Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a few minutes as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, my colleagues and I have been on this floor for the last 7 years talking about the problems with ObamaCare and the need to address them. In the early days, when ObamaCare was still being cobbled together, we talked about individuals losing their coverage. Promises were made that if you liked the plan you had, you could keep it. That turned out to be a broken promise. In 2009 and 2010, we talked about premiums skyrocketing. Today, we are still talking about it. Premiums are more than 100 percent higher in Wyoming today than they were when the law was passed. Our insurer has fortunately been more conservative in their approach. So premiums didn't spike the way they did in other States. I usually enjoy being right, but in this case, I am very sad to have watched the worst possible scenario play out. Time after time, President Obama was faced with problems in implementation and in outcomes, and he would dismiss them by saying: ``It just needs more time,'' or, as this cartoon shows, ``it just needs a tune up.'' We and the American people gave it time and money--specifically, 7 years and hundreds of billions of dollars. We are now left trying to pick up the pieces of health insurance markets all across the country. You can see here that this ambulance is ObamaCare. Behind it is its engine and other key components, and they have completely fallen apart. That is the private insurance market today. The part you don't see here is that there is a patient in the back of this ambulance. This isn't just about politics. This is about real people and whether they can afford an insurance premium that is in some cases higher than their rent or their mortgage payments each month. Even before its passage, my Republican colleagues and I talked about the danger that ObamaCare posed to private insurance markets. Insurers have already left the market in droves. In Wyoming, we are down to one carrier. We lost the others to the economics of ObamaCare, and we will be lucky to keep the one we have. I know many people in our country are going to be in the position of having no insurers offering plans in their county. How could this happen? It has happened because of politics being put before patients and an unwillingness to take on the hard task of fixing something that you have sold as the perfect solution. I can tell you that healthcare isn't a simple issue. It is incredibly complex and, really, there is no one right way to tackle it. I was the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee when ObamaCare passed. We worked hard to find common ground. When it became clear that there was not a reciprocal commitment to that from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we did work hard to try to stop it. Now we are finally in a position to do so. We have a President in the White House who is committed to repealing and replacing ObamaCare with better care before more irreparable harm is done. Republicans have been working on an approach that attempts to address both the short-term and long-term problems caused by ObamaCare. We have problems to solve right now. We are proposing to stabilize insurance markets in the short term and to get insurance costs on a more manageable trajectory over the longer term. We are striking at the heart of ObamaCare by removing its mandates and taxes while putting Medicaid on a more sustainable footing. Doing this isn't easy. You may have read a little something about the challenges of moving a healthcare bill forward, but the alternative is to do what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have done for 7 years and watch ObamaCare crater. We don't think that is the right thing to do. We think we have an obligation, even if it is not an easy vote, to salvage our insurance system. Getting something done in Washington isn't always a pretty process, but I am proud to be working with the women and men in my conference who see that there is something larger at stake than themselves and who know that sitting this out means more harm and, perhaps, harm that can't be undone later. I will keep working. I am committed to passing the best product that we can deliver for the people of Wyoming and for our whole country. I look forward to continuing to work together to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with policies that will truly improve healthcare in America. I hope my colleagues will join me in this worthy endeavor. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the Bernhardt nomination.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, in our job, we get a lot of books, probably two or three a week at least, and for the last year most of those have been on healthcare and healthcare reform. A book I received recently is one called ``Demystifying ObamaCare,'' by David G. Brown, who is a doctor. It was helpful enough to me that I thought I would share a part of it with anybody listening. It always fascinates me when we are here talking and maybe somebody is listening. Page 7 starts out by talking about, ``How Does ObamaCare Look After Seven Years?'' Incidentally, this one is all well documented and footnoted, which is one of the unusual things about this book. It is not just speculation on his part--it is a lot of research that he has done and shared. He says: ObamaCare actually reduces insurance market competition by strict rules, regulations, and mandates. ObamaCare significantly increases healthcare cost by the way it attempts to assist those who cannot afford coverage. ObamaCare does not tackle the underlying causes of increased costs. Instead, it worsens the factors that drive up the cost of healthcare with the addition of mandates, regulations, and taxes. ObamaCare does nothing to decrease the factors that increase costs. ObamaCare has increased the total number of healthcare spending. The cost is not $938 billion dollars, but now is $2.6 trillion dollars over 10 years, or almost 3 times the original figure. ObamaCare increases cost for families, businesses, and individuals for their healthcare. This includes not simply ObamaCare exchanges but health insurance across the board. Associated with this, there has been a marked increase in healthcare premiums, costs for medications, deductibles, and copays. There has been reduction of access to care in ObamaCare plans, i.e. ObamaCare exchanges (insurance does not equal access). ObamaCare, to some extent, has reduced the number of uninsured but not handled the problem of the uninsured population. ObamaCare does not effectively address the problems of the safety net system, i.e. putting new people into Medicaid has exacerbated the problems for Medicaid, and removes its original safety net function. ObamaCare has reduced funding and thus care for programs for the elderly, Medicare. ObamaCare has taken the decision making process out of the hands of patients and their families. It has done so by removing their freedom to make those decisions. This is from the book, ``Demystifying ObamaCare,'' by David Brown, who is a doctor. It goes on later to say: The individual mandate was instituted as a way to force patients into having health insurance or else pay a financial penalty for not having it. The employer mandate, which was just instituted in 2016 after several delays, was intended to move those with employer-based insurance into the government sector. Additionally, the HHS required all individual and small group policies to meet the ``essential health benefit'' requirements. These benefits were determined by the secretary of the HHS and required involvement of not simply government, but also non-government plans. The individual and small group policies then had to be sold at a more significant cost to the consumer. How is the Employer-Based System changed so employees could be moved into a government system? Businesses with 50 or more full-time employees had to provide health insurance approved by HHS or be financially penalized. The cost for businesses for the penalties for not providing insurance was less than the cost of the insurance. ObamaCare exchanges were there to take in anyone who needed to have insurance. Employer based mandates were a way of moving employees out of the employee-based marketplace into a government program. It is the back door way of having a government based healthcare system. It was ingenious but fortunately, for the American people it was flawed. Yes, Americans in the individual market lost their insurance (5 million Americans) but the employer-based mandate was postponed through the efforts of Congress. Many of the larger companies have self-insured their employees. The ObamaCare exchange program has been very expensive for the consumers. It has also significantly limited access to care i.e. narrowed networks of providers, (doctors and hospitals). ObamaCare has increased the numbers in Medicaid but this program itself has severe flaws. Again, in ``Demystifying ObamaCare'' by David Brown, a doctor, going to page 18, ``What Are the Facts About Medicaid and Medicaid Expansion?'' Costs of Medicaid (total federal and state spending) will more than double i.e. more than $427 billion to $896 billion between 2014 and 2024. The costs of this will be borne by the taxpayers. The cost of Medicaid to the states has a tremendous impact on other services. It is often the second most expensive budgetary item. With Medicaid expansion, there are increased costs to the states, even in those states, which have accepted Medicaid expansion and increased federal funding for it. Other state services may have to be reduced even in states who have not accepted Medicaid expansion. Medicaid is actually a safety