strong support from the community and local officials to retain the Devils Tower name for the geologic feature, the populated place, and the National Monument. Now that there has been an opportunity to hear comments about the most recent petition to rename Devils Tower, the Wyoming congressional delegation is introducing this legislation to preserve the Devils Tower name for the feature, populated place, and for America's first national monument. We also encourage the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, U.S. Department of Interior, and the President to suspend any additional consideration on the petition to rename the features at Devils Tower National Monument. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the introduction of legislation which designates the mountain and populated place at Devils Tower National Monument as Devils Tower. This is legislation I am introducing today with the support of Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming and in conjunction with Representative Cynthia Lummis who is introducing this same measure in the House. Devils Tower National Monument is not an ordinary national treasure. There are approximately 117 national monuments, but Devils Tower has the distinction as being America's first national monument. Established by President Theodore Roosevelt on September 24, 1906, Devils Tower National Monument preserves the unique geologic, cultural, and aesthetic values of this breathtaking feature. Devils Tower has a rich cultural history, and has many meanings to different cultures, including the many peoples and Native American tribes that have historical and geographic ties to Northeastern Wyoming. The Geographic Names Information System, GNIS, prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey, USGS, acknowledges there are sixteen documented variant names to Devils Tower. Documents submitted to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names cite approximately 94 different published names for Devils Tower. Meanwhile, official Federal records indicate the name Devils Tower has existed for over 130 years. This is why I am glad there was an opportunity for public comment and debate on the most recent petition to rename Devils Tower. The results of that 5 month public comment period demonstrated there is strong support from the community and local officials to retain the Devils Tower name for the geologic feature, the populated place, and the National Monument. Now that there has been an opportunity to hear comments about the most recent petition to rename Devils Tower, the Wyoming congressional delegation is introducing this legislation to preserve the Devils Tower name for the feature, populated place, and for America's first national monument. We also encourage the U.S. Board on Geographic Names, U.S. Department of Interior, and the President to suspend any additional consideration on the petition to rename the features at Devils Tower National Monument. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to oppose this agreement with Iran. And they are going to have another chance. Traveling around Wyoming during August and part of September, I talked to hundreds of people. I found four who thought maybe we ought to give this a try--until I asked them this key question. I asked: Do you trust Iran? Now, I have 100 percent of the people saying no. A contractor who had done business in Iran said that right after he signed the contract over there, the Iranian who was working the negotiations with him said: You do realize that when you sign the contract is when the negotiations begin. That is whom we are working with on this. Iran's nuclear program is one of the most significant threats facing the United States and the world today. The implications of this deal will have serious consequences for the Middle East and especially our allies in the Middle East. Russia and China are especially interested in this deal because of how it changes the international playing field. The President was so pleased that Russia signed on. Well, of course they did. They get to sell unlimited arms and technology. They gave up nothing. Ultimately, this deal will have serious consequences for the national security of the United States. I ask you, Do you trust Iran? Several of my colleagues said there is no other alternative. That is how it always is with a contract or a treaty or an agreement. You have to vote for or against it. I am very disappointed in our negotiators. I don't think they were negotiators. I remember the President saying we would be able to have inspections anytime. That is just as believable as when we were going through ObamaCare and he said: If you like your insurance policy, you can keep it. Nobody got to. This is in that same category, except this is more serious. We are talking about world peace. We are talking about security. Sanctions brought them to the table. It was leverage. It worked. Then we gave that up so we could sit down and talk to them, and then we didn't leave the table when they wouldn't agree to things that were absolutely needed. What kind of negotiation is that? That is where you trust the Iranians? Iran's goal is to use its nuclear program to extort its neighbors and threaten its enemies, and it has made it very clear that it considers the United States their No. 1 enemy. We cannot afford to make the kind of strategic blunder that would give Iran a nuclear weapon. We should not give up the advantages we have that were working to prevent Iran's nuclear ambitions. That is why we should oppose this deal. Again I ask: Do you trust Iran? President Obama has said that if we don't accept this deal, then the only other option is war with Iran, but this isn't true. I don't think anybody believes that. It is the President's way of trying to convince the American people that his way is the only way--just like ObamaCare-- and that is not true. One of the advantages of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that was passed out of the Senate committee unanimously is that by requiring the President to submit the deal to Congress for review, both the House and the Senate as well as the public can see what is in the deal--kind of see what is in the deal. I really object to the other side saying we didn't read that. We read what was available. I reviewed the deal. I have heard the administration's arguments in favor of it, and I don't believe this deal is the best way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I don't think it prevents them from getting a nuclear weapon. I have heard from experts in diplomacy, from experts in arms control and proliferation, from experts in the military, from national security and intelligence experts who say that this deal is not the only way to prevent Iran's nuclear ambitions. Do you trust Iran? I mentioned that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act is important because it requires the deal and all its documents to be sent to Congress for review, but I do understand there are separate side agreements between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency--and so far as I can tell nobody from the United States has looked at those. Those have not been reviewed by Congress because they haven't been submitted for our review. I am told these side agreements deal with the military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program--the parts of Iran's program that will allow them to launch a nuclear weapon against Israel or American forces in the Middle East or eventually, with enough work, anywhere in the world, including America. You don't sell someone a weapon whose intent is to kill you. Do you trust Iran? I am deeply concerned that we don't have all the facts about this deal. We need the facts about Iran's military program--facts about how confident the administration can be that Iran is complying with the rules. We should not move