Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the duration of the Senate's consideration of S. Con. Res. 3, the majority and Democratic managers of the concurrent resolution, while seated or standing at the managers' desks, be permitted to deliver floor remarks, retrieve, review, and edit documents, and send email and other data communications from text displayed on wireless personal digital assistant devices and tablet devices.

Mr. ENZI. I further ask unanimous consent that the use of calculators be permitted on the floor during consideration of the budget resolution.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today we have a new Congress. Soon we will have a new President. For the first time in years, hardworking Americans will have their voices heard as we take the first steps to repair the Nation's broken health care system--steps to remove Washington from the equation and to put control back where it belongs-- with the patients, their families, and their doctors. The President's health law has pushed insurance markets to the brink of collapse. Premiums for hardworking families are soaring, while patients' choices are dwindling. I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle to face the facts that ObamaCare has failed to deliver on its core promises and is hurting far more than it is helping. I know our colleagues on the other side of the aisle share our goal of a robust health care system for hardworking families, and I truly hope they will work with us to find common ground that delivers more choices and lowers costs. I welcome the input from all the Nation's lawmakers as we endeavor to listen to the American people in this pursuit. But first, it is important to remember how we got here so that the actions that we will be taking this year are considered in proper context. After the 2008 election, Democrats controlled the Presidency and had a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate. This allowed Senate Democrats in 2009 to pass a health care plan without any Republican support, which is exactly what they did. House Democrats had initially approved a health care reform bill with several important differences. So congressional Democrats needed to address these concerns in a conference committee. But plans to iron out the differences between the House and Senate versions were derailed in early 2010, when Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority with the Massachusetts special election that resulted in placing Senator Scott Brown in the seat formerly held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy. He had held that seat since 1962. With the filibuster-proof majority lost, Democrats in the House approved the Senate-passed health care bill without any Republican votes and sent it to the President, while vowing to use the budget reconciliation process to address their colleagues' concerns with the Senate legislation. Subsequent budget reconciliation legislation was passed by Democrats and signed into law by President Obama. Combined with the initial health care bill, ObamaCare was created. Now, I share this brief history of ObamaCare only as a reminder that, while my colleagues will surely complain about using the reconciliation process to untangle the country from this unworkable, unpopular, and unaffordable law, they should remember they actually employed the exact same procedure to secure the passage of ObamaCare. Recent headlines show the ObamaCare problem is only getting worse and discourages people from seeking so-called coverage. Last October, at Bloomberg's The Year Ahead Summit in New York, the CEO of Aetna discussed the issues surrounding their decision not to participate in ObamaCare exchanges, saying: As the rates rise, the healthier people pull out because the out-of-pocket costs aren't worth it. . . . Young people can do the math. Gas for the car, beer on Fridays and Saturdays, health insurance. Now, if you are young and healthy, ObamaCare has made it an easy choice to opt out of health coverage. But if you are not so fortunate-- for those who must have coverage--it quickly becomes a frightening reality. I have constituents in Wyoming who have written to me, with worry and concern about their surging health insurance premiums. I recently heard from a young woman who is experiencing the worst of this law. She said: Dear Senator Enzi, I am writing with concerns specifically in the way that our country is heading in respect to healthcare services. I am a 25 year old with no medical conditions, I rarely need a doctor visit, however as I looked into the health insurance for me and my 8 month old son, also without health problems, I have found insurance to be incredibly expensive. Based on the cost of our health care last year, which included a C-section and the birth of our son, our family would spend less on health care if we paid for medical expenses out of pocket and did not have health insurance. However, in order to obey the law this is not an option. I have researched and calculated the most cost effective health care option for our family. We are looking at paying almost $800 a month for our insurance, even with my husband receiving insurance through work. This is almost 1/3 of our family's monthly income. . . . Insurance is becoming a huge burden for our family. Now, that is the reality for many of our constituents across the country. She is trying to do the right thing for her family's health, but the law is crippling them financially. Our answer must be to not ignore these problems. For many Americans caught up in ObamaCare's tangled and expensive web of regulations, the situation is grim and only getting worse by the day. It is time to act. One of the most disturbing parts of this law is that Americans are now paying more in taxes to pay for the very health law that is driving up their insurance premiums. The law will saddle American households with $1 trillion--$1 trillion--in new taxes and penalties over the next 10 years, unless Congress acts. ObamaCare's crushing regulations mean smaller paychecks for families, while holding back small businesses from expanding and hiring new workers. For every American, ObamaCare has meant more government, more bureaucracy, and more rules and regulations, along with soaring health care costs--along with soaring health care costs. It is time to lift the burdens and higher costs this law has placed on all Americans. The Senate is poised to pass a repeal resolution that will set the stage for true legislative relief from ObamaCare that Americans have long demanded, while ensuring a stable transition in which those with insurance will not lose access to health care coverage. Let me repeat that. The Senate is poised to pass a repeal resolution that will set the stage for true legislative relief from ObamaCare that Americans have long demanded, while ensuring a stable transition in which those with insurance will not lose access to health care coverage. This will allow us to move step-by-step on a new set of reforms, listening carefully to the advice of the millions of Americans affected and to do our best to make sure that we proceed wisely and do no harm. Fortunately, America now has a President committed to repealing ObamaCare and moving toward a system that offers more choices, lower costs, and more individual control for millions of hardworking Americans. The American people have endured a lot under ObamaCare and its broken promises. As a Presidential candidate not so long ago, then-Senator Barack Obama, a Democrat from Illinois serving here, promised Americans they could keep their health plan if they liked it. Millions soon learned they couldn't, and others soon wouldn't. This is because ObamaCare has drastically reduced Americans' choice of health care plans through a Federal takeover of the insurance marketplace. In fact, the President's promise that ``if you like your plan, you can keep it'' has proven to be one of many unfulfilled and unattainable promises of ObamaCare. In Wyoming, we have seen the real impact of ObamaCare on our health insurance market. Wyoming now only has one health insurer in the individual market, both on and off the ObamaCare exchange. Many States are experiencing a similar issue of having insurers leaving the exchanges entirely. So for Wyomingites, the Obama administration's talking points about ``choice'' were in the end just more empty promises. Americans were also promised lower health care costs, but even the administration admits that ObamaCare is failing to address costs, with average premiums rising by 25 percent for silver-level plans on the Federal exchange. That is in 1 year. This means that families have to decide whether to purchase unaffordable insurance or to pay a fine. In most cases, they are literally paying more money for less control over their health care. Health care costs in Wyoming continue to be among the highest in the Nation, with other States not far behind. ObamaCare's mandates and taxes on employer-sponsored health plans are not only leading to higher out-of-pocket expenses but also to fewer choices and fewer services for the 150 million Americans with employer-sponsored health benefits. Let me repeat that: The mandates and taxes on employer-sponsored health plans are not only leading to higher out-of-pocket expenses but to fewer choices and services for the 150 million Americans with employer- sponsored health benefits. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, individual employees who have job-based insurance have seen their out-of-pocket expenses climb by hundreds of dollars year after year. Employees working for small businesses now have deductibles of over $1,800 on average. Since ObamaCare became law, several large employers have stopped offering benefits to part-time employees altogether. Over the past 50 years, our Nation has made great strides in improving the quality of life for all Americans, but these transformative changes are always forged in the spirit of bipartisan compromise and cooperation. These qualities are essential to the success and longevity of crucial programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. This is a crucial time for health care in America. We do not have the luxury of ignoring the growing problems in the health insurance markets and the crushing premiums faced by families across our country. That is why we are doing this first. The failures of ObamaCare have metastasized since its passage. We must act now to repeal ObamaCare and provide relief to the millions of Americans who have been harmed by this law. Relief will require a stable transition period, which ensures those with coverage today continue to have access to health care tomorrow. Unwinding this tangle of partisan gridlock to make meaningful changes will not be easy. Our goal is to create a health care system where Washington makes fewer decisions and families are empowered to control their own health care with more choices and lower costs. This is where we find ourselves today. Congress and soon the new President will be in a position to begin the process of repealing ObamaCare. Passing this resolution is just the