net for the poorest and most vulnerable Americans but expansion changes this. It reduces the access to care for others who are already in the system. The single adult able-bodied American is competing for care with those who need the care as a safety net. It severely underpays doctors and hospitals, and the number of Medicaid providers are declining. It compensates doctors an average of 50% less than private insurance. By CBO estimates, by the time of full implementation of ObamaCare, one out of every six hospitals will be in the red because of severe underpayment from Medicaid and Medicare. Medicaid expansion does not reduce inappropriate utilization of emergency rooms. A recent study showed Medicaid patients utilize the emergency rooms for their routine care 40% more than those who are uninsured. Medicaid has the worst clinical outcomes compared with any other medical program. There are worse outcomes including conditions such as heart disease, cancer, complications from major surgery, transplants, and AIDS. These outcomes are independent of patient factors and reflect the program itself. It may be no better than having no insurance at all. A recent study comparing Medicaid patients with those who are uninsured showed no difference in blood pressure, glucose, and cholesterol levels after two years of observation. In short Medicaid expansion reduces access to care, increases cost of care and places people within the program that has the worst possible outcomes to care. Going on in ``Demystifying ObamaCare,'' by David Brown, page 25, ``Medicaid Expansion Update: How Does It Stand Today?'' Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have adopted Medicaid expansion. Three states have considered it but rejected Medicaid expansion. The other sixteen states have refused to participate in it. Medicaid expansion has increased the Medicaid number from 58 million to approximately 70 million people, 20% of the uninsured population. It has caused overall expansion of the number of people in the program. ObamaCare has increased the number of individuals insured by allowing them to participate in the existing Medicaid program. In order to do so, the inclusion criteria for their enrollments have changed. Medicaid expansion is now based on age and financial criteria. That includes both the able- bodied individuals who are able to work and chose not to and those who were previously involved in the Medicaid safety net. For example, the lower income mother with children. It was thought that the states that accepted Medicaid expansion would have ``free money'' if they participated with this Federal program. 100% of the costs of adding new patients were picked up by the federal government with that figure gradually being reduced to 90% of the cost starting in 2017. This was for new patients added to Medicaid and not the existing patient population. States however found that their Medicaid programs were flooded with new enrollees, many of which had met the criteria for Medicaid before the ``woodwork effect.'' The overall expansion of Medicaid with increasing numbers of enrollees has led to marked increase in spending on Medicaid and marked increase in total costs for Medicaid. It goes on with a lot of numbers which have a lot of significance to accountants, but I will skip over those and continue on with his last two points. Medicaid is associated with the worst possible clinical success rate across the board for all medical and surgical illnesses. It is worse than any other program, including any government programs such as Medicare or any private program. In certain studies, it has shown to have worse clinical outcomes than having no insurance at all. No data has developed during the course of Medicaid expansion to change these findings. Medicaid expansion is associated with a huge financial burden on the states and the cost to the states with Medicaid expansion has increased dramatically. Again, at the end of the chapter it shows a lot of references for where he got this information. Continuing with ``Demystifying ObamaCare'' and moving on to page 31 is ``What are ObamaCare Insurance Exchanges?'' ObamaCare insurance exchanges are federally constructed and state run markets where individuals and families can purchase insurance plans. Private healthcare insurance companies participate but the insurance companies are only able to sell plans that are acceptable to the Secretary of the HHS. Many individuals and families then could receive subsidies provided by the government, (i.e. taxpayers funded subsidies). The subsidies are [to] be on a sliding scale, families whose income is up to 400% of the federal poverty level can be in the ObamaCare exchange ($97,000 dollars a year for a family of four). The program is tightly regulated by the Federal Government. The choice is limited to four plans (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum.) Each state was required to set up their own insurance exchanges and then regulate them. If a state did not set up such an exchange, the Federal Government did that for them. ``What Effects These Policies Have on Those Inside and Outside the Exchanges?'' The public must know that the exchanges dramatically restrict patient care by restricting access to care. Exchanges decrease access by reducing access to doctors and hospitals. This includes access to some of the most important specialized care. The exchanges have a limited network of providers. The public must understand that they do [not have] protection from fraud. Some of the most sensitive information is given to navigators to help enroll people in the exchanges. The enrollees then become ``fair game.'' The ObamaCare website, ``Healthcare.gov'' does not automatically verify enrollee's eligibility, i.e., whether they legally qualify for subsidies. Various sources indicate that at least 2 million enrollees (some estimates are significantly higher) are receiving subsidies that they did not legally qualify for. Douglas Holtz-Eakins, former director of the CBO, estimates that over the first 10 years of ObamaCare, overpayments and inappropriate payments could add up to $152 billion dollars. Who pays the bill? The American taxpayer. The website, ``Healthcare.gov'' cost taxpayers $1.4 billion dollars in 2014. He goes on to explain how that increases the costs for all taxpayers. I will continue with some of the other lessons in this book at another time. The leader is coming to the floor to speak in a few moments. What we are trying to do is to find some solutions for the American people so they have access to healthcare--and more extensively than now. I recommend for reading this book called ``Demystifying ObamaCare'' by David Brown. It is very eye-opening. There is a section I will cover later that covers some of the solutions that will be useful. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Nye nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for July 2017. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate approved in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, S. Con. Res. 3. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act (CBA). My last filing can be found in the Record on June 7, 2017. The information contained in this report captures legislative activity from that filing through July 10, 2017. Republican Budget Committee staff prepared tables 1 through 3 of this report. They remain unchanged since my last filing. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by the Congress. CBO provided a spending and revenue report for fiscal year 2017, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending fiscal year 2017 are below the amounts assumed in the budget resolution by $303 million in budget authority and $6.4 billion in outlays. CBO also estimates that revenues are $1 million above assumed levels for fiscal year 2017, but $21 million below assumed levels over the fiscal year 2017-2026 period. Social Security levels are consistent with the budget resolution's fiscal year 2017 figures. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The Senate's PAYGO scorecard currently shows increased deficits of $226 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 and $227 million over fiscal year 2016-2026 periods. For both of these periods, outlays have increased by $201 million, while revenues decreased by $25 million over the 6-year period and $26 million over the 11-year period. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. Finally, included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. No budget points of order have been raised since my last filing. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, the Congressional Budget Office released its estimate of H.R. 1628, the American Health Care Act of 2017, in May 2017. Information related to this House-passed bill can be found on the Congressional Budget Office's Website with the following link: https://www.cbo.gov/system/ files/115th-congress-2017-2018/costestimate/hr1628aspassed.pdf.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for June 2017. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, S. Con. Res. 3. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA. My last filing can be found in the Record on April 27, 2017. The information contained in this report captures legislative activity since that filing through June 5, 2017. Republican Budget Committee staff prepared Tables 1-3 of this report. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 13 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations. Legislative activity involving the appropriations process, continuing resolution and omnibus, during the last reporting period includes provisions, such as changes to health benefits for miners and Medicaid funding, charged to the Committee on Finance that caused it to breach its allocation. The other two committees in breach, as previously reported, are the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. In total, authorizing committees are estimated to increase outlays by $292 million more than they were allocated over the fiscal year 2017-2026 period. Of that $292 million in violations, $91 million stems from the Finance Committee's violations during this reporting period. Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations exceeds or is below the statutory spending limits for fiscal year 2017. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, P.L. 115-31, provided full-year appropriations for the current fiscal year. These appropriations, $551.1 billion for defense and $518.5 billion for nondefense, were consistent with the statutory limits imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011. Table 3 tracks compliance with the fiscal year 2017 limit for overall changes in mandatory programs, CHIMPS, in appropriations bills, established in the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution. CHIMPS in the Consolidated Appropriations Act were consistent with this year's limit of $19.1 billion. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 of that resolution. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by the Congress. CBO provided a spending and revenue report for fiscal year 2017, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending for fiscal year 2017 are below the amounts assumed in the budget resolution by $303 million in budget authority and $6.4 billion in outlays. CBO also estimates that revenues are $1 million above assumed levels for fiscal year 2017, but $21 million below assumed levels for the fiscal year 2017-2026 period. Social Security levels are consistent with the budget resolution's fiscal year 2017 figures. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The Senate's PAYGO scorecard currently shows increased deficits of $226 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 and $227 million over fiscal year 2016-2026 periods. For both periods, outlays have increased by $201 million, while revenues decreased by $25 million over the 6-year period and $26 million over the 11-year period. Missing from these levels are the budgetary effects of divisions M-O of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 and the miners' health provisions of H.J. Res. 99, the short-term continuing resolution, P.L. 115-30, which are required to be excluded based on language in the acts. The consolidated appropriations bill, however, is recorded as reducing revenues by $24 million and $25 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 and fiscal year 2016-2026 periods, respectively. That revenue loss is found in the appropriations section of the bill, not covered by the exclusion, which includes provisions related to visa-program extensions and insurance coverage of mammography. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. Finally, included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. No budget points of order have been raised since my last filing. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to deliver a difficult speech. My senior communications adviser, Ron Hindle, is retiring after more than 30 years in the U.S. Senate. If you do some quick math, you will realize that Ron has been part of the Senate longer than I have. I came here in January of 1997 and quickly learned Ron would be an indispensable part of my team. Previously, he had worked for my predecessor, Al Simpson. That meant he knew Wyoming, and he knew how to communicate with Wyomingites. I am so glad I hired Ron when I came to DC. He has written some of the best speeches I have given over the past 20 years. When Ron told me he was retiring, I went back and looked at a few of his remarks between tears. When my longtime State director retired, Ron wrote: There is an old saying we all heard before: Good help is hard to find. Here is my experience: Good help is not only hard to find, it is also impossible to replace. That was true about Robin, and it is equally true of Ron. In a speech to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, Ron called the library card ``our passport to adventure.'' For a speech to the Young Entrepreneurs Academy, Ron referred to books, ``especially biographies and autobiographies--as `How To' manuals for success.'' When I spoke to my grandson's graduating fifth grade class, Ron wrote me an example comparing the Supreme Court to grandparents: ``If they say no, there is no one else to turn to.'' I hope this sampling of Ron's work can convey why he has been an important part of my team. He has a way with words that few people have and, more importantly, he knows what I want to say and how I want to say it. Ron does more than help me with speeches. If there is a student in Wyoming who has achieved an important goal, Ron helps me with a laudatory note. When an organization like Daughters of the American Revolution has their annual convention, Ron works on the statement commemorating that event. When a Wyoming business celebrates an important anniversary, Ron has helped me congratulate that success. My staff and I will miss Ron, not only for the help he gives us but for the person he is. He is kind, considerate, and generous. He is also willing to lend a helping hand in everything we do, from hosting our holiday cookie party to organizing trivia, and building games for our staff planning sessions. This isn't goodbye, as Ron will remain my neighbor and my friend. Today I want to celebrate all that Ron has done for me, for my office, for Wyoming, and for America. It is appropriate for me to once again quote Ron in describing the word ``celebrate'' to Wyoming Cowboy Challenge Academy graduates, Ron wrote: Celebrating is much more than the things we do--it's the feelings we get from the great accomplishments of our life. It is the joy and happiness that comes from the heart when we have reached one of our goals. It's the sense of satisfaction we feel that comes from the knowledge that we have taken on a difficult challenge and mastered it. It is the increase in self-confidence and self-esteem that comes from learning to trust in ourselves to make the right choices and the right decisions. Ron, Diana joins me in celebrating you today. You have been a great example of the importance of public service, and your legacy will continue in my office and in Wyoming as business owners, students, and others reread the words you wrote over more than 30 years. I thank you for devoting so much of your life to making my office a better place to work and, more importantly, Wyoming a better place to live. Thanks for all you have done for all of us and America. I wish you the best. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits, while sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Senate is considering H.R. 244, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. This measure provides full-year appropriations for Federal Government agencies and contains spending that qualifies for cap adjustments under current statute. This measure includes $93,470 million in budget authority that is designated as being for overseas contingency operations/global war on terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. Of that amount, $76,985 million is for spending in the security category, and $16,485 million is for nonsecurity spending. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $41,444 million in outlays in fiscal year 2017. Division F includes $6,713 million in nonsecurity discretionary budget authority that is designated as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of BBEDCA. This designation makes the spending associated with this provision and its associated outlays of $336 million eligible for an adjustment. This legislation includes language that increases nonsecurity discretionary budget authority by $1,444 million this year and designates it as emergency funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates this budget authority will result in $497 million in outlays in fiscal year 2017. Finally, division H provides $1,960 in nonsecurity discretionary budget authority for program integrity efforts. This funding is designated pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(C) and section 251(b)(2)(B) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $1,635 million in outlays this year. As a result of the aforementioned designations, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $76,985 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $26,602 million, and increasing outlays by $43,912 million in fiscal year 2017. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2017 by $103,161 million in budget authority and outlays by $43,541 million. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, while the Senate is on the topic of retirement savings, I would like to call attention to a policy that I have worked to advance for many years. I believe policies permitting the existence of pooled provider plans, which passed the Senate Finance Committee to this past September by a vote of 26 to 0, should be enacted as soon as possible to ensure the ability of Americans working for small businesses to have quality access to retirement savings. A critical challenge in enhancing the retirement security for all Americans is expanding plan coverage among small businesses. To address this, I believe we need to make retirement plans less complicated, less intimidating, and less expensive for those entities. That is exactly what pooled provider plans accomplish. This proposal is nonpartisan. In the past Congress alone, I held bipartisan HELP Committee roundtables with the junior Senator from Vermont and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and in a prior Congress, I worked with Senator Harkin--all to discuss the best way to craft and implement this proposal. I am very proud of the bipartisan work that has been done to this point, and I thank my colleagues on both the HELP and Finance Committees for their support, but now it is time for the full Senate to pass the measures allowing the existence of such plans. I look forward to the day in which the retirement gap in America is closed. I believe we will take a very large step towards closing that gap with the passage of policies that permit pooled provider plans. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to share with my colleagues the presentation of an award that means a great deal to me for a number of reasons. It is the president's medal that will be presented by Steven Knapp, the president of The George Washington University, GW. Its recipient, Edward Gnehm, has been a friend of mine ever since we were college freshmen at GW. When Edward Gnehm, Jr., or ``Skip'' as everyone came to know him, came to Washington, DC, from rural Georgia and I left rural Wyoming to tackle the challenge of my own college education at GW, I don't think either one of us knew what a great impact those 4 years would have on us and how our college experience would change our lives forever. It was a purely random thing, but when the administration of George Washington University decided which rooms we would use as freshman, they assigned Skip and me to the same dorm. We became friends pretty quickly. Then, when we pledged the same fraternity, we became brothers as well. Skip is the only real brother I have ever had, and I have relied on him and enjoyed that same kind of friendship and relationship ever since. Our room was a pretty interesting place to be. I was a night person, studying accounting and business issues that would become my first major career. Skip, on the other hand, was a morning person, interested in reading whatever he could to sharpen his knowledge and understanding of foreign relations. He had a dream even back then that he would someday be an ambassador for the United States. As I watched him pursue his dream, I learned that Skip was an interesting guy, very smart, dedicated, and determined to be the best he could possibly be at his chosen field. He helped me learn to expect the same of myself. Soon, our college years were over, and we each went our separate ways, keeping in contact, pursuing our life's dreams and taking advantage of every opportunity that presented itself. Soon Skip was making his way through our Nation's diplomatic and foreign service system. For my part, what began as a small business soon had me working my way through Wyoming's political system on the local, State, and national levels. As the years went quickly past, Skip and I continued to follow a similar path in life as we both met and married our special wives. Our kids were even born about the same times. Skip found in his wife, Peggy, and I found in my wife, Diana/, the kind of support and assistance it was going to take if we were to achieve the kind of success we were both hoping for. For Skip, Peggy's encouragement and guidance has helped him to be a force for the United States and to serve our country all over the world. For my part, Diana has been exactly what I needed to serve the people of Wyoming at every opportunity. For Skip, one of the greatest moments of his career had to be his service as our Ambassador to Kuwait. He was nominated to that post when Saddam Hussein came calling with his army and attempted to set up shop there. Fortunately, Skip had what it takes to face up to a challenge like that with great courage, bravery, and determination. Those who knew him weren't surprised. We knew he had it in him, and when our Nation emerged from that challenge, our President, George Bush, knew he had chosen wisely when he selected Skip Gnehm for that difficult post. I got to watch on television as Skip raised the American flag at the recaptured U.S. Embassy in Kuwait. I could go on at length about some of his other posts and the places he has served to promote and protect U.S. interests. He has been our Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He has also served as our Ambassador to Australia and to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, presenting his credentials on 9/11 and then flying to peace meetings with the King of Jordan. He still has special contacts throughout the Middle East. Over the years, Skip received a number of awards for his work overseas, including the Secretary of State's Distinguished Service Award for his service in Jordan and Superior Honor Awards for his service in Kuwait and Riyadh. Skip has also been an active force for the betterment of The George Washington University in a number of different capacities. He has been a member of the board of trustees, the vice president of the general alumni association, and the faculty representative to the board of directors. Skip is currently on the faculty of the Elliott School of International Affairs where he is inspiring our next generation of foreign policy advisers and experts by sharing his own experience borne from a lengthy career in our foreign service. Thanks to Skip, we can rest assured that our future diplomatic efforts will be in good hands Looking back to those days years ago when Skip and I were spending another night hitting the books for the next day's class or exam, I don't think either one of us could have dreamed how well things would turn out for the two of us. I have been given an opportunity to represent the people of Wyoming as mayor, member of the State legislature, and now as a U.S. Senator. I was always proud to work on Skip's confirmation to these different postings. Skip has had an impact all over the world and touched more lives than we will ever be able to count. Simply put, I couldn't be more proud of Skip and all he has accomplished over the years. I don't think anyone is more deserving of the president's medal that he will receive from The George Washington University's president Steven Knapp. Steven is doing great work to promote GW and ensure its future will be even better than its past. This is a great honor for Skip, and I am sure he couldn't be more appreciative of this recognition. It represents a lifetime of achievements for him and an amazing list of accomplishments. As the title of the classic film reminds us, Skip has had a ``wonderful life'' of which both Skip and GW can be truly proud. He represents what a tremendous advantage an education at George Washington University can be when placed in the right hands. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for April 2017. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, S.Con.Res. 3. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budget points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA. My last filing can be found in the Record on March 1, 2017. The information contained in this report captures legislative activity since that filing through April 25, 2017. Republican Budget Committee staff prepared Tables 1-3 of this report. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 14 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations. The two committees out of compliance are: the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, for spending $1 million more in budget authority and outlays than allowed over each enforcement window due to passage of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017, P.L. 115-10; and the Committee on Veterans Affairs, which violates its outlay allocation by $200 million over both the fiscal year 2017-2021 and fiscal year 2017-2026 periods. The latter violation--the largest of this reporting period--stems from passage of a bill to amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to modify the termination date for the Veterans Choice Program, and for other purposes, P.L. 115-26. This measure removed the August 7, 2017, sunset from the program to allow funds previously appropriated to be fully exhausted. Tables 2-3 remain unchanged from the last report as no new appropriations activity has occurred for the fiscal year 2017 cycle. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by the Congress. CBO provided a spending and revenue report for fiscal year 2017, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. In its report, CBO annualizes the temporary effects of the latest continuing resolution, which provides funding through April 28, 2017. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Budget Committee excludes this temporary funding. As such, the committee views current-law levels as being $953 billion and $583.2 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Revenues are consistent with the levels assumed in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017. Over the fiscal year 2017-2021 and fiscal year 2017-2026 period, however, revenues are $1 million below assumed levels due to the enactment of H.J. Res. 83, P.L. 115-21, a resolution considered under the Congressional Review Act for disapproving of the rule by the Department of Labor relating to ``Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness.'' Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in S.Con.Res. 3. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. The Senate's PAYGO scorecard currently shows increased deficits of $202 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 and fiscal year 2016-2026 periods. For both of these periods, outlays have been increased by $201 million, and revenues have been reduced by $1 million. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con.Res.21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. Finally, included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. No budget points of order have been raised since my last filing. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the tables be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support for the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Several weeks ago, shortly after President Trump announced this nomination, I came to the floor to say what an admirable choice he had made and had known him for some time. After meeting with Judge Gorsuch to discuss his nomination and after reviewing his qualifications and after observing my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly vet him, I am all the more convinced that this man is eminently qualified to serve as America's next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I was impressed that both of his Senators introduced him to the committee for the hearing. I was kind of surprised that the biggest comments that I heard about the hearing itself, were that he did not answer some of the questions directly. As with previous Justices, they do not answer questions directly when they are asked a theoretical question about some possible future case that might come before them and are without the details. Another reason that I am convinced that he is very qualified is that the people with whom he went to school have all had good comments to say about him. The people he went to law school with have had good comments. The people who have been on the bar with him--in the legal arena--have had good comments to say about him and so have the other judges with whom he has worked through the years as he has moved up through the different processes. I am confident that he is qualified to be our next Justice because of his extensive judicial experience, his commitment to the rule of law, and his principled character. Neil Gorsuch's first job out of law school was a couple of blocks from here. Even back then, he was already preparing to serve his country on the Supreme Court by learning from some of the best jurists in America. He performed clerkships first for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit and later for Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the U.S. Supreme Court. After working in private practice and at the Department of Justice, in 2006 President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The Senate confirmed him by a voice vote. That is unanimous. Let me say that again because it is relevant to the misplaced--in my opinion--partisan rancor we are hearing over this nomination. In 2006, only Lindsey Graham bothered to attend the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing to consider Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. This body--including then-Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama--was so confident about Neil Gorsuch's character and his qualifications to serve as a Federal judge that he was confirmed by the Senate without anyone even asking for a recorded vote. With what was in essence an endorsement from three of the most influential political figures then serving in the Senate among my colleagues across the aisle, I find some of the opposition to Judge Gorsuch and the questioning of his qualifications somewhat baffling. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will put aside the political bickering and scorekeeping that have dominated Washington over the last several months and give Neil Gorsuch a fair vote, up or down, based on his qualifications and his suitability for service on the Supreme Court. Since joining the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has been a busy man, doing exactly the kind of work that makes him qualified for this nomination. The Tenth Circuit exercises appellate jurisdiction of Federal cases originating in eight States that cover about 20 percent of America's landmass. That jurisdiction does include my home State of Wyoming. As a member of the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch estimates that he sat on appellate panels considering approximately 1,800 criminal cases and 1,200 civil cases. The list of citations of case decisions he has authored is a single-spaced, 21-page document. After hearing all of those cases and drafting all of those opinions, even Judge Gorsuch's detractors have criticized only a mere handful of the hundreds of opinions he has authored. I am confident that Neil Gorsuch is qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court because of his steadfast commitment to the rule of law. The many opinions he has written are known for being clear and easy to understand. But, most importantly, his opinions reflect his respect for following the law as it is written and for applying and adhering to judicial precedent. He is a judge who applies the law to the facts of the case and reaches the conclusion that the examination yields, regardless of his own personal beliefs. As he said, ``Personal politics or policy preferences have no useful role in judging; regular and healthy doses of self-skepticism and humility about one's own abilities and conclusions always do.'' Judge Gorsuch is an adherent to, and defender of, America's Constitution and the separation of powers that document prescribes. As he said, ``Judges must allow the elected branches of government to flourish and citizens, through their elected representatives, to make laws appropriate to the facts and circumstances of the day.'' Throughout this nomination process, during all of which Judge Gorsuch has been under a political microscope, we have seen that he is a man of admirable character with a temperament that makes him well suited to serve as a Supreme Court Justice. We know he has a resilient character and thick skin--qualities important to any Justice--because we have seen his demeanor and response to the criticism of his career and negative characterizations about some of his previous decisions--very few of them, I should add. We have seen his reaction in the face of accusations about his judicial independence. In the face of that--biting disparagement about the work he has spent his life trying to perfect--Judge Gorsuch has been respectful, remarkably patient, and resolutely committed to upholding the ethical canons and conduct demanded of him as a jurist. We have glimpsed Judge Gorsuch's character as he has spoken about the people he values and those he strives to emulate. His legal heroes are people like Justice White, who he said ``followed the law wherever it took him without fear or favor to anyone''; Justice Anthony Kennedy, who, Judge Gorsuch said, ``showed me that judges can disagree without being disagreeable''; and Justice Scalia, who reminds us ``that the judge's job is to follow the words that are in the law--not to replace them with words that aren't.'' Neil Gorsuch has told us that he has also looked closer to home, to his family, to shape his character: his mother, who he said ``taught me that headlines are fleeting, but courage lasts''; his father, who he said showed him that kindness ``is the great virtue''; his paternal grandfather, who Judge Gorsuch said taught him that ``lawyers exist to help people with their problems, not the other way around.'' Neil Gorsuch has demonstrated his commitment to the law, his scholarship, and his temperament befitting that of a judge. He is eminently qualified to be a member of the Supreme Court--not in my opinion--that is what the judges have said. I am not the only one who believes this. My office has received hundreds of calls and letters from my constituents in Wyoming urging the confirmation of Judge Gorsuch. He has a lot of support from folks in the Wyoming legal community, from both parties, whom I know and trust and whose opinions I value. Judge Gorsuch has earned a ``well qualified'' rating--the highest rating they award from the American Bar Association. To give him this rating, the ADA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducted a peer review of Judge Gorsuch's integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament. As children we all learn that you might be able to fool your parents or our teachers, but you can never fool your peers. You especially cannot fool ones with whom you have worked long hours like most judges and lawyers are known to do. You can't fool your peers. They are the ones who see you at your best and at your worst. That is why it is so remarkable that dozens of Neil Gorsuch's Harvard Law School classmates--people representing many different political and philosophical persuasions and who have known him for more than a quarter of a century--signed a letter supporting his nomination to the Supreme Court. Among our most important duties as Members of this body is to carefully vet all nominees who come before us. Never is that responsibility so stark and so substantial than when our Nation faces a vacancy on the Supreme Court. In November, millions of people went to the polls and rejected the kind of tired, partisan bickering when they voted for a change in Washington. Those same voters went to the polls knowing that there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court and that whoever became the next President would choose that nominee. For many weeks now, Judge Gorsuch has been before us as that nominee. He has undergone scrutiny under which most of us would wither. We have all had time to examine his record. I thank Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and all of our Senate colleagues who serve on the Judiciary Committee for conducting such thorough and detailed nomination hearings that provided us ample opportunity