forward with any agreement until we have a full understanding of all of the components that are part of it and are convinced it is a good deal. Do you trust Iran? Understanding all of the components of this deal isn't just about the documents that were submitted to Congress; it is also about understanding what happens when Iran has the freedom and resources to grab for power and position in the region. Do you trust Iran? The administration has said this deal is a pathway to security and stability. Unfortunately, this administration has consistently misjudged critical moments in the region--most recently, for not taking the Islamic State seriously and developing a real strategy to defeat it. Agreeing to this deal is yet another example of the administration misjudging the difficult and dangerous situation in the Middle East by believing Iran will not take advantage of the situation to attack our allies and undermine American interests. There are numerous ways Iran can take advantage of this deal, such as--mentioned frequently--using the huge cash infusion that comes with this deal to support Hezbollah or buying arms from Russia. This agreement is not a pathway to peace or stability. It is Iran's springboard to grow into the Middle East's most dangerous bully. There is even a little provision in here that any contracts entered into before snapback can't be broken. How many contracts do we think they will hurry up and do if they get the right to do them? They will do every one they need to do--exactly what they want to do. Do you trust Iran? For more than a decade, the United States and our allies have used sanctions effectively to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear ambitions. Those sanctions took years to implement and demonstrated the commitment of our international partners to prevent an outcome that would be a disaster. Under this agreement, we would be giving up those sanctions in exchange for the hope that we can trust Iran. It sounds to me like we are giving up the most important tool we have to prevent a nuclear-capable Iran in exchange for nothing. Do you trust Iran? I urge my colleagues to oppose this deal. It is not the best we can get. We will have another opportunity to vote. It ignores the reality of the complex and dangerous political situation in the Middle East, and it relies on nothing more than hope that Iran will keep its promise, despite all the times Iran has failed to do so in the past. It trades an effective system of sanctions that has worked to prevent Iran's nuclear ambition for nothing. It gives Iran everything it needs to pour money and resources into attacking our allies and making the region more dangerous. I don't trust Iran, and I didn't find anybody in Wyoming who does. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for September 2015. The report compares current law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts provided in the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016. This information is necessary to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. It has been prepared by the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. This is the second report I have made since adoption of the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution on May 5, 2015. My first filing can be found in the Congressional Record on July 9, 2015. The information contained in this report is current through September 8, 2015. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee is below or exceeds its allocation under the budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, CBA. For fiscal year 2015, which is still enforced under direction of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, BBA, Senate authorizing committees have increased direct spending outlays by $7.8 billion more than the agreed upon spending levels. Over the fiscal year 2016 to 2025 period, which is the entire period covered by S. Con. Res. 11, Senate authorizing committees have spent $3.1 billion less than the budget resolution calls for. Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds the statutory spending limits. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in section 312 and section 314 of the CBA. While no appropriations bills have been enacted for fiscal year 2016, subcommittees are charged with permanent and advanced appropriations that first become available in that year. Table 3 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds its allocation for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism, OCO/GWOT, spending. This separate allocation for OCO/GWOT was established in section 3102 of S. Con. Res. 11, and is enforced using section 302 of the CBA. No bills providing funds with the OCO/GWOT designation have been enacted thus far for fiscal year 2016. The budget resolution established two new points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPS. Tables 4 and 5 show compliance with fiscal year 2016 limits for overall CHIMPS and the Crime Victims Fund CHIMP, respectively. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 and section 3104, respectively. No bills have been enacted thus far for fiscal year 2016 that include CHIMPS. In addition to the tables provided by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting additional tables from CBO that I will use for enforcement of budget levels agreed to by the Congress. Because legislation can still be enacted that would have an effect on fiscal year 2015, CBO provided a report for both fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under section 311 of the CBA. CBO's estimates show that current law levels of spending for fiscal year 2015 exceed the amounts in the deemed budget resolution enacted in the BBA by $8.0 billion in budget authority and $1.0 billion in outlays. Revenues are $79.8 billion below the revenue floor for fiscal year 2015 set by the deemed budget resolution. As well, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed for fiscal year 2015, while Social Security revenues are $170 million above levels in the deemed budget. For fiscal year 2016, CBO estimates that current law levels are below the budget resolution's allowable budget authority and outlay aggregates by $886.0 billion and $526.9 billion, respectively. The allowable spending room will be reduced as appropriations bills for fiscal year 2016 are enacted. Revenues are $104 million above the level assumed in the budget resolution. Finally, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016, while Social Security revenues are $2 million below assumed levels for the budget year. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule. The Senate's pay-as-you-go scorecard currently shows deficit reduction of $2.0 billion over the fiscal year 2015 to 2020 period and $6.8 billion over the fiscal year 2015 to 2025 period. Over the initial 6-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that would increase revenues by $3.9 billion and increase outlays by $1.9 billion. Over the 11-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that would reduce revenues by $1.6 billion and decrease outlays by $8.3 billion. The Senate's pay-as-you-go rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that this statement and the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Congress needs to find a fiscally- responsible solution to wildfire funding and fire borrowing. While the Forest Service still has half a billion dollars remaining for fire suppression, there are years when firefighting costs exceed predicted funding levels. We need a focused discussion on this issue and I plan to begin the conversation with key offices and States--Wyoming, Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, Alaska, Washington, California, Nevada, Montana, Colorado, and others that would like to join and will be constructive to its resolution. I know there are differences of opinion out there as to how to solve this problem, but the key to solving it is getting everyone in a room to discuss it. As cap adjustments are under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues on a durable and long-lasting solution that fits our fiscal priorities and is responsible budgeting.