first step on a path to repair health care for millions of hard-working Americans whose experiences with ObamaCare have meant broken promises, higher costs, and fewer choices. This is the budget resolution we are debating now. As far as the budget part of it, all this is, is a statement of where we are at the moment. This budget went into effect last October. It has been changed a few times in the meantime, and this is a reflection of the changes that have been made up to this point. The difference is in title II, which is where the reconciliation can take place. You will notice that it is a very simple title. There is not much to it. It requires that the Committee on Finance of the Senate shall report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than $1 billion for the period of fiscal years 2017 through 2026. The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will report changes in laws within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than $1 billion for the period of fiscal years 2017 through 2026. There is no specificity in this as to how the reconciliation will take place. That is up to the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on the Senate side and the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Committee on Ways and Means on the House side to come up with the reconciliation bill, which has to pass a lot of Senate rules in order to be done, but you will notice that there isn't any specificity in here on how to do that. That comes later. That will be another budget debate we will have, but it sets the stage so that can be done. Hopefully, it will be done quickly and we will be able to find solutions for the hard-working Americans whose experiences with ObamaCare are broken promises, higher costs, fewer choices. I hope our Democratic colleagues will join us in this effort so that we can come up with solutions so that Americans can afford the insurance they want and need. I remember when we started this debate, I think there were 30 million people uninsured. Today, I think there are 30 million people uninsured. It is a different 30 million, though: The 30 million who couldn't get insurance now have insurance, and 30 million people who had insurance now can't afford their insurance. It is time for us to take care of both 30 millions and not just one. We will have that opportunity if we pass this concurrent resolution to fix ObamaCare. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

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 the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment to H.R. 2028, which provides for continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017 and full-year appropriations related to U.S. national security and disaster relief and recovery efforts. Sections 185-192 of this legislation provides emergency funding for disaster relief and recovery efforts. In total, these provisions provide $2,704 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority that produce $480 million in outlays in fiscal year 2017. This legislation includes language that designates these provisions as emergency funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. The inclusion of these designations makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. Section 192 of the legislation also provides funding for disaster relief and recovery efforts, but designates the provision as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of BBEDCA. This designation makes the spending associated with this provision, $1,416 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority and $25 million in outlays, eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. Finally, Division B provides funding for the Department of Defense and U.S. international affairs entities for counterterrorism and other national security efforts. These provisions are designated as being for overseas contingency operations/global war on terrorism pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. These designations make the spending associated with the division, $5,775 million in revised security budget authority, $4,300 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority, and $4,387 million in outlays, eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. As a result, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2017 by $14,195 million in budget authority and outlays by $4,892 million. Further, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised nonsecurity budget authority by $8,420 million, revised security budget authority by $5,775 million, and increasing outlays by $4,892 million in fiscal year 2017. 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, today I wish to recognize the service of a former colleague and our current Vice President, Joe Biden. Joe was born in Pennsylvania but moved with his family to Delaware when he was 13. He left Delaware for brief stints at St. Helena School and Syracuse University Law School, but he has always returned to Delaware, including the daily trips he made home during his Senate career and the regular trips he makes home to this day. Because of his devotion to Delaware, Joe quickly got his start in politics, first on the New Castle County Council and then in the U.S. Senate, where he became the fifth youngest U.S. Senator in history in 1972. He also has the distinction of being Delaware's longest serving Senator. I worked with Joe on many different issues during his time in the Senate and served on the Foreign Relations Committee when he was our chairman. Joe is known as a foreign affairs expert, and he has many reasons to be proud of the work he has done in that area. One of those things that we worked on together was the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. I remember being at the 2003 State of the Union speech when President Bush said, ``We're going to put $15 billion into an AIDS effort.'' That shocked all of us who were there. It was a lot of money. But we worked together to develop a bill that passed the House and Senate unanimously. Joe managed the floor when we reauthorized that program in 2008, and we worked with Senators Coburn, Burr, and Lugar to develop that reauthorization. At the time, Joe suggested historians will regard PEPFAR as President Bush's ``single finest hour,'' and I tend to agree. A few years ago I visited the Kasisi Orphanage in Zambia. We were told that, before PEPFAR, they had to bury 18 kids a month that died of AIDS, but because of PEPFAR, they got that down to one a month. I know Joe shares my pride in the difference that program is making. We were all a little sad to see Joe move to the White House in 2009, when he became our 47th Vice President. Lucky for us, he has been able to keep his ties to the Senate in his role as President of this body, and I think he has been one of our best partners in the administration. All of us were glad to be able to recognize Joe and his son, Beau Biden, by naming the cancer section of 21st Century Cures Act after Beau. I expect Joe will continue to be a voice for ending cancer, and I hope to work with him towards that cause. Joe, Diana and I send our best to you, Jill, and your family. You have served the people of Delaware and the people of the United States with distinction.

Mr. ENZI

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

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as this session of Congress draws to a close, it provides us with an opportunity to acknowledge and express our appreciation to those Members of the Senate who will be retiring in a few weeks. One of those who will be retiring and will be greatly missed is Dan Coats of Indiana. Dan has had an interesting career and through his more than 15 years in the Senate has made a difference. He has been a reliable vote for the best interests of his home State and the future of the Nation, and he leaves behind a legacy of which he should be very proud. Dan's first years of service in the Congress began in 1981, when he served in the House of Representatives. He was then appointed to the United States Senate when Dan Quayle was elected Vice President. He served in the Senate from 1989 to 1999, when his self-imposed term-limit pledge brought to an end his first years in the Senate. It was not long thereafter that Dan was again asked to serve, this time as Ambassador to Germany. He arrived in Germany and took up his service there just before our Nation experienced the tragic event of September 11. Our relationship with our allies took on prime importance after that, and we were fortunate to have Dan abroad to maintain our strong friendship with the German Government and people. Several years later, the Indiana Senate seat was open again, and Dan took up the challenge to run again to serve the people of his home State in the Senate. The people of Indiana and our Nation, conservatives and people of faith, have been fortunate to have Dan to rely on. He has been a steady and dependable force for taking better care of our Nation's finances and keeping a close watch on our security. Last year, after a great deal of prayer and thought and consideration, Dan did announce that he would not be running for another term in the Senate. It was a decision he made once again with the people of his home State in mind. He has always been determined to have the best representatives in place to serve the people of Indiana and address those issues that most concerned him. With that in mind, Dan announced that he believed ``the time has come to pass this demanding job to the next generation of leaders.'' We will miss Dan. We will miss his background and experience. We will miss his reasonable, appropriate, and well-timed comments and his ability to get results. I look forward to his next challenge or adventure and know he will continue to look out for what is best for our Nation and our people. Dan has been a great source of strength and support for our party and he will be missed. To you, Dan, Diana and I join in sending our best wishes and our appreciation to you and Marsha. Together, you have been great examples of the importance of public service. The organization you founded, the Foundation for American Renewal, and the Project for American Renewal that you created have helped you to focus on and work toward solutions to many of our problems. That is also a part of our legacy and why you will continue to receive the recognition you deserve. You have also been a part of a number of community and volunteer organizations. For these and so many more reasons, we thank you and Marsha for devoting so much of your life to making our Nation a better place to live. You certainly achieved that goal and we wish you both the best. Tribute to Barbara Mikulski Mr. President, I also want to take some time today to speak about the senior Senator from Maryland, Barbara Mikulski. In the years to come, Senator Mikulski will be known for a lot of things that made her years of service to the people of Maryland quite remarkable. It will always be mentioned that she has been the longest serving woman in the history of the United States Congress. Although that is important, Senator