to examine Judge Gorsuch's qualifications and temperament. I believe there is only one logical conclusion to reach after all of this examination; that is, that Judge Neil Gorsuch is supremely qualified for and capable of the solemn and mighty task of serving as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this confirmation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I appreciate having this opportunity to recognize the 102nd annual conference of the Wyoming State Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. This year's conference is being held in Casper and once again promises to be an interesting, informative, and inspirational event. In the years since the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution was founded on October 11, 1890, the organization has kept its focus on the preservation and promotion of the ideals, principles, and values that are reflected in our Charters of Freedom--the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They knew what a great gift we have been given with our citizenship in the United States of America and they wanted to show their great pride in those who had fought for our freedom as a nation and won it. With such a strong base on which to build, it is no wonder that the DAR continues to grow in size and influence. Year after year, more and more people are drawn to join the DAR and help to promote the principles and values of our Nation. That is why it is really no wonder that the DAR can now boast of over 185,000 members all over the world. In Wyoming, that enthusiasm shows itself as each chapter continues to encourage its members to be more active and involved in the day-to-day workings of our government on the local, State, and national levels. There is only one qualification for membership in the DAR. You must be able to trace your lineage back to the days of our fight for freedom, when a young nation took up arms to sever the ties between the United States and Great Britain. Some member of your family must have been a part of our American Revolution for you to be accepted into the DAR as a member. It is then up to you to continue the work that a member of your family began. That legacy has been handed down to the members of the DAR and to all of us as American citizens. It is also the legacy we will hand down to our children and grandchildren. We recognize the members of the DAR and the difference all of you are making as individuals and as members of an organization that has been keeping the ``Spirit of `76'' alive for generations now. The principles and values that are embodied in our Charters of Freedom have helped you to make a difference and that has helped to make our nation a better place for us all to live. Thank you for the good work you do.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the rules of the Senate Committee on the Budget for the 115th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for March 2017. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2017, S. Con. Res. 3. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee 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, CBA. My last filing, which was based on enforceable levels relative to the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 11, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74, can be found in the Record for November 16, 2016. The information contained in this report for fiscal year 2017 is current through February 27, 2017. Tables 1-3 of this report are prepared by my staff on the Budget Committee. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, CBA. All committees are in compliance with their allocations assumed in the budget resolution and match the levels that I included in the allocation enforcement filing of January 17, 2017. Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations exceeds or is below the statutory spending limits for fiscal year 2017. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. As the Federal Government is currently operating under the terms of the latest continuing resolution and temporary funding is not included in enforcement totals, this scorecard shows $543.5 billion in security and $415.2 billion in nonsecurity budget authority remain available for full-year appropriations. Table 3 tracks compliance with the fiscal year 2017 limit for overall changes in mandatory programs, CHIMPS, in appropriations bills, established in the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution. The limit for this fiscal year is $19.1 billion. To date, there are no recorded CHIMP entries on this scorecard. Division A of the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, P.L. 114-254, included a qualifying CHIMP, $170 million, but the Appropriations Committee included a provision to prevent its budgetary effects from being entered onto the scorecard. This exclusion was the first of its kind since the creation of the new rule in 2015. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 of that resolution. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting tables from CBO, which I will use for enforcement of budget totals agreed to by the Congress. CBO provided a spending and revenue report for fiscal year 2017. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under section 311 of the CBA. For fiscal year 2017, CBO annualizes the temporary effects of the latest continuing resolution that provides funding through April 28, 2017. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Budget Committee excludes this temporary funding. As such, the committee views current- law levels as being $953 billion and $583.2 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Revenues are consistent with the levels assumed in the budget resolution. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in S. Con. Res. 3. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. Following passage of the budget resolution in January, I reset the Senate's PAYGO scorecard to zero. Since passage of the resolution, there have been no laws enacted that have a significant effect on the Federal Government's budget deficit over either the 6- or 11-year periods. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. Finally, included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. No budget points of order have been raised since the passage of the 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, when I woke up this morning I was remembering some of the Old West stories about catching the culprit and hanging him. Then we got a little more sophisticated out West, and we said: You know, we need to give that person a fair trial and then hang him. Sometimes I feel like these Cabinet position hearings are exactly that. They let the person ask questions. They ask very leading questions. I am not sure anybody listens to the answers. Then they have to answer a whole bunch of questions. I am not sure anybody reads the answers to those questions, and if they do, any time you read something, there can be a certain bias that is built into it. I am sorry that is happening to Cabinet after Cabinet after Cabinet position. Traditionally, a President has gotten the Cabinet that he wanted, often in the first week that he was in. Some of them got it on the first day they were in. This is a key position for the President. But we have to remember that he doesn't get to make any final decisions. He gets to recommend to the President and make a presentation to the President on what there ought to be, and then the President presents a budget. Looking back over the last 8 years, we have voted on the President's budget. For 7 years, the President got zero votes. That means his budget did not go into place. In the eighth year, he got one vote. I am hoping that Representative Mulvaney can do a considerably better job than that in outlining what our needs are, presenting it to the President, and getting some agreement so that we can get this country on a plan to where we can quit increasing the $20 trillion debt burden which faces us because of the 8 years of anemic economic and policy growth we have had. With unprecedented attempts to delay the new Cabinet, Senate Democrats have ensured the President has been without an OMB Director longer than any other President in the past 40 years. The reason I use 40 years is that is as long as that position has been in place. According to Senate records, from President Jimmy Carter to President Obama, the longest it ever took to approve a first budget director for new Presidents was 1 week--1 week. We are now in week 4 and with little movement. As Majority Leader McConnell said last week, this is the slowest time for a new Cabinet to be up and running since President George Washington--and that was last week that he said that. It is vital we fill this position. I am hopeful Mr. Mulvaney and the OMB will ensure that the taxes of hard-working Americans sent to Washington are spent in the most effective and efficient way. The Federal Government has not been currently focused on making sure hard- working taxpayers get the best deal for their money. A new OMB Director focused on responsible budgeting can help ensure the duplication of government programs and agencies is discovered and it is addressed. This will help the Federal Government to be more accountable and more effective. I remember walking over to the inauguration next to the new Senator from Maryland, who talked to me about Mulvaney and said that he was kind of impressed that the two of them had agreed on some budgetary principles. That was a bit of a shock to me. The Government Accountability Office every year outlines tens of billions of dollars in savings that can be achieved through various efficiency measures. OMB can play an