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Budget Committee interns Flora Lipsky and Hannah be given floor privileges for the rest of the week.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, along with my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sanders, we wish to honor and recognize Edward ``Sandy'' Davis on his retirement after 36 years of distinguished service to the Congress, including 20 years with the Congressional Budget Office and 16 years with the Congressional Research Service. Sandy is held in high esteem by both Republicans and Democrats for his insight, extensive knowledge of the legislative process, and unfailing graciousness in dealing with Members and staff over those many years. Sandy started his career at CRS in 1979 and quickly became an expert in Federal budget procedures and practices. He prepared over 150 reports and memoranda on the budget process and on budget process reform proposals, analyzed and edited draft legislation, and prepared committee and conference report language on major budget process legislation in 1985, 1987, and 1990. A few of his key achievements involve the development of two reports that are still being published today: ``Points of Order under the Congressional Budget Act'' and a ``Manual on the Federal Budget Process.'' Sandy also coached CRS's softball team--another key achievement of his time there. In 1995, Sandy joined the Congressional Budget Office, quickly employing his expertise in budget laws and in the history of the congressional budget process. He first worked in the Special Studies Division, where he authored an excellent report on the Line Item Veto Act. He then worked in the Projections Unit, where he helped prepare CBO's budget projections and continued his work on budget process issues; for example, he wrote a section in CBO's January 2003 Budget and Economic Outlook entitled ``The Expiration of Budget Enforcement Procedures: Issues and Options,'' which has often been cited in discussions on that topic. Because of his extensive knowledge of the budget and his strong interpersonal skills, in 2003 Sandy was appointed CBO's first associate director for legislative affairs, to serve as the agency's key liaison with the Congress. In that capacity, he worked closely with many staff members of the House and Senate--fielding and clarifying questions, alerting them about a forthcoming CBO publication, keeping them apprised about CBO's progress in responding to a particular request, responding to concerns about a CBO analysis, and identifying potential CBO products that would aid the legislative process. Sandy's professional accomplishments set him apart, but his personal ethic--his good cheer and thoughtful consideration of his colleagues at CBO and on congressional staffs--truly defines him. Whether giving someone a ``heads-up'' about a hot-button issue, helping Members or congressional staff track down a cost estimate, or just answering questions about the budget or CBO's analyses, Sandy has always been gracious, straightforward, and generous with his time and efforts. In short, over the past 36 years, Sandy exemplified the dedication and high-quality work that is so critical to the Senate's deliberations. I know my colleagues join me in extending our thanks and appreciation to Sandy for his service to our Nation and our very best wishes for a happy and productive retirement. I would like to now turn to my colleague, Senator Sanders, for his remarks.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on behalf of Wayne and Kathy Tatman who will be inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame at the 103rd Wyoming State Fair in August. Since 1992, Wyoming has recognized individuals each year who have made substantial contributions to agriculture in our State. This year I have the honor of presenting this award to Wayne and Kathy with my colleague Senator Barrasso. Wyoming natives, the Tatmans have each contributed greatly to the agriculture industry and their home community of Lingle. Both have served as educators for the University of Wyoming Extension, a statewide program helping Wyoming citizens and communities address a wide range of issues through education and leadership. Wayne's career focused on production and economic issues while Kathy dedicated her efforts to consumers. Gary Stone, an extension educator for the University of Nebraska, nominated the couple, and said, ``they truly are the 'best of the best' when it comes to Wyoming agriculture.'' For more than 30 years, Wayne contributed to the UW Extension program working on livestock and crop production, invasive plants, agricultural research, and water issues. He worked to promote agriculture to Wyoming's youth through the 4-H leadership program. Kathy joined the UW Extension Cent$ible Nutrition program in 2000. She focused on nutrition, food safety, and food economics, and worked with low income families to provide nutrition and meal planning. Kathy was also vital in developing a nutrition curriculum for the State of Wyoming. Former UW President Tom Buchanan commented, ``Wayne and Kathy helped literally hundreds of Wyoming residents understand the impact of agriculture on so many facets of life.'' The Tatmans passed on their love of agriculture and way of life to their three sons, all of whom earned agricultural degrees from UW and are still involved in the industry. Their legacy extends beyond their family to their community, and the State as a whole. I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize Wayne and Kathy's achievements with Senator Barrasso as 2015 inductees into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming is well served by their lasting and continuing contributions to agriculture and education in our State.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 2001(a) of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, directs the Committees on Finance and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to report changes in laws within their respective jurisdictions to reduce the on-budget deficit by not less than $1 billion each for the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025. Those committees were instructed to submit their recommendations to the Committee on the Budget no later than July 24, 2015. For the information of colleagues, the reporting deadline has passed and the Budget Committee has not received reconciliation recommendations from either committee. While committees have not complied with the deadline, the Senate retains the ability to utilize the instructions contained in section 2001(a) of S. Con. Res. 11.