Mikulski did not come to Washington to see how long she could stay. She came here to see how much of a difference she could make. In the end, she served for so many years because of what she was able to do with her time in the House and then in the Senate. The people of Maryland have such a strong affection for Senator Mikulski because they always felt like she was one of them. She never lost touch with the people back home. Her family name was well known to the people in her neighborhood because her parents ran a grocery store. Every morning they opened their store early so people could stop by to pick up something before they headed off to work. In that, and so many other ways, her family played an important role in the day-to-day life of their neighborhood and her neighbors never forgot that. When the opportunity came for Senator Mikulski to run for a seat in the House representing Baltimore, she didn't hesitate. She took her case to the people and they liked what they heard. She won what was to be the first of a long series of elections, each of which she won easily and impressively. Senator Mikulski has a number of interests, and one of the things I am sure she enjoyed about Congress has been her ability to take up a number of those issues to make a difference in people's lives. In everything she has done, she has always found a way to help the people back home. A key example of that is her fight over ``the road.'' The battle dates back to 1966 when Barbara was a social worker in Baltimore. The city council proposed building a highway to connect downtown Baltimore to its suburbs, a plan that Barbara worried would cause Polish Americans, African Americans, and lower income residents to lose their homes. As is her way, Barbara sprung to action by forming a community group of opposition. The road was blocked. Barbara wound up on the city council, and the area where the road was supposed to be built is now one of Baltimore's biggest draws. As far as her work in the Senate goes, one of her many legislative victories that I will long remember is work she did on something that came to be known as Rosa's Law. Rosa was a 9-year-old young lady who was diagnosed with Down syndrome. Her mother was well aware of what a hurtful label things like ``mental retardation'' and ``mentally retarded'' were to those who saw them in the Federal laws that were written to help them. Barbara knew there was only one solution to this problem and that was to eliminate those terms from Federal law. I was pleased to able to help in the effort to pass that bill, seeing how much it meant not only to Rosa and her family but to Senator Barbara Mikulski. Our work on that bill will stay with me and will be a reminder of the reason we work so hard to pass legislation and answer the needs of the people back home. In the end, it is all about making lives better. That is something Barbara has done every day of her service in Congress. As the longest serving woman in Congress, she has continued to earn the title of ``Dean of Senate Women.'' She has been a mentor and source of good advice to her colleagues who appreciated being able to ask for her opinion and her guidance on their work on the Senate. She certainly helped me when I was a new Senator and was advocating for low-income housing in Jackson, one of the rich areas of our State. With her support, we got that done and made sure there was a mix in the community of different occupations and people. Her reputation has been to not only help the Members of the Senate with whom she has served, it also helped serve to encourage the women of Maryland to get active and involved in the work that must be done to make her home State and our Nation better places to live. In a very real sense, her leadership skills have inspired the next generation of Maryland's leaders. Now Senator Mikulski is leaving the Senate after having made a difference and leaving her mark on the history of Congress. One of the key things she will be remembered for is her tireless support of NIH. I know they will miss her and her commitment to the principles and values that guided her through her career, from her service on the Baltimore City Council to her work in the House of Representatives and then the Senate. She made a difference everywhere she served. For that reason and for many more, she will never be forgotten. My wife Diana and I join in sending our best wishes to Senator Mikulski for her years of service. Now that her Senate adventure has come to an end, she will undoubtedly come up with more challenges to pursue in the years to come. I am hoping these plans might include a followup to her mystery novel that was set in the Senate. We are looking forward to seeing what the next chapter of her life may include. Good luck to these fellow Senators. Tribute to harry reid Mr. President, at the end of each Congress, the Senate tradition is to pause for a moment to share our thoughts about those Senators who will be retiring when the final gavel brings the session to a close. One of those senators who will be leaving the Senate is Harry Reid. Senator Reid is quite a remarkable individual, and his story should be read and considered by students of government and history--of all ages. Over the years, I have spent some time with Harry at prayer breakfasts and listened to his reflections on his life--personally and politically. He has lived a life that few would ever believe to be possible. Harry makes for a great example of how to take your life and make the most of it. He was born in a small cabin that offered few of life's comforts, but he didn't complain about it. He took what he was given in life and worked to make things better. As a young man, he served as the student body president of his high school and drew the notice of his teachers and his boxing coach. He attended Utah State University, and his next stop was George Washington University--my alma mater--where he worked to earn a law degree. To make that possible, Harry needed a job, and so he worked as a U.S. Capitol Police officer. Harry then returned home to Nevada and took up what would be his lifelong ambition, serving the people of his home State. It wasn't long before Harry had served in Nevada's State legislature and on the Nevada Gaming Commission. When the opportunity presented itself, he served in the House and then moved on to the Senate. He didn't win every election, but each disappointment only served to make him more determined to make a difference for the people of his State. His statistics are impressive--more than 30 years in Congress, serving under five Presidents, and being a part of both the minority and majority. And all the time, Harry has found ways to pursue and support agendas to benefit the people of Nevada. One of my favorite memories will always be the work Harry, and I did to enable the LDS Church to purchase a site that has a great deal of historic significance to them. The legislation had already passed the House, but was stuck in the Senate as some concerns were raised. Harry knew what he needed to do to make it possible for the bill to clear the Senate, and together, we figured out a way to make it happen. Today Martin's Cove is a popular site that draws large crowds every year. This is one of those moments most of us thought would never happen. It seemed like Harry Reid would always be in the Senate. He has not only left a remarkable record, he also seems to be the last of an era. I have no doubt those who will take up his position in the years to come will do a good job and get results, but they will never do it ``like Harry did.'' He will forever stand as a unique mix of personality, character, history, and background. Diana joins in sending our best wishes to Harry and his wife, Landra. Together they have been quite a team and have accomplished a great deal. We didn't always agree on the issues, but one thing can be said: If you had a tough battle before you and you needed someone by your side who wouldn't give up until the battle was won, Harry was the kind of guy you would want in the fight. If you were on the other side of an issue, you would always prefer someone like Harry would not be opposing you. Thank you for your service, Harry. You have left an example that will inspire and encourage others in the years to come. Whenever faced with an impossible task, people will remember you and realize that with some creativity, determination and an understanding of the rules of the Senate, much can be done.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to start off by reminding everybody of an old but very short Hans Christian Andersen story about an emperor who was convinced by two very clever weavers that they could make clothes that would be invisible to anybody who was unfit for a position or stupid or incompetent. As a result, everybody thought they could see the clothes, until one little boy said: The emperor doesn't have any clothes. And then everybody gasped and realized that was the case. Well, we have kind of been weaving a budget through the years that is kind of like the emperor's clothes. We want everybody to be able to see them and think we are fit and competent and not stupid, but as this year quickly draws to a close, we are once again approaching a Federal spending deadline that will likely be postponed with yet another temporary spending bill. In the last 40 years, Congress has enacted 175 of these continuing resolutions to avoid doing its job. This will be the 176th continuing resolution since the modern budget process was established. The November election results show the American people are eager for change. With a new President taking the oath of office on January 20, Congress has an opportunity and a responsibility to get back to work. One of our top priorities must be fixing America's broken budget process to provide our Nation with a responsible fiscal blueprint and help guide our spending decisions now and into the future. Let me tell you about America's coming fiscal crisis. America is on a course for a fiscal disaster. Sadly, that is not going to surprise many people. We all know the statistics: $20 trillion in debt, on track to grow to $29 trillion in 10 years, unchecked entitlement spending that assumes 70 percent of the budget, and the imminent return of trillion- dollar deficits. Everyone knows we are in deep trouble, but what is surprising is that Congress is not considering ways to fix it. The country's finances are in a perilous position and the Federal Government has refused to act. We pretend to see the clothes. That is because, when it comes to spending money, Congress is kind of like a binge eater. We don't want to start our diet until right after the next dessert, and we never seem to run out of ideas for new desserts. That attitude has led to a mammoth, oversized debt burden that will crush future generations' prosperity. The first step to spending within our means is to establish healthy habits. We should stock the fridge with fruits and vegetables, not cake and cookies. Unfortunately, America's broken budget process does the opposite. It makes it easy for Congress to spend and spend without