important role in ensuring that spending programs don't duplicate each other. That is what Mulvaney is excited about. Additionally, reforming and consolidating these programs can ensure they focus on real needs and be managed with an eye toward real results. Several years ago, Congress passed a law requiring the administration to list all Federal programs on a central governmentwide website, along with related budget and performance information, maybe saying how many people work there and how many customers they serve. Unfortunately, when the program lists were put online, GAO reviewed the information and discovered that the inventory, in their own words, was ``not a useful tool for decisionmaking.'' That has to change. Mulvaney can change that. Even if the government can't answer that question, we can find strong evidence that the numbers are on the rise, and Mr. Mulvaney will be able to play a crucial role in taming the unchecked growth of the Federal Government. To conclude, I have full faith in Representative Mulvaney. That is why I am asking you today to take my word for his capability. I do take my word very seriously. Please support Representative Mulvaney for this important position and get this position onboard so we can do the work that we are supposed to do--one of which is to get a budget from the President by today. That is not going to be possible because he doesn't have anybody to do the budget yet. Then, we can get on with the business of this country. We have been working on some bipartisan budget processes that we can do. We will get that done, too, with his help, with the President's help, and with help from both sides of the aisle. We badly need it. I ask for support for Representative Mulvaney. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today as the Senate considers the nomination of Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina to be the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. That is OMB. We are long overdue in confirming Mr. Mulvaney to this key post because our Nation has so many pressing budgetary issues requiring the attention of this new administration. First among them is the staggering $20 trillion debt burden we are now faced with after 8 years of anemic economic policy and growth--and growing at the rate of half a trillion dollars a year. Confirming an OMB Director we can work with will put America on a more responsible fiscal path. With their unprecedented attempts to delay the new Cabinet, Senate Democrats have ensured that the President has now been without an OMB Director longer than any other President in the past 40 years. That is how long the Budget Act has been in place. According to Senate records, from President Jimmy Carter to President Obama, the longest it has ever taken to approve a first budget director for a new President was 1 week--1 week. We are now in week 4, with little or no movement. As Majority Leader McConnell said last week, this is the slowest time for a new Cabinet to be up and running since President George Washington-- and that was last week. It is even slower than that, and we are still not done. It is vital that we fill this position as soon as possible because the Director of the Office of Management and Budget will help set the President's budget priorities and play an important role in working with Congress on setting the appropriate spending levels for the Nation. This position is crucial to helping the Federal Government function in what is shaping up to be a very challenging fiscal environment that requires all of our attention. Some may wonder why Democrats are opposed to Mr. Mulvaney. It could be because he has been a vigilant budget hawk during his 6 years in Congress, focused on the question of how we ultimately stop the Federal Government from overspending while continuing to fund the country's core priorities and responsibilities. They could be worried that the White House Budget Director will be a prominent voice, arguing for fiscal restraint, for responsible budgets, and for honest budgeting that avoids the use of gimmicks, such as emergency funding designations for nonemergencies. I am hopeful Mr. Mulvaney and the OMB will ensure the taxes the hard- working Americans send to Washington are spent in the most efficient and effective way. The Federal Government has not been currently focused on making sure hard-working taxpayers get the best deal for their money. A new OMB Director focused on responsible budgeting can help ensure that when duplication in government programs and agencies is discovered, it is addressed. This will help make the Federal Government more accountable and effective. The Government Accountability Office, GAO, every year outlines tens of billions of dollars in savings that can be achieved through various efficiency measures. OMB can play an important role in ensuring that spending programs do not duplicate each other while protecting hard- working taxpayers. Additionally, reforming and consolidating these programs can ensure that they focus on real needs and be managed with an eye on real results. The Federal Government has grown so large and so complex that no one seems to know how many Federal programs exist. Even the executive branch can't tell us how many programs it administers. I have directed a lot of questions to the past administration, trying to find out exactly that. Of course, I would like to not only know how many programs they administer, I would like to know how many dollars are involved, I would like to know how many people it employs and how many customers they serve. There ought to be some kind of relationship there that means we are making a difference, but nobody is looking at it. Several years ago, Congress even passed a law requiring the administration to publish a list of all Federal programs on a central governmentwide website, along with related budget and performance information--some of what I was just talking about. Unfortunately, when the program lists were put online, GAO reviewed the information and discovered that the inventory, in their words--listen to this carefully--was ``not a useful tool for decision making.'' What were they afraid of? But even if the government can't answer that question, we can find strong evidence that the number is on the rise, and Mr. Mulvaney will be able to play a crucial role in taming the unchecked growth of the Federal Government. I also look forward to working with him on the urgent need to reform the broken budget process, which has contributed to the budgetary stalemate and recurrent continuing resolutions to which Congress now routinely resorts in order to postpone hard decisions about spending and debt, which delays agencies from being able to plan. There is an urgent need for important reforms to the process, such as implementing biennial budgeting so they can plan 2 years at a time, and the overhaul of outdated budget accounting concepts that have outlived their usefulness. Ultimately, my goal is to have Congress work with this new administration to produce comprehensive and lasting budget reform that can put our Nation on a better fiscal path. The Budget Committee has been working on that for a year in a very bipartisan way. It is time for us to put some of those into place. Despite its significance, the preparation of the President's annual budget submission is only one of the responsibilities of OMB. As an entity within the Executive Office of the President, OMB has numerous governmentwide management responsibilities, in addition to budgeting and spending, that concern various activities carried out by Federal agencies. These include agency rulemaking, agency contracting, agency grants management, agency financial management, information technology, program assessment, personnel policy, property management. We don't even have a list of what property we have, let alone when it is probably going to outlive its usefulness and when it needs to be replaced. That would be capital budgeting. I hope we can do that at some point. It is for these reasons and more that I encourage the Senate to exercise its constitutional duties to provide their advice and consent on this key Cabinet-level position and confirm Representative Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina to be Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I have talked to him extensively. I have known him for a long time, and I know he will do a spectacular job with this at providing good advice to the President so we can do whatever we can do and bring as many people together in meeting the responsibilities of this government. I hope the people will join me in support of this outstanding nominee. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to talk about a couple of my friends. I want to say a few words and praise President Trump's nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States. I first met Judge Gorsuch several years ago when I met with several circuit court judges for a dinner. He was and has been impressive. Judge Gorsuch is an admirable choice to be America's next Supreme Court Justice. His many years of dedication to the law and service to America's judicial system clearly qualify him to serve on America's highest Court. His work itself speaks highly of his understanding of the Constitution and the values that we, as Americans, hold dear. Some of the first signs Judge Gorsuch would be a great jurist happened just around the corner from here in Washington, DC, where he won a national debate championship in high school. He attended college at Columbia University and received a scholarship to attend Harvard Law School. As a new lawyer, he was back here in Washington learning from some of the best jurists in America. He performed clerkships first to the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals for the DC district court and later for Justice Byron White and Anthony Kennedy at the U.S. Supreme Court. After working in private practice and at the Department of Justice, in 2006, President George W. Bush nominated Judge Gorsuch to serve as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit--that is my circuit. The Senate confirmed him by voice vote. Let me say that again. In 2006, this body was so confident about Neil Gorsuch, his character and his qualifications to serve as a Federal judge--yes, a circuit court judge--that he was confirmed without anyone even asking for a recorded vote. I consider that unanimous. On the bench of the busy Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has proven he takes seriously his duty to uphold the Constitution. He is known for his legal opinions that stridently defend our most fundamental constitutional rights and for writing those opinions in a way that is engaging and easy to understand. He knows that his work as a judge is about serving this institution, not his personal preferences. As he said recently at the White House, shortly after his nomination was announced by President Trump, ``A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands.'' I love that quote. As a uniquely exceptional scholar and respected jurist, not to mention a fellow westerner and avid outdoorsman who shares my love of fly fishing, he is the kind of man I trust to serve America on the highest Court of the land. I have met Judge Gorsuch, and he has a lot of support from folks in Wyoming, in the Wyoming legal community, and from both parties. I got calls from people of both parties saying he is the one we want to put up. I know and I trust those people, and I know and trust Judge Gorsuch, and I value those people's opinions. I believe he has a good understanding of the legal issues that matter to people in my home State. I would be remiss if I didn't state my disappointment in all the unproductive distraction about this pick by activists bent on politicizing the judicial nomination process. If their rhetoric and antics in the last days and weeks have told us anything, it is that no matter who President Trump nominated to fill the spot on the Supreme Court, they would have objected--no matter how learned, how objective, or how many hundreds of hours a nominee had already spent on the bench. In November, millions of people went to the polls and rejected this kind of tired partisan bickering when they voted for a change in Washington. Those same voters went to the polls knowing that there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court and that whoever became the next President would choose the nominee. Mr. President, among our most important duties, as Members of this body, is carefully vetting all nominees who come before us. Never is that responsibility so stark and so substantial as when our Nation faces a vacancy on the Supreme Court. I believe Judge Neil Gorsuch is up to the solemn and mighty task of serving as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. I look forward to a timely and fair confirmation process focused on Judge Gorsuch's qualifications. Now I want to talk a little bit about my other friend. I rise in support of President Trump's nominee to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States. That is my good friend and colleague Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Senator Sessions is an admirable and appropriate choice to be America's next Attorney General. His many years of legal practice, his service as a U.S. attorney, and as Alabama's attorney general, and 20 years of legislative service in the U.S. Senate have prepared him well to lead America's Department of Justice. His work itself speaks highly of his understanding of the Constitution, of his respect for the law, and of his reverence for the values that we as Americans hold dear. Jeff Sessions is qualified to be the next U.S. Attorney General because he spent decades studying and practicing the law. He grew up in a small town in Alabama and worked his way through college before studying law at the University of Alabama. Senator Sessions began his law practice at a small firm, where he worked on cases involving probate matters, domestic relations, criminal defense, real estate, wills, and civil litigation--what a combination. He then worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Alabama from 1975 to 1977. In that position, he handled a variety of cases at the trial level, including those related to wrongful death, gun violations, forgeries, bank robberies, drugs, and enforcing criminal penalties for pollution. I am not an attorney myself, but I understand those are exactly the kinds of cases that teach foundational legal skills to a young attorney--managing a docket that may include dozens of cases at any one time; working long hours to track down key evidence and witnesses; developing relationships with investigators and closely advising them to ensure relevant and admissible evidence is gathered lawfully; giving up nights and weekends to prepare witnesses, motions, and arguments for trial to get a case across the finish line; and conferring with victims to assure they are afforded the rights guaranteed to them by law. That kind of hard work and legal training paid off in 1981, when Senator Sessions was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. For the next 12 years Jeff Sessions represented Federal agencies in legal controversies, prosecuted criminal cases, collected debts owed to the government, and defended the civil rights of U.S. citizens. He did this while also serving his country in the U.S. Army Reserve from 1973 to 1986. He worked as a transportation officer and later as a military attorney, where the Army no doubt benefited greatly from his years of civilian legal training and practice. In 1995, Senator Sessions was elected attorney general for the State of Alabama, and he served for 2 years as the State's chief legal officer. Two years later he was elected to the U.S. Senate. I was first elected to the Senate in that same year, and Jeff Sessions has been my friend ever since. But I personally know the man, not just the Senator, and I believe him to be a caring person who wants justice for people and has compassion for people, no matter their backgrounds. During his 20 years in the Senate, Jeff Sessions has worked on many tough legislative issues that further qualify him to serve as Attorney General. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he has fought for the confirmation of judges committed to following the law. Consistent with his experience as a prosecutor, he has led successful legislative efforts to improve law and order, many times working with his colleagues across the aisle. He worked with another of my good friends, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, on legislation to reduce sexual assaults in prisons. He worked with Senator Durbin to pass legislation in 2010 to bring fairness to Federal drug sentencing and provide tougher penalties to repeat drug traffickers. But his efforts haven't been limited to the Judiciary Committee. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, he has been a strong advocate for America's military and for those who serve in it. In 2006, he worked with Senator Lieberman to pass a law increasing death benefits for family members of fallen combat personnel and to increase Servicemembers Group Life Insurance benefits. He has worked to restrain the growth of Federal spending and rebalance Federal funding for HIV/AIDS treatment through the Ryan White CARE Act. Those are just a few of his many legislative accomplishments as a U.S. Senator. Jeff Sessions is a well-educated attorney, an accomplished prosecutor, and a skilled legislator. But I also believe his character, work ethic, and temperament make him well-suited to serve as the chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. As I mentioned, he has been my friend and colleague for over 20 years. So I am proud to personally attest to this. He is a man who is guided by his principles. He is very active in his family's church back in Mobile and in the entire Methodist community of Alabama. He and his wife Mary have raised three wonderful children who have given them ten grandchildren. I believe Senator Sessions has the experience, character, and drive to be a fantastic Attorney General. If confirmed, he is committed to strengthening partnerships between Federal and local law enforcement officers to fight crime, and, specifically, to take out drug cartels and criminal gangs. He has vowed to prosecute criminals who use guns in committing crimes. And he will prosecute individuals who repeatedly violate America's immigration laws. In November millions of voters went to the polls and voted for change. I believe the priorities Senator Sessions will pursue if confirmed as Attorney General are shared by those voters. I would note the many organizations and individuals who have endorsed his nomination, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and 25 State attorneys general. These are people at the frontlines of law enforcement, and I think they know what it takes to make a great Attorney General. Among our most important duties as Members of this body is to carefully vet all nominees that come before us. We have before us an opportunity to support the nomination of a man of high moral character, whose training, education, and professional experience make him extremely well-qualified to serve our country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting Senator Jeff Sessions to serve as our next U.S. Attorney General. I yield the floor.