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, first, I would like to thank the Senator from Georgia for his outstanding comments. He is truly a great addition to this body and to the Budget Committee, where I have watched him go through numbers. I once mentioned that he knew how to balance the budget because he had been in business before, at which point he corrected me and said: In business, you don't get to just balance the budget. He is very correct on that. We are at a point where we cannot afford to just balance the budget. We have to start paying down some of the debt if we expect our kids to ever be able to afford the interest. So I thank him for his comments. I am going to pile on with some more comments about some of those same things. I want to talk about what I have talked about several times over the past 5 years; that is the Dodd-Frank Act, which passed this body 5 years ago today, July 21, 2010. This mammoth bill, which totaled 2,300 pages, has, 5 years later, led to many thousands of pages of rules and regulations. It is estimated that only 238 of the 390 rulemakings required by the law have been completed--millions of pages, and we still only have 238 of 390 rulemakings that the 2,300-page bill required. Theoretically, then, tens of thousands of pages of more regulations can be expected in the coming years--regulations that do not fix too big to fail, regulations that unduly burden our community banks and our credit unions, regulations that cover a host of industries that did not contribute to the financial crisis. And it does compromise the privacy of Americans. I would like to take this opportunity to expand on these ideas. First of all, I would like to point out that I actually read the whole bill. I read it. I highlighted it. I put in colored tabs in different sections so I could refer to them easily. Then I talked to my colleagues, and I spoke on the floor to raise concerns about the bill roping in industries that did not cause the financial crisis, about the fact that it did not fix too big to fail. I raised a real ruckus about the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, known as the CFPB, when they were trying to just kind of gloss over it and its ability to collect the financial information of American citizens without their consent. I filed a simple amendment that would have required this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to obtain written permission from consumers before collecting their information. Of course, my amendment was not allowed a vote and now the CFPB is collecting massive amounts of personal financial data. So here we are 5 years later, and hindsight has proven that many of the concerns I raised during the consideration of this bill were valid. I have often said that knee-jerk reactions to legislative form have a very real danger of overcorrecting and causing a myriad of problems. In fact, some people say that if it is worth reacting to, it is worth overreacting to. That is exactly what happened here. We did it through a comprehensive bill--2,300 pages. I do not like comprehensive bills. The purpose of comprehensive bills is so that they are incomprehensible, so that people cannot understand them. The best way to legislate is to take things in logical pieces and solve that problem in a way that all of America can come along with and understand. Those problems are unintended consequences when they are in comprehensive bills. In correspondence and conversation with folks from Wyoming over the years, I have said that I treat all legislation the same. I read it and I consider both intended and what might be unintended consequences of the legislation. What I am here to talk about today are some of the consequences of the Dodd-Frank Act after 5 years. First, there is the too-big-to-fail question. The Dodd-Frank Act was supposed to make it so American taxpayers would, according to President Obama, ``never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes. . . . there will be no more tax-funded bailouts--period.'' Dodd-Frank increased capital requirements, it increased liquidity requirements, and it has been adding rules and new regulations steadily for the last 5 years. Folks who support the law would say all of those things are good things and make for a more secure financial sector. However, one of the contributors to too big to fail was the consolidation of banks and the financial industry, a byproduct of which was the reduction of the number of smaller community banks that serve small business owners, families, farmers, and ranchers, the people who actually know their customers. But thanks to the massive amount of rules and regulations, the Dodd-Frank has resulted in the compliance costs for community banks and credit unions going up significantly, and it increased the likelihood of consolidation. That fails the consumer. Smaller community banks struggled to keep up with the flow of regulations and compliance costs. For example, since the passage of Dodd-Frank, the average compliance cost for larger institutions is about 12 percent of operating costs. For community banks, the cost to comply with the same regulations, a one-size-fits-all approach is 2\1/ 2\ times greater, or 30 percent of the operating costs. That is a big bite. I was visiting some of those community banks and listened to them talk about the different regulations they now had to comply with. One of them had made this magnificent chart so that all of their loan officers could both follow along and make sure they got all of the parts of the procedure that this law had in regulation at that time. Now, they had to hire a compliance officer as well. They had been able to handle that part themselves before. But after they explained all of this to me, I said: Now, let's see. My wife would kind of like to expand the kitchen in our house. We have added onto it once before. If I wanted to get a loan from you, how long would it take me to get the loan? I said: I have a house in Gillette, and I have a house in DC, and I have both of them paid for. So we really do not have any outstanding debt. How long would that take? They said: A minimum of 77 days. Then, of course, there would have to be an extra week so that if you decided it was not a good deal, you could undo the loan. I wanted the loan. I wanted it 77 days before. I had to wait that long, and then there is a week for it. But here is another kicker that is in the bill. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has up to 150 days to tell me that I made a bad loan and cancel it. Hopefully, the construction would already be started by that time. Well, I remember when I wanted to do that addition on the house. I went to my banker, and I explained to him what I wanted to do. It took me a whole day to get that loan--a whole day. Now, it is going to take 77 days, plus 1 week, and then I guess we have to wait 150 days to see if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is going to decide that they know better than I know. My State of Wyoming is one of the most rural in the country. We had mostly community banks in Wyoming. I can attest that every visit I have had with banks in Wyoming since this law passed has had one main subject that remains constant: We are being crushed under the weight of these regulations. We are having to make tough choices about the services we provide. Some of these banks are starting to consolidate with larger banks and become branches. Credit unions are not faring any better. According to the National Association of Federal Credit Unions, more than 1,250 credit unions have disappeared since the passage of Dodd-Frank. Of that number, over 90 percent had fewer than $100 million in assets, and the No. 1 reason they give for having to merge out of the business was the inability to keep up with the regulatory burden they face. This is one unacceptable consequence of the Dodd-Frank law and one folks on both sides of the aisle should be appalled by. Now, equally appalling--maybe more appalling--is the importance the Dodd-Frank Act afforded to the agency it created, which the Senator from Georgia just talked about, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or the CFPB. Now, this is an agency that really doesn't come under our jurisdiction; it actually works under the Federal Reserve and gets, I think it is up to 12 percent of the revenues of the Federal Reserve now, plus inflation. They will get up to 15 percent, plus inflation. We have no say over that. They don't report to us in any way, shape or form. This agency has grown to over 1,450 employees. It has a facility whose offices' renovation budget has spiraled to over $216 million and faces almost no accountability to Congress. I don't have enough time allotted to talk about all the activities of the CFPB, but make no mistake, this agency's reach has increased exponentially over the past 5 years to the