ever checking its fiscal waistline. Congress never has to consider the fiscally healthy options that would put our budget on a better path. America's looming fiscal crisis actually has its roots in the way America's budget and spending process is laid out. This money funds activities that most people would associate with good government, such as national defense, education, and infrastructure spending. This is the portion of the budget that attracts the most congressional scrutiny. We have limits in place that make it difficult to spend more than what is allotted, and those limits are subject to fierce debate and negotiations every 2 years or so. We also must pass spending bills to fund these government activities every year, forcing a public debate about where taxpayers' dollars should be spent. This portion of the budget is not growing rapidly and is not the cause of our unsustainable fiscal course. The real culprit is the other 70 percent of the Federal budget. This portion is spent automatically without regular congressional action or review. Let me say that again. The real culprit is the other 70 percent of the Federal budget. This portion is spent automatically without regular Congressional action or review. In just 15 years, it will consume all government revenues as debt, interest payments and entitlements continue to grow rapidly. There are no effective limits to the amount that can be spent on that side of the budget, at least until this spending drives America into bankruptcy. This is how the budget process makes it easy to spend money. There is regular review and strict limits on the small and shrinking portion of the budget--the 30 percent--but the much larger automatic spending programs are not regularly reviewed and can grow almost without limit. Some automatic spending programs have a dedicated but insufficient source of revenue. For example, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits are funded in part--in part--by payroll taxes and insurance premiums. This makes sense. If Congress is not going to regularly review a program, there should at least be a source of funding to ensure the program is sustainable. However, the automatic programs that receive dedicated revenues are grossly underfunded, and many others do not receive any dedicated revenues. That means our government is making promises to pay for these programs even though they do not have any idea where the money will come from. Let me repeat that. The automatic programs that receive dedicated revenues are grossly underfunded, and many others don't even receive any dedicated revenues. That means our government is making promises to pay for these programs even though they do not have any idea where the money will come from. This chart gives us a little bit of an idea. The chart shows the dedicated revenues for some of the largest automatic spending programs. For example, Social Security and Medicare are each funded in part with a dedicated payroll tax. However, payroll taxes are less than benefit payments. We can see the Social Security spending gap over the next 10 years is two and three-tenths trillion, or $2,321 billion. Medicare's receipts cover only 54 percent of spending, leaving a funding gap of four and four-tenths, or $4,365 billion. These annual cashflow deficits grow worse every year of the budget window, and they will continue to deteriorate at a faster rate outside the budget window as millions of baby boomers continue to retire. Now, I like to phrase this a little differently. On Social Security, the amount of spending versus the amount of revenue--$12,000 billion in spending but only $10,000 billion in revenue, which leaves a program deficit of $2,321 billion. It is not being funded by Social Security now. Instead of revenue as a percentage of spending, I like to say we overspend by 18 percent. On Medicare, $9,590 billion--that is a lot of money--in spending, but the revenue is only $5,225 billion. That is a deficit of $4,365 billion. So revenue as a percentage of spending is 54 percent, but it is 46 percent overspent. Some people will say we shouldn't worry about these programs because we collected money from previous generations that will cover the cost of these programs. They say we have ``trust funds'' to pay for these programs. But you can't trust these government trust funds. There is no way the Federal Government puts away cash to be used later; instead, they took these excesses as they came in, in past years, when we had fewer baby boomers, and that cash was spent in exchange for bonds being put in a drawer. The bonds are with the full faith and trust of the Federal Government, but that is not real money. In order to spend that, money has to be put in the drawer. Yes, there was a surplus in Social Security, but it was spent. Now we will continue to manufacture money to make those payments, but the government has no way to invest money. As an accountant, I can tell you that the Federal budget operates on a cash basis, and previous Congresses spent that cash as soon as it came in--all the cash. There is no real money socked away to cover these costs. So when it comes time to pay for these programs, the only money the Treasury Department can rely on is these dedicated revenues. As the chart shows, they are not sufficient to cover spending, so the Treasury Department has to take extra money from taxpayers or borrow it in public debt markets. Overall, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the government will spend over $35 trillion on automatic spending programs over the next 10 years, but this chart shows these programs will only collect $15.5 trillion, or $15,538 billion--$15,538 billion but the spending will be $35,333 billion. As a percentage of spending, that is 44 percent. Actually, that is overspending of 56 percent. We aren't even taking in half of what we promised. So guess what happens next. The Treasury Department will ask taxpayers and public debt markets for an additional $20 trillion to pay for these programs. That is why America is facing trillion-dollar deficits--overspending. ``Deficit'' is another word for ``overspending.'' It doesn't sound quite as bad as ``overspending.'' But that is why we are facing trillion-dollar overspending amounts in each year. That is why America's debt is $20 trillion, on the way to $29 trillion; it is overspending. Let me talk about rising interest rates. To make matters worse, the historically low interest rates America pays on its debts are poised to rise, according to the latest signals from the Federal Reserve. That is why we have to do something, and we have to do something now. The interest is a mandatory expense--there is no way to avoid it--and it doesn't have any source of revenue other than the general fund. Now, we pay almost 2 percent interest on our $14 trillion in publicly held debt--$14,000 billion and we pay 2 percent on it. That is roughly $220 billion a year, excluding the share paid to Federal revenues which goes back to the Federal budget. But a 2-percent interest rate is not the norm for our government. When interest rates rise, as they are expected to do in the next few years, the $220 billion could more than triple. That will be $700 billion, maybe $800 billion a year spent on only the interest on our Nation's debt. That is more than we spend on national defense. That interest is a mandatory expense with no source of revenue. So what is the bad news and the good news? That is the bad news, but there is good news too. Both the House Budget Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Tom Price, and the Senate Budget Committee have been working on solutions that would improve the way Congress considers budget legislation. Over the last year, the Senate Budget Committee has held a series of public hearings with expert witnesses, consulted with budget practitioners from both sides of the aisle, and sought advice from former chairmen. Members considered all the ideas presented and even entertained proposals to abolish the Budget Committee if it could be replaced with a better government structure. This yearlong effort demonstrated what successful budget reform should look like. I intend to pursue these reforms at every opportunity and enact as many as possible in the coming months. At a minimum, we need to fix budget procedures in the Senate so that the congressional budget is easier to pass and harder to ignore and easier to understand. The budget resolution is the only regular tool we have that forces Congress to examine all spending and revenues, including automatic spending, over a 10-year period. Unfortunately, the budget resolution has devolved into a purely political exercise, and that is often ignored. The last passed budget was good for about 3 months before waivers overrode the budget. Congress cannot continue to lurch from crisis to crisis without meaningful, long-term budget plans. My reforms would fix congressional budgeting by reducing the political impediments to passing budget resolution. Budget proceedings would be more orderly and transparent, with less political ``gotcha'' amendments that define consideration of a budget resolution here in the Senate. My reforms would also make the budget meaningful by requiring a higher vote threshold for legislation that spends billions of taxpayer dollars without offsetting it--and offsetting it in a real way. We also need to revise the concepts and rules that determine how we budget and estimate the cost of legislation. These outdated rules haven't been comprehensively reviewed and updated since 1967 and often lead to confusing or inaccurate estimates. A new commission of experts should update our Federal budget concepts for the 21st century. We should also create new rules that encourage Congress to consider the annual appropriations measures on time under regular order. The current process has been completed on time only four times in the last 40 years. The last time was 1998, and that is when there was a lot of Social Security extra money spent. This is a disgrace. Congress should do its job on time and in an orderly fashion. It should not be negotiating a year's worth of spending in the weeks before the holidays like a college student cramming for midterms or maybe stuffing on spending like everybody is a budget Thanksgiving. One of my proposals borrows an idea from the Wyoming State Legislature. They set aside a certain number of days every other year to consider only budget legislation. If a member wants to consider a nonbudget bill, which perhaps would be an emergency, they have to convince two-thirds of their colleagues to agree to take it up without any debate; otherwise, they stick to the spending. I will also encourage enactment of Senator Portman's bill to end government shutdowns and legislation to move the annual spending process to a biennial cycle so that it does not have to complete all 12 spending bills each year. Each agency would have 2 years of planning that they would be able to count on. We need a fiscal course correction. Addressing America's long-term debt crisis is a daunting challenge that cannot be left to future generations as it has been in the