point where it is now taking enforcement actions covering telecommunications companies and has broadened its authority over the auto industry, which was specifically exempted from the CFPB in the Dodd-Frank bill. Let me tell you how that happened. I did a bunch of speeches on the floor. I was interested in that third section. The first section was about the banks, the second was about hedge funds, and the third was about the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that wasn't going to have any control by anybody. I found that little paragraph in there that said they have the ability to cancel a loan up to 150 days after the bank and the person-- or whomever they are borrowing the money from--and the person receiving the money agreed to the loan. They can cancel it. I pointed that out in speeches. One group of people listened to me. It was the automobile dealers. The automobile dealers flooded Washington with lobbyists, and they got an exclusion in the bill for automobile loans. That is the only exclusion in there. Of course, they are being retaliated against now for that, and I will talk about that in just a minute too. The CFPB issued a final rule on June 10 that would allow it to supervise nonbank companies qualified as larger participants of a market for automobile financing, along with a separate rule defining certain auto leases as a financial product or service. What does this mean? It means the CFPB has expanded its oversight powers by saying: Oh, yes, auto leases are a financial product. They don't like what they did to us. It is a service, and we are allowed to regulate those. So we will just increase our level of oversight over this industry. In fact, they have even taken a look at some of the loans that have been resold by automobile dealers and said those were discriminatory because they weren't the same. Well, when you go to the bank to sell a loan, you don't get the same deal every day, so that is really not discrimination, but according to this group that doesn't have any oversight over it, it is. On the same day, the CFPB released its auto finance examination procedures for CFPB examiners to examine both banks and nonbanks. Keep in mind this is one example of hundreds of rules, enforcement actions, and other activities this agency is involved in across industries. Beyond increasing its incredible oversight reach, the CFPB has also engaged in massive data collection dating back to 2011. I spoke about this data collection, and the Senator from Georgia spoke about this data collection. I spoke about the data collection before the confirmation of Richard Cordray to be the Director of the CFPB on July 16, 2013. I was the only Senator to speak before this vote, and I repeated something I said during the debate of the Dodd-Frank Act that I think bears repeating again. On May 20, 2010, I said: This bill was supposed to be about regulating Wall Street; instead it's creating a Google Earth of your every financial transaction. That's right--the government will be able to see every detail of your finances. They can look at your transactions from the 50,000 foot perspective or they can look right down to the tiny details of the time and place where you pulled cash out of an ATM. I talked about some of the data we had at that time. I am, unfortunately, going to expand on those comments because the CFPB continues to collect massive amounts of data without consent of the consumers. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, is a nonpartisan, independent agency that investigates how the Federal Government spends taxpayer dollars. They released an extensive report on September 2014 detailing the data collection of the CFPB. Here is what they found. Of the 12 large-scale collections they reviewed, three included information that identified individual consumers. The CFPB said those three collections weren't subject to the Dodd-Frank prohibition on collecting personally identifiable information. What? The CFPB is collecting information on 700,000 auto sales per month, 10.7 million consumer credit reports per month, 25 million to 75 million individual credit card accounts, 29 million active mortgage loans, and 173 million total loans, as well as one-time collections of 5.5 million private student loans and 15 million to 40 million payday loans. This isn't the whole list, this is a sample rundown. Let's see, they are into the automobile sales, everything with your automobile sales, your consumer credit reports, your credit cards, your mortgage loans, your total loans, your student loans--and, if you do it, payday loans. Again, that is just a sample rundown. Let's take a minute to let these numbers sink in. The CFPB collects information on 25 million to 75 million credit card accounts on a monthly basis. They want to be able to monitor 95 percent of all credit card transactions by 2016. I don't know about you, but this is highly disturbing, especially in light of the fact that the GAO report found that CFPB did not employ sufficient security and privacy protections to make sure this data remains safe. In summary, the CFPB is collecting sensitive financial information on individuals by name, on millions of Americans, some of which has personally identifiable information that is supposed to be removed or not used, and they don't have the appropriate safeguard to protect this information. Considering the increase in cyber attacks faced across different sectors in our country, including the Federal Government, this information is not just troubling, it is terrifying, especially because there is no way for a single American to opt out of this collection or require notification that their information is being collected and stored. Let me assure you, it is, and not only that, there is no way for Congress to have a say to exert oversight to take a closer look at what the CFPB is up to. One thing that is clear to me, every American deserves better than this, and after 5 years, I think it is safe to say we can do much better than this--and we better do much better than this--or we will have what the book ``1984'' suggested is going to happen. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the economic effect of regulations coming out of the Environmental Protection Agency on the energy sector and particularly on fossil fuels and coal. The State of Wyoming is the largest coal-producing State in the Nation. Coal represents almost 40 percent of our share of electricity generation across the United States. It is abundant, it is affordable, it is stockpileable, it can be clean, and it shouldn't be replaced through regulatory actions. But this administration continues to try to regulate coal out of existence. In 2012, the EPA finalized a standard that requires a strict reduction in air emissions from electric-generating utilities. It is known as the mercury and air toxic standards rule. Like many of the rules coming from the EPA, the costs of this regulation are great and the benefits are very limited. EPA estimates the rule will create between $500,000 and $6 million in benefits. That sounds like a lot of money. But related to the mercury reductions, the cost is $10 billion annually--$10 billion annually--for a return of $500,000 to $6 million. That is a pretty big range. It indicates there probably isn't a lot of calculation into how that came into being or much transparency so we can see how that came about. The $10 billion annual cost will be to consumers of electricity. Those are costs that aren't allowed to be recouped. Now, many of those have already been put in place. They become part of the rate base, and, under most of the laws dealing with utilities, they are allowed to make a return on that. So there wouldn't be a huge protest for it. It is a lot of upfront cost for them, but they get to recoup that over a period of time. We have to be sure that when we are making regulations, we don't flood a whole bunch of them in there that have huge costs and very little benefit. We just had a hearing on this a short time ago on the homeland subcommittee on regulations, talking about how all of those costs come about. Well, the actual cost of doing it is pretty easily calculable. There are things that have to be bought and put in place and construction done in order to get it done. The benefits? It is a little hard to find out where those come from, and a lot of the things aren't clearly cut so that the problem comes from a single spot. Often there are a lot of things involved, but there is a tendency to pick on one place. Three years after the rule was finalized, the Supreme Court has ruled that the EPA should have considered costs before determining to regulate mercury from fossil-fired powerplants. The cost-benefit ratio, assuming the EPA's best case scenario, is approximately 1,600 to 1. The Court's majority opinion called this an overreach and stated: ``The Agency gave cost no thought at all, because it considered cost irrelevant to its initial decision to regulate.'' Since these standards began to take effect in April, utilities have already retired or plan to retire coal-fired plants to comply with cuts in emissions. Sometimes it is cheaper to shut them down than it is to make the changes. The courts did not issue a stay on implementation, so companies began installing the mandated controls to meet the deadline for compliance. These costs will be passed on to consumers and will result in higher electricity prices. On average, a household could see their electricity bill go up by $400 a year--a cost that will disproportionately impact those with lower, fixed incomes, such as many older Americans. In 2012, Congress had a chance to use the Congressional Review Act to stop this devastating rule from moving forward. The Congressional Review Act gives Congress the ability to disapprove rules that go beyond what Congress intended. It requires a simple majority for passage and was a legislative vehicle available to stop the MATS rule from moving forward. Unfortunately, it was rejected by the Senate majority at the time. With the process, you have to get a petition with a lot of signatures on it, and then you are guaranteed 8 hours of debate and an up-or-down vote. Of course, after it goes to the Senate, it also has to go to the House. And after it goes to the House, it then has to go to the President for his signature. The rules and regulations are done by Congress, not by the President. The President is the enforcer of the rules that we supposedly put in place. So it should not take a Presidential signature to stop the action if the House and Senate agree. In this case, it was rejected by the Senate majority. It wasn't until this lawsuit filed by State Governors was finally decided that the Agency was called out for charging ahead with this disastrous rule without considering the consequences. Ratepayers shouldn't have to wait this long for the correct decision. Congress has to stand up to this runaway agency, but we need to expand on our tools to fight governing by rulemaking. We need to increase accountability for and transparency in the Federal regulatory process by requiring that Congress approve all new major regulations. The Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, or REINS, Act would make sure the people's representatives get a say in regulatory action affecting our Nation's economy. The presumption should not be deference to a Federal agency attempting to implement a regulation but to Congress and to the States. If enacted, the REINS Act would require an up-or-down vote by both Houses of Congress before any executive branch rule or regulation with an annual economic impact of $100 million or more could be enacted. In the case of the Clean Power Plan, the costs are in the billions. So it would ensure Congress gets a say to stop the EPA from regulating coal out of business. Additionally, the Environment and Public Works Committee has moved legislation--that is, the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act--which would extend the proposed rule's compliance dates pending further judicial review. That way we don't see premature plant closures that harm our grid reliability and make energy more expensive before even knowing whether the rule is on good legal standing and whether the numbers are good. Both of these bills would give Congress additional tools to fight Executive overreach, and the House has already passed legislation similar to the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act. We must do what we can because there is no doubt that MATS regulations will continue to be challenged for its requirement of outside-of-the-fence-line changes, its coordination with existing source performance standards, the implementation of Federal standards should States not submit plans or on the scientific basis if the status quo contributes to the endangerment of public health. In fact, the White House has requested over $50 million to defend the rule in court. That is your tax money. They have already lost once. And while the EPA ignores the costs, outside groups have projected four to seven times the costs of the regulation. The National Economics Research Association found an annual compliance cost for MATS $41 to $73 billion. That is the annual compliance costs. So that would be up to $73,000 million, as I like to put it, because I think talking about millions instead of billions makes it a little more understandable. So that is the policy that is going to affect consumer prices. It also shows States like Wyoming seeing double-digit increases in electrical prices. Congress must ensure the EPA does not continue to act unreasonably by not considering the costs of compliance before drafting carbon regulations. By requiring States to implement their own plans, the EPA is trying to skirt their responsibility to determine the true costs. The EPA has not adequately considered the costs of the Clean Power Plan. So what they did was shift that over and said: States, this is what each of you has to do to make the Federal plan work, but since this is a State plan, we don't have to do all of this analysis to see what the costs are going to be. Of course, we need more transparency in the calculations. As I mentioned, costs are easy to come up with, but benefits are pretty hard to determine, and they are kind of in the eye of the beholder or eye of the calculator. Usually, the costs happen upfront in just a few years--5 years, maybe 10 years at the most--but they are allowed to calculate benefits over 50 years, 100 years. How long can they do that? The company has to pay it upfront, but the consumers have to pay it over a regular short period of time. Fifteen percent of U.S. coal-generating capacity is already planned for retirement. Wyoming would be forced to prematurely close four additional coal-fired plants under this rule. Incidentally, that is about the amount of electricity that we export to California. The EPA asserts that since States determine compliance, the remaining useful life of coal-powered units prematurely shut down need not be considered. Governors have already begun telling the EPA that they will not be able to submit plans to meet the proposed standards, so Administrator McCarthy has threatened a Federal implementation plan if States do not comply. Now, a Federal implementation plan is a Federal regulatory action, and so they need to consider the costs of premature plant shutdowns and the consumer energy prices that will cause prior to being finalized. You cannot bypass these considerations by placing the onus on the States first. Congress also needs to empower States to oppose Federal regulations that hurt their constituencies, again with little benefit. As Wyoming's Governor Matt Meads commented on MATS: ``The EPA does not have the legal authority to propose, finalize or enforce this proposal.'' The EPA has introduced a proposal that functionally and structurally hamstrings energy and electricity sectors, thereby driving up the electrical prices. It would burden our Nation's economic security and prosperity with almost no environmental or health benefits. The State of Wyoming is considering its legal options once the rule is finalized. They can't do anything until it is finalized. I have proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would give States the ability to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified by two-thirds of the legislators. That is almost like calling a constitutional convention under article V of the Constitution. This amendment stands up for States' rights and gives them another option other than the court system to find solutions to regulatory problems. Ultimately, the States know what is best for them, and it is time to shift the power back into their hands. Even when Federal regulations may have good intentions, they can create situations in which they cause more harm than good. Unfortunately, the regulatory process is skewed in favor of the administration. We need to find a way to empower Congress and to empower the States--those most accountable to the voters--to keep runaway agencies in check or we will continue to see regulations that impede our economy by directly hurting the energy industry, which hurts individuals, costs jobs, and hits the ratepayers--the price ultimately paid by the consumers. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 would ask my colleagues to oppose this motion. We have had this discussion a number of times. This defeats the budget, and this isn't the appropriate place to rehash this or to try to do something different. Everything we have been working on has been based on this principle. Incidentally, those budget caps were signed by the President of the United States and said this was an allowable use without breaking the caps and causing sequester. So we can fund defense, and defense needs to be defended and funded, and it will be under the principles that we have right now, and we can work on other methods as we work on this and other budgets. So I ask that we vote against this and not put this extra burden on the committee that doesn't really have the jurisdiction to do all that is being requested in this motion. We voted it down before. Let's vote it down again.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for July 2015. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts provided in the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016. This information is necessary to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. It has been prepared by the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act. This is the first report I have made since adoption of the 2016 budget resolution on May 5, 2015. I will provide these reports periodically, generally one per work period. The information contained in this report is current through July 7, 2015. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation under the budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, CBA. For fiscal year 2015, which is still enforced under the deemed budget resolution from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, BBA, Senate authorizing committees have increased direct spending outlays by $7.8 billion more than the agreed-upon spending levels. Over the fiscal years 2016-2025 period, which is the entire period covered by S. Con. Res. 11, Senate authorizing committees have spent $22 million more than the budget resolution calls for. Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations exceeds or is below the statutory spending limits. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in section 312 and section 314 of the CBA. While no appropriations bills have been enacted, subcommittees are charged with permanent and advanced appropriations that first become available for fiscal year 2016. Table 3 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations exceeds or is below its allocation for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism, OCO/GWOT, spending. This separate allocation for OCO/GWOT was established in section 3102 of S. Con. Res. 11, and is enforced using section 302 of the CBA. No bills providing funds with the OCO/GWOT designation have been enacted thus far for fiscal year 2016. The budget resolution established two new points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPS. Tables 4 and 5 show compliance with fiscal year 2016 limits for overall CHIMPS and the Crime Victims Fund CHIMP, respectively. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 and section 3104, respectively. No bills have been enacted thus far for fiscal year 2016 that include CHIMPS. In addition to the tables provided by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting additional tables from CBO that I will use for enforcement of budget levels agreed to by the Congress. Because legislation can still be enacted that would have an effect on fiscal year 2015, CBO provided a report for both fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under section 311 of the CBA. CBO's estimates show that current law levels of spending for fiscal year 2015 exceed the amounts in the deemed budget resolution enacted in the BBA by $8.0 billion in budget authority and $1.0 billion in outlays. Revenues are $79.8 billion below the revenue floor for fiscal year 2015 set by the deemed budget resolution. As well, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed for fiscal year 2015, while Social Security revenues are $170 million above levels in the deemed budget. For fiscal year 2016, CBO estimates that current law levels are below the budget resolution's allowable budget authority and outlay aggregates by $886.0 billion and $526.9 billion, respectively. The allowable spending room will be reduced as appropriations bills for fiscal year 2016 are enacted. Revenues are $5 million above the level assumed in the budget resolution. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate's Pay-As-You-Go rule. The Senate's Pay-As-You-Go scorecard currently shows a balance of -$470 million over the fiscal years 2015-2020 period and $125 million over the fiscal years 2015-2025 period. Over the initial 6-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that would increase revenues by $2.3 billion and increase outlays by $1.9 billion. Over the 11-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that would reduce revenues by $5.3 billion and decrease outlays by $5.2 billion. The Senate's Pay-As-You-Go rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that this statement and the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to talk a little bit today about jobs and the economy and people's health care, and they are all related. We are in the midst of one of the slowest growth periods for the economy in the recent history of the United States. They just revised the figures again. That makes three times the figures have been revised for the last quarter. They now show a two-tenths of 1 percent growth. They should be showing about 2 percent growth for the year. Why is that a problem? If the economy increases by just 1 percent, it results in $300 billion to $400 billion more tax revenue without raising taxes. That is where we need to be. When it is less than that 2 percent, that means we are losing that much in additional money. We make these decisions on about $1,100 billion a year, and we are overspending that by $468 billion. That is almost 50 percent overspending. No family can afford to do that, no city can afford to do that, and no State can afford to do that, but apparently the Federal Government can because we just borrowed more. So far, there is a lot of confidence in this country that we can continue to borrow. One of the areas where job growth and economy growth are impeded is with health care. President Obama is disconnected from the harsh reality that this health care law has created for people. Almost 2 weeks ago, speaking about his health care law, the President said: Part of what's bizarre about this whole thing is, we haven't had a lot of conversation about the horrors of ObamaCare because none of them have come to pass. None of them have come to pass? How insulated is our President? I just want to emphasize what he said--none of those horror stories have come to pass. Apparently that message didn't make it very far because I hear a drastically different story from folks across Wyoming and other parts of the country. A rancher from Gillette complained to me that her and her husband's health insurance went up from $11,000 per year to $20,000 per year and then had a deductible thrown in that was $6,500. She said: How is that affordable? A retired nurse from Casper told me that if you add the premium increases and the deductible increases, she and her husband are up $36,000 per year. She wrote: Health care is unaffordable. It is a huge burden and worry. How can people afford to pay more for health care than they make in a year? She said that ObamaCare doesn't provide them with coverage for their medical needs and added that it goes against everything they believe in for America. A man from Cheyenne said the President's health care law is forcing him to choose between paying for his health care or paying for his mortgage. A small business owner in Newcastle said that before the affordable health care law, she could afford to pay for her employees' health care. After the law went into force, she couldn't. Her employees couldn't afford it, either, so they might leave for a bigger company-- which probably isn't possible--and the small business owner might have to sell out to a bigger company, which in many of the towns in Wyoming also isn't going to be possible. She loves her community and wants to stay an active part of it. She is discouraged by the situation this health care law has created and is asking for help. We have been asking for help for several years now. The President has recognized that there needs to be some help; otherwise, there will be some real calamities. Why haven't they happened? Well, some of them have. I have described some of them to you. But some of them haven't happened. That is because the President has given waivers on some of the things that he knows are atrocious and will cause a huge problem with the economy of the United States. Does he have the authority to do the waivers? Not really, but he did them, and that is to put off the tragedies until later. That is not what we ought to be doing. We ought to be making health care more affordable. There are lots of plans around here for making it more affordable; most of those were just discarded. The bill that went through here went through--there was a 60-vote majority on that side of the aisle. Sixty votes is enough to pass anything through here. I hope neither party has a 60-vote majority again because you don't have to listen to the other side. You don't have to listen to the unintended consequences that might come from somebody who is knowledgeable because of their background. There are a bunch of different backgrounds who serve here and another 435 backgrounds who serve on the House side. Why do we have so many people in Congress? So that we have those diverse backgrounds and we can find those unintended consequences and adjust for them. The people I mentioned are real people, real families. They didn't write the story. They and many more like them contacted me. They are telling me and they are telling all of us in Washington to do something about this unworkable health care bill for millions of Americans that is far from affordable, breaks promises, and makes lives harder. I am listening to them, and so should the torch carriers of this federally mandated dream that was broken before it began. Today's Supreme Court ruling on King v. Burwell is surprising, but it reminds all of us who warned against this health care law that we will have our work cut out for us to move our country away from the failed policies. This law was written and implemented in its entirety by one party, as I mentioned, and has been informed from the start by ideology rather than reality. There are a number of us who were working on health care before the President even became a Senator, and we have continued to work on it. We have had a lot of discarded ideas that could have increased competition and brought prices down. This law was written and implemented in its entirety by one party, and it has been informed from the start by ideology rather than reality. Yet, it has fallen to us to make things better and help people get through these difficulties caused by this law. The Federal Government cannot possibly know what is best for each individual, and, as we have seen, a one-size-fits-all dictate doesn't work. The Wyoming folks whose stories I just relayed and the millions more like them from every State are a testament to that. That is just a very small sample out of the hundreds of people who write to me or talk to me as I travel across Wyoming. Our focus is to offer each of them new choices for quality affordable health care. Our focus is not protecting this failed law, this busted political legacy. We want to protect families as we get rid of ObamaCare and transition away from this fiasco. That is what it is, as is illustrated by the testimonials that I talked about earlier and the hundreds more that I have. It is time for Republicans and Democrats to truly deliver on the President's broken promise of a health care system that expands access and promotes quality and has patient-centered care while actually bringing the costs down. That is possible, just not under that bill. This is an opportunity for both parties to work together and put into place real solutions that rely on these principles. I think they just announced that one of the Federal insurance co-ops is going out of business. All of them are severely in the red. Those would be government-sponsored entities that said too much was being charged for health care by many of the insurance companies, and they went for far lower premiums. The hope was that it would bring down the price, but it didn't. That is not the way to encourage the kind of competition we need if we are going to bring down health care costs. One of the things that has been focused on around here for a long time has been small business health plans or small businesses. Small businesses are the ones that are really having the problem. I ran into a man who said: I have a very successful business, and I just got a tremendous location that is only 50 miles away where I could open another one. But that would put me over 50 employees, and that puts me in a different category on health care costs. The people who are working for me like the health care costs I am providing, and I would have to go to a whole different level or pay huge fines, and I can't afford to do that. So I am not going to open that other location; I am not going to put 50 more people to work. For too long, the debate over health care has placed politics over the best interests of patients. No matter the Court's ruling, it is time for Democrats and Republicans to deliver what the President promised but ultimately failed to deliver. We need a health system that expands access and promotes quality, patient-centered care while actually bringing down the costs. We must allow States the freedom and flexibility to ensure that hard-working Americans can get the care they need. It is time for both parties to work together on real solutions that rely on these principles. We should move forward on a bipartisan basis to provide more choices and a better health care system for hard- working Americans. I yield the floor.