past. But the annual budget process is not designed to force through the serious reforms needed to put America's budget back on a sustainable trajectory, nor should an annual majority-driven process be empowered to do so. That is why former Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, the former Democratic and Republican Budget Committee chairs, have advocated for a bipartisan task force, operating outside the annual budget process, to solve the country's long-term fiscal crisis. A BRAC-style commission similar to what has been introduced by Senator Coats should be created to set a sustainable, long-term fiscal target and recommend policy options to achieve that target, and Congress must take up and consider those recommendations. This institution cannot continue to willfully ignore these serious threats to our country's future prosperity. This is the major issue of our time, and substantive solutions should be considered on the floor of the House and Senate. I know it is fun to invent and spend on new programs, but Congress has to be the adult in the room. They have to recognize whether their emperor has clothes or not. They can't pretend to see. These bipartisan reforms wouldn't solve all of our budget problems, but they are a promising first step toward unsticking the budget gridlock that has gripped Washington in recent years. More importantly, they would create healthy fiscal habits that would force Congress to recognize and be able to address the daunting fiscal challenges this country faces. This crisis isn't going to go away, and only Members of Congress can fix it. The American people have spoken, and we owe it to them to put this country on a better path. These reforms are a necessary first step, and Congress must enact them as soon as possible. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, Americans are concerned that we are overspending. We are overspending by more than half a trillion dollars a year. That is more than $500 billion a year. Now, $500 billion sounds a lot more than half a trillion. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, one of the most important things that we focus on is oversight on what exactly the Federal Government spends its money on. This critical oversight has been missing. It is critical that we follow the money because, as we say in the budget world, you can lie about the numbers, but the numbers never lie. Now, Congress evidently doesn't have the time to allocate to see how the money is spent because it takes us so much time to allocate the money to be spent. In fact, in the last 40 years we have only had four times that the budget process has been finished by October 1. The budget process for this year, which started October 1, still is not finished. We are under a continuing resolution for that. So that would leave it up to the administration. Any administration, any business is supposed to efficiently manage its area of responsibility. That hasn't been happening. Just to give an example of some responsibility, I had one young man come to me and say: You know, the job that I do in the Federal Government doesn't make any difference. Nobody ever uses what I produce. He said: I probably shouldn't tell you this because I will lose my job. I said: Well, I will do everything I can to see that you get promoted for doing what you are supposed to be doing. I want to give one small example of what I am talking about on oversight. Last October, a little known Federal agency called the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration hired a big- time public relations agency to ask reporters for help ``refining their agency messaging.'' This PR firm asked the reporters to ``keep the conversation confidential'' and not to ``report anything discussed in the interview.'' Naturally, that caught my attention. I immediately reached out to the Director of the President's Office of Management and Budget to get more information on the individual agency's contract and other such ``messaging'' activities conducted by the executive branch entities. Simply put, agency spending on advertising, public relations, and media relations is largely a black hole, according to the recent Congressional Research Service report. No one really knows how much these agencies spend on trying to influence the American public about what a great job the government is doing. Well, I can tell you that America is not buying it. It is hard to tell how much is spent and where the money is going, according to the CRS, which reports that agencies tend to have great discretion over how such funds are spent. Well, why do they have all that discretion? To my surprise, President Obama's Director of the Office of Management and Budget not only did not know how much the government spends on public relations and advertising activities, but he also didn't seem to care. That is because they don't want the oversight responsibility. Remember that President Obama's administration was supposed to be the ``most transparent administration'' in history. As Congress and the American people have now learned, it has been anything but. But the bigger question was now raised: How much do Federal agencies spend on public relations and advertising? As Lewis Carroll famously wrote in Alice in Wonderland, ``How far down does the rabbit hole go?'' The reason this is so important is that Federal law prohibits the use of appropriated Federal funds for publicity or propaganda purposes. It was this pursuit of fiscal transparency that resulted in my request to the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, to investigate how much the Federal Government actually spends annually on advertising and public relations. What we found is a cautionary tale of how little Congress and, possibly, the administration actually understand about what the Federal Government spends its money on. It turns out this administration spends $1.5 billion annually on public relations and advertising. President Obama added hundreds of PR staffers between 2009 and 2011 to the thousands who already worked in these agencies, which cost hardworking taxpayers more than $500 million a year in employee expense. These employees have an average salary of $90,000. This contrasts with the average household income in America at almost $54,000. This information is crucial for policymakers because America's overspending problem has created a mammoth national debt of more than $19 trillion, on its way to almost $29 trillion in a few short years. We hardly have any years where overspending in that year doesn't exceed half a trillion dollars--$500 billion. GAO notes that these salary and advertising figures do not include the $100 million spent on private PR consultants to bolster the government's PR efforts. The government also spends more than $800 million on contracts with outside advertising firms in 2015 alone to promote the administration's policies, which when you total these numbers equals almost $1.5 billion. That is with a ``b.'' This is real money we are talking about. The question is, What do hardworking taxpayers get for this money? Some of it probably is essential advertising signs, military recruitment, et cetera, but is all of it essential and really needed? If they are doing a good job, will people not know? Certain agencies spend much more of their budgets on public relations and advertising than others. In fact, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau spent a higher percentage of its total budget on public relations and advertising than any other agency. I called it an agency. It is really not an agency of the Federal Government. We don't have any oversight. We don't have any review of the agency's budget or Director. That money comes from the Federal Reserve before their money goes to the Federal Government so it truly comes out of the money that can be spent on projects, but it is taken out so there can be no oversight over that agency. We got an inspector general appointed to that agency, and he came back to say that we don't have the right to take a look at anything there. How can that be a government agency? Recently, the Court said it is not. Why am I concentrating on $1.5 billion? Remember the old saying: A billion here, a billion there, and pretty quickly it runs into real money? Next year I look forward to holding additional hearings on this oversight issue and others in order to help American families understand where their taxes are being spent and what they are getting for their money. If American taxpayers see waste out there, I hope they are calling my office or other offices to let them know about it. Evidently, we are going to have to have it come from the bottom up because it is not coming from the top down. It is time for the Federal Government to become more efficient, effective, and accountable. If government programs are not delivering results, they should be improved, and if they are not needed, they should be eliminated. Americans who work every day to provide for their families and pay their taxes understand it is time for the Federal Government to live within its means, just like they do. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for November 2016. The report compares current law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2016, the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74, BBA 15. 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. This is the seventh report I have made this calendar year. It is the fourth report since I filed the statutorily required fiscal year 2017 enforceable budget limits on April 18, 2016, pursuant to section 102 of BBA 15, and the 11th 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 Record on September 8, 2016. The information contained in this report for fiscal year 2017 and beyond is current through November 14, 2016. This is the final report I will file this year that provides fiscal year 2016-specific data, as that fiscal year ended September 30, 2016. Tables 1-7 of this report are prepared by my staff on the Budget Committee. While there are no changes to Tables 4, 6, and 7 from the last report, legislative activities by authorizing committees, table 1, and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, tables 2, 3, and 5, have made changes to budgetary levels. Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution and the fiscal year 2017 enforceable budget levels filing. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, CBA. Enforceable levels charged to authorizing committees for fiscal year 2016 remain unchanged from the last scorekeeping report, as budget authority remains below assumed levels by $51 million and outlays are $2.7 billion above allowable levels. The remaining enforceable levels have all changed since the last report. Notably, over the fiscal year 2017-2026 period, authorizing committees have approved $550 million in new budget authority and $505 million in outlays higher than allowable levels. During the last work period, Congress approved two bills with significant direct spending increases, the West Los Angeles Leasing Act of 2016, H.R. 5936, P.L. 114-226, and Treatment of Certain Payments in Eugenics Compensation Act, S. 1698, P.L. 114-241. Over 10 years, the former increased budget authority by $44 million and outlays by $18 million, and the latter increased both budget authority and outlays by $4 million. Table 2 gives the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations exceeds or is below the statutory spending limits for fiscal year 2016. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in section 312 and section 314 of the CBA. On September 29, the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, was signed into law, P.L. 114-223. Included in that bill as an offset for supplemental Zika funding was a provision that rescinded $168 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2016 from funds provided in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This rescission, which was not designated as an emergency, had the effect of reducing regular nonsecurity discretionary funding charged to the Appropriations Committee by $168 million. Table 3 tracks the same enforcement information as Table 2 for fiscal year 2017. The continuing resolution included full-year appropriations for military construction and veterans affairs programs. As such, that funding has been scored against the discretionary caps, leaving $543.1 billion and $414.8 billion in budget authority for security and nonsecurity discretionary spending, respectively, for the remainder of fiscal year 2017. Table 5 tracks compliance with the fiscal year 2016 limit for overall changes in mandatory programs in appropriations bills, CHIMPS, established in the fiscal year 2016 budget resolution. This information is used for determining points of order under section 3103 of that resolution. The $168 million rescission in the CR, discussed above, is classified as a CHIMP; therefore, it is scored against the overall limit of $19.1 billion. In total, the Committee on Appropriations will be under the CHIMP limit by $1.1 billion. In addition to the tables provided by the Senate Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting additional tables from CBO, which I will use for enforcement of budget totals agreed to by the Congress. CBO provided a report both for fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017. 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 2016 exceed the amounts in last year's budget resolution by $138.7 billion in budget authority and $103.6 billion in outlays. Revenues are $155.2 billion below the revenue floor for fiscal year 2016 set by the budget resolution. As well, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed for fiscal year 2016, while Social Security revenues are $23 million below levels in the budget. For fiscal year 2017, CBO annualizes the temporary effects of the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, which provides funding through December 9, 2016. For the enforcement of budgetary aggregates, the Senate Budget Committee excludes this temporary funding. As such, the committee views current law levels as being $952.4 billion and $582.9 billion below budget resolution levels for budget authority and outlays, respectively. Revenues are $199 million above the level assumed in the budget resolution. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in the fiscal year 2017 enforcement filing for this budget year. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule. As part of the fiscal year 2017 enforcement filing, the Senate's pay-as-you-go scorecard was reset to zero. Since my last filing, legislative activity has resulted in an increase in the deficit of $74 million over the fiscal year 2016-2021 period, but deficit reduction of $35 million over the fiscal year 2016-2026 period. Over the initial 6-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that increased outlays by $482 million and revenues by $408 million. Over the 11-year period, outlays were increased by $505 million and revenues by $544 million. The Senate's pay-as-you-go rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. Finally, there is one new entry in the enforcement table included at the end of this submission, which tracks the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. On September 14, 2016, a Senate PAYGO budget point of order, section 201(a) of S. Con Res. 21, 110th Congress, was raised against the Water Resources Development Act of 2016, S. Amdt. 4979, for increasing the deficit by nearly $300 million over the fiscal year 2016-2026 period. This point of order was waived through a motion from Senator Inhofe by a vote of 85-12. While the point of order was waived, the bill has yet to clear both houses of Congress, and, as such, its budgetary effects remain unrecorded for enforcement purposes. 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 thank the Senator for his comments. I don't get invited many places to speak because I talk about what the Senator has been talking about. It depresses people, but it is about time we got depressed over the budget and made some changes. I appreciate everybody on the committee and those who are not on the committee who have been working to solve this problem. I know that most of you ran on getting a balanced budget, getting to a balanced budget, balancing it now if we could. I get real frustrated because I know we are $20 trillion in debt and heading to $29 trillion. Then I hear people say: Yes, but we cut the deficit in half. That is not the debt. I don't like the word ``deficit.'' I call it overspending. That is what we are doing. We just got the report that we are going to be $590 billion overspent this year. As Senator Lankford pointed out, 70 percent of the budget is on autopilot. So that 30 percent that we get to make a decision on is $1,070 billion. We have to worry a little bit because interest rates might go up. But on $20 trillion, if it is 1 percent, that is $200 billion a year that we are throwing into a rat hole. But if that goes to 5 percent, which is the norm for the Federal Government, we are out $1,000 billion a year in interest. Let's see. We get to make decisions on a $1,070 billion and $1,000 billion of that would go to interest. We better solve this pretty quick. I think we could be at 5 percent within 3 years. The defense is over $500 billion, and that is not enough. We definitely have a problem, as has been pointed out by the chart. In the 40 years since the Congressional Budget Act was passed, we have only completed all 13 bills four times. We have been holding hearings in the Budget Committee. This group of people have been holding other meetings to see how it is done in the private sector, how it is done by other countries, and how it is done by the States. Nobody does it like the Federal Government. When I was trying to figure out first budgets, I found out the format we use is not the same as the one the Appropriations Committee uses and definitely not the same format the President uses. Then I found out that is intentional. That is so you cannot follow the dollars. But there are a lot of problems besides that in following the dollars. For instance, we have 120 housing programs administered by 20 different agencies. That is not seven per agency or one having more than the others. That means that the 120 programs are administered by all 20 of the agencies. Nobody is in charge. There is no goal set. We don't know if they completed what they set out to do, and there is no way to make a correction if they did. I pointed out a lot of times how far behind we are on actually approving the things that we do. We don't ever go back and look at the old stuff. We are paying for a program from 1983 that has expired, another one from 1987, and a whole bunch of them from before 2006. We have to get off this auto pilot and get to a new format. I congratulate this group and particularly Senator Perdue. The first time we had a Budget Committee meeting I remember introducing him, and I said: Senator Perdue knows how to balance a budget. He has been working in the private sector. He said: No, in the private sector you have to show a little bit of a profit. Well, we are going to have to show a little bit of a profit around here if we are ever going to get rid of the debt. We better do that or our kids are really going to suffer. In fact, in the private sector we are having some pension problems, but we have been making the private sector put money away for the pensions, invest the money so they would be able to meet the promise that they made. The Federal Government doesn't do that. We just take it out of this budget. If we spend $1,000 billion on interest and there is only $1,070 billion, what do you think is going to happen to Federal employees who are expecting retirement? That could be in worse shape than the multiemployer plans. We are going to have to come up with some solutions, and I appreciate this approach where we are looking at what the private sector does, what the States do, and what other countries do--and they have had success. It is a little difficult because it causes some reorganization in what we are doing. Maybe we can wind up with one or five housing programs, and they would all be under one agency so we could have goals. We are going to have a portfolio method of budgeting so that we know what we are trying to do and whether we get it done. There are already some laws on the books that say that we do that, but we don't. I congratulate you for doing this. I am so pleased that we have Senator Perdue heading up this effort because, as I mentioned, he has saved some businesses before. They took his advice and reorganized. I think a lot of us have looked at this and said it could be done. It is going to be difficult because we don't even go back and look at old programs--let alone reorganize. I hope people will pay attention to this and see if they have some other ideas to throw in. But listen carefully to what is being said here today because this has to be fixed. I was hoping we could fix it before the elections because we were getting cooperation from the other side of the aisle and a lot of good suggestions. One of the reasons we were able to participate in a very bipartisan way, I think, is because none of us knew who was going to be in the majority in the Senate, nor did we know who the President was going to be. I think that made all of us a lot more reasonable. I hope after the elections we can still be reasonable and do something that will save this country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, last week I lost my chief of staff whom I have worked with in various roles for over 40 years. A member of my staff, Ron Hindle, wrote a remembrance on behalf of the staff that begins with this: September 21st was a day that my fellow Enzi staffers and I will never forget. It was on that day we learned that George McConnaughey, or Flip, as we all knew him, had lost a valiant battle he had waged against cancer for the past year. His loss has made these past few days a time of reflection and remembrance for us all about Flip and his life. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be printed in the Record following my comments. Yesterday we had a celebration in Casper, WY. It was well attended. It turned out to be a kind of reunion of people who had been touched by his life and his actions and particularly those who had worked with him. I am sorry I can't share the video we all got to see of him growing up and his interactions with family and others, particularly since family meant so much to him. Since we can't see that video, I will share some of my remembrances, some of my memories. In the end, there is only faith, family, and friends. Flip was one of the richest men I know in all three categories. Flip had faith. Senate Chaplain Black lists Flip as his hero because of Flip's faith, in spite of the fight that went on inside him. Chaplain Black drove out to Flip and Sheila's home when they were moving back to Wyoming to do an anointing. I think that helped Flip make the long drive to Wyoming. Flip quietly shared his faith with others. Flip participated in the Chaplain's weekly Bible study. Flip attended a men's prayer breakfast on Saturdays. Flip attended church faithfully. Flip had strength through his faith. Flip knew the importance of family. His closest friend, of course, was his wife Shelia. He knew how lucky he was that she said yes when he proposed. He said it was the best thing that ever happened to him. He also said his parents liked her better than him. Flip knew about cancer since he was the caregiver through Shelia's bouts of chemotherapy. Then, she was the caregiver and researcher through his operations, tests, and treatments. Her research saved his life more than once. Her love kept him going. Flip knew family as a son, as a brother, as a husband, as a father, and especially as a grandfather. He filled all those roles well, and he was an example to others. My wife Diana and I feel like we are part of his family and his family is part of our family. Flip has been a caring brother to me, and Flip has also always treated staff as family. Now, I didn't know Flip when he was the center for the Glenrock Herders football team, and I wasn't there when his dad lost the race for mayor by one vote and years later found out that his own wife didn't vote for him. I didn't know Flip when his dad found out he had skipped school for a few days, and his dad was on the school board. He loved his parents, but he revered his mother and he feared his father. I didn't know him when he graduated from the University of Wyoming, or when he married Shelia, or when he got the job as Casper's assistant city manager. I didn't get to know him until I was mayor of Gillette. As an accountant, I ran on a balanced budget plan and attended council meetings. Then I found out--and you can imagine the shock I had when I learned that as mayor you had to learn about sewer and sewer treatment, garbage, police, fire, parks, not to mention water, which in Gillette smelled and was color-coded and in short supply, or that the town owned its own dilapidated electrical system. Now, it is hard to entice somebody with knowledge of those issues to come to a boomtown, but I was able to persuade Flip to pull up roots and become Wyoming's first city administrator. It wasn't until he had bought a house and moved Shelia to Gillette that he found out the ordinance he was to work under was only through the first of three readings and that the mayor had to break the tie with a vote to get it that far. Flip and I have gotten a lot of things done working together over 40 years, starting with that job in Gillette. Flip has never worked for me, he has always worked with me. As a team, we used his city skills. I was just a salesman. I remember when his son Jeff was born and then his daughter Sarah. I remember their excitement for each of these gifts of Heaven. I also remember when our two sons discovered Star Wars and each wanted a Millennium Falcon transporter. We were able to find models, and Flip and I spent our lunch hours for 2 weeks helping each other with the difficult instructions to meet the Christmas deadline. As a team in Gillette, we also negotiated industrial siting agreements with 12 coal mines. We insisted that the companies provide a town that their employees would want to live in and to work from. Some of those companies were hard to convince. In their first trip to city hall, they would bring a small plan. I would look at it, suggest that they weren't serious, and then throw their plan in the garbage as I left the room. Flip would be the good guy and stay behind to put them on the right track. I am sure those old-line company execs wondered about negotiating with two kids just 30 and 27 years old. Earlier I mentioned the color-coded smelly water that was in short supply. Thanks in large part to Flip, the town got a water system for 30,000 people, with only 10,000 people to pay for it. Together we were able to convince Standard & Poor's and Moody's that we had a sound plan for the system. What made our job more difficult at the time is that we were taking this on while New York City was facing bankruptcy. Flip had to put back together a town, too, that was ravaged by a man on a stolen D9 Cat. The man drove over cars. He particularly didn't like sports cars, and he would go over them and back again. He pushed over power lines. He ripped up sprinkler systems and gas lines. He drove through a bank drive-up and through a schoolyard, and he wound up in an apartment basement after the D9 Cat pushed the building off its foundation. The Governor was in China at the time and sent the article about the incident in Chinese. My college roommate was in Saudi Arabia at the time and sent an article about the D9 Cat in Arabic--those were both a little hard to read. Madam President, I also mentioned garbage. That is always a huge problem in towns and cities. In Gillette we had a landfill that was about full, and we needed another site. We made our annual visit to the county commissioners to request $25,000 from the county people for the use of the landfill. The chairman said: Why, with that amount of money, we could run the whole thing. Flip said: We would be willing to pay you $25,000. They agreed. Flip had the paperwork to them that afternoon and had it signed. It saved the city millions. After that, everywhere Flip went, other towns would ask: Now, how were you able to get the county to take that landfill over? I can tell you, it hasn't happened since. Even recently, reflecting on the lack of money we saved and the problems we worked to solve, he said, only partly joking: We can finally tell about all the things that happened since the statutes of limitation have run out. I think Gillette was the test case in court for every new way the State suggested that towns could operate. After our time together in Gillette, Flip got a job as city manager in Laramie--an actual city manager. You know he did his usual excellent job because his 15 years of serving there set a new record for longevity. He was a leader in other ways, including by serving on the board of the Wyoming Association of Municipalities until he came to Washington. He attended conferences for, spoke to, and was a part of the International City Management Association for the rest of his life. In Washington, his municipal reputation followed him. Any State with a city or town problem referred the administrators to Flip, and he usually could work with them to find a solution. He also counseled city managers, often resolving their situation--although sometimes also helping to find them a more suitable occupation. Let me tell you how he came to be in Washington. When I was elected Senator, I had over 500 applications to be my chief of staff. Flip had not applied. He was the only one I could picture working with in that role--organized, focused, a superb manager; he knew how I liked to operate, could find good people, was able to successfully juggle multiple crises. So my son Brad and I drove to Laramie. I caught him at the office after everyone else had left, which was normal for Flip. I said: Flip, I need you to come to Washington and be my chief of staff. He said: I never went to Washington. I don't like Washington. I don't want to go to Washington. I won't go to Washington. So we visited about our families. Then, as Brad and I left to drive home, Brad said: I think you got him. In disbelief I asked: What part of ``absolutely no'' do you think was yes? But Brad turned out to be right. I got a call the next day from Flip, who said: If that job is still open and I can get a few answers, Shelia and I talked it over, and we might be interested. Well, I got the answers, and he and Shelia came to Washington, and he and I were a team again for the next 20 years. Flip knew the importance of working with everyone and co-founded the bipartisan chiefs of staff organization here in the Senate. He organized and managed a Senate team that helped pass a record number of bills. Flip was also the best planning meeting facilitator in the country. He led our staff in an annual planning session to focus everyone on what they would be expected to get done the next year, and then he pushed to get those things done. He insisted that we never call it a planning retreat. He would emphatically slap his hand on the desk and say, like General Patton: We never retreat. Flip was also competitive. I remember a contest between him and my first legislative director, Katherine McGuire, to see who could take the most spice in their Mongolian barbecue--without beer. Sometimes Flip traveled with Diana and me on the weekends and the Wyoming work periods. Now, you know, in Wyoming that can include bad weather. One time Flip was driving us in a blizzard that hit us between towns, and it was one of those wet, heavy storms--the kind that clogs up your windshield and you have to stop your car every few miles and clean the wipers off and clean the windows off. We were wondering if we would ever get to Kemmerer. He stopped once, then quickly got back in the car, laughing vigorously. It was very un-Flip. I got out to see what was so funny. We had almost run over the sign that said: ``Welcome to Kemmerer.'' What a relief. Flip was always quick to take the blame for any setbacks. That infuriated me, since I usually knew who really set us back. But he always got to the source, and like a good father, he turned the employee error into a teaching moment. Flip was a people person. He was a brother to me, and through the years he provided me with teachable moments too. I can still hear him say: ``Mike, that is something you really need to do.'' Of course, if it was a really tough assignment to talk me into, he knew to enlist my wife Diana. Everyone learned to listen closely to Flip's commonsense instruction. He always downplayed his role. The most prideful thing I ever heard him say was ``Not bad for a butcher's son from Glenrock.'' I mentioned faith, family, and friends. Let me conclude with a few notes from friends, as I ask you, the staff, his friends, to jot down any and all memories that you can think of about Flip and share them with Sheila and the rest of his family. I assure you, that is the best way to fill the hole of the hurt we all feel. From Leader McConnell's chief of staff: ``He had a great knack for knowing when to encourage, when to kid and when to make you laugh through the stresses we all face.'' From a new leader of the chiefs of staff: Our beloved friend, colleague and fellow chief, Flip has passed after a long and courageous battle with cancer. We appreciated Flip's self-deprecating humor, straight talk and professionalism. We were witness to tremendous character, faith and courage as he walked through the blow of cancer. He was a friend and mentor when I was a young chief of staff. I was privileged to be part of a weekly prayer group with him. From Steve Northrup, who was the health policy director of the HELP Committee: What Flip went through these last several months would have broken the spirit of a lesser man. We can take solace knowing he is with God now, with no more pain, only peace. He was a friend and mentor and an inspiration as a public servant. He was a ``scary man'' when he needed to be, but he was always there when I needed support, advice, or [to give you] a kick in the pants. So you can see that Flip had friends everywhere he went and even ones whom he didn't know because he served and he listened. Many people have mentioned that he actually heard what they said. Flip, we know you have been welcomed into your Heavenly home and the Lord has told you: Well done, my good and faithful servant. Flip, I thank you for calling me in your last hours to say goodbye. We miss you, Flip. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. 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 will soon consider S. amendment No. 5082, which provides for continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2017, full-year appropriations for military construction and veterans programs, and funding for the Federal response to the Zika virus. This amendment provides funding to combat the Zika virus. For these efforts, the amendment provides $876 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2016 and $310 million in outlays for fiscal year 2017, respectively. These figures include rescissions of emergency funds in division D of the amendment that provide a partial offset. This legislation includes language that would designate these provisions as emergency funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. The inclusion of these designations makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. The amendment also includes funding for military construction outside of the United States that is designated as overseas contingency operations funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. These provisions provide $172 million in budget authority and $1 million in outlays for fiscal year 2017. The inclusion of the overseas contingency operations designations in these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. Previously, I made adjustments to enforceable budgetary levels to accommodate the conference report to accompany H.R. 2577, which included both the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2017 and supplemental Zika funding. The adjustments I make today take these prior adjustments into consideration and reflect the appropriate level for overall adjustments for considering the Zika and overseas contingency operations funding of this amendment. Further, on May 12, 2016, I filed an adjustment to accommodate emergency spending in S. amendment No. 3896, which included the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017. This emergency provision, which increased outlays by $1 million in fiscal year 2017, is now included in division C of S. amendment 5082, and I am taking my previous adjustment into account for processing this amendment. Finally, division C includes $500 million in budget authority in fiscal year 2016 and $10 million in outlays in fiscal year 2017 for the Community Development Block Grant program to respond to major natural disasters. This provision is designated as being for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of BBEDCA and as such makes adjustments possible to accommodate this spending. As a result, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2016 by $385 million in budget authority and decreasing related outlays by $39 million. I am decreasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2017 by $62 million in outlays. Further, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised nonsecurity budget authority by $385 million and reducing outlays by $39 million in fiscal year 2016. Finally, I am revising the outlay allocation to the Committee on Appropriations by reducing outlays by $62 million in fiscal year 2017. 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, resisting the urge to counter the diatribe I just heard, I will talk on a topic that is really important to America. I don't always agree with what I read in the New York Times, but this caught my eye, and I want to share it with my colleagues: So much for choice. In many parts of the country, Obamacare customers will be down to one insurer when they go to sign up for coverage next year on the public exchanges. That is from the August 19, 2016, New York Times, ``TheUpshot.'' Just a few years ago, in 2013, President Obama was telling us: Just visit healthcare.gov, and there you can compare insurance plans, side by side, the same way you'd shop for a plane ticket on Kayak or a TV on Amazon. . . . You'll find more choices, more competition, and in many cases lower prices. Last year, Wyoming became one of the growing number of States that had one insurer on the ObamaCare exchange. In the environment created by ObamaCare, we have to hope that we can hold on to the one that we have left. Before ObamaCare, Wyoming had many challenges in our health care system--particularly high costs and the serious access challenges that come with being a frontier State. By frontier State, I mean we are the least populated State in the Nation. We have less than 570,000 people in our State. We have less than 20 towns or cities in which the population exceeds the elevation. We have a lot of distance between towns. We say Wyoming has miles and miles of miles and miles. It makes health care a difficult challenge. But we had choice. Under ObamaCare we saw one of the two carriers shut down by costs. Like other insurers across the country, this company focused on and dominated the Wyoming ObamaCare exchange in the first year, and then the economics of ObamaCare took hold. Patients were more costly than expected, premium rates didn't quite cover medical expenses--and then insolvency. The changes to the health care system that President Obama and a completely Democratic-controlled Congress hammered through were sold as the positive change. It is absolutely stunning to me that not one out of the 60 Democrats who represent the people were being talked into it. Well, some of them were, I guess, because there were four extreme deals made for four States regarding Medicare Advantage that gave those States a little longer time than the rest of us would have to take care of our seniors. Two of the four are gone now. The other two may be going too. As I said, we did have choice, but we have had one shut down, and I don't know if the other one can continue if they stay with the exchange. The changes to the health care system that the completely Democratic- controlled Congress hammered through were sold as positive change. Many of us thought otherwise and said so at the time. We pointed out flaws in it, but we were ignored. We were called fearmongers, and here we are today. Today Wyoming continues to be one of the most expensive States for health care premiums. Do you know the one thing ObamaCare has done for Wyoming? We have more competition from other States for having the most expensive health insurance premiums. Misery loves company, I guess. This year there are some States with premium increases over 50 percent for 2017. We have seen our individual market damaged, and we are seeing changes in our employer-sponsored insurance as well. Everyone from the biggest corporation to small, one-person operations are paying more and are getting less. As a former small business owner, I tend to look at these issues from that perspective. In Wyoming, according to the Small Business Administration, there are 63,289 small businesses. Those businesses employ 132,085 people. In Wyoming, that is almost one-third of all the adults in the State. Small business is the backbone of our economy. Now, that may not sound like many, but remember our low population, and it is just as important for each one of those people as it is for one out of 23 million. We are talking about individuals here. Small business owners in Wyoming and across the country are trying to figure out how to stay afloat as more and more regulations pile up and work to put them out of business. So many, even though they are not technically required to have ObamaCare, try to offer help to their employees for health care. They do it because their employees need it, and they feel it is their responsibility. It may give them a competitive advantage, and they need to have health care to attract employees. But in today's health insurance market, they face the ObamaCare combination of limited choice and seemingly unlimited premium increases. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, since 2004, the average annual family premium for covered employees in small firms increased from $9,812 a year to $16,625 a year. It has almost doubled. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the health care system is hurting, but my Democratic colleagues and President Obama have essentially dismissed us as hypochondriacs. They tell us it is working well; it is a success. Your premiums are high, and you can't afford your deductible? Nonsense. Your coverage is wonderfully comprehensive, so you can't complain that your mortgage is less than your health insurance premium. The American people are facing more costly health care than ever before. There has been a complete refusal by the administration and Democrats in both Chambers to entertain any real changes to ObamaCare. The rollout was a mess. Do you remember how you couldn't get on the computer, and if you did get on the computer, you didn't get good data? Their rules and regulations are crushing. They keep adding on to them. Some that are required to be done still aren't done, and their costs are sky high. At the end of the day, anybody can get covered, but hardly anybody can afford it. That is not much of a choice. I urge the Senate to look at this issue and acknowledge what the law is really doing, and we need to be going beyond simply providing short- term relief like the President's waivers, exceptions, and delays. Those are all instances where there is a flaw in the bill that would have tremendous impact on people that the President didn't want them to realize, so he delayed it, maybe just till he gets out of office. We need long-term, comprehensive changes that will lead us to sustained recovery. I have been working to find a path toward what would give more flexibility to States, fewer restrictions on how employers help their employees with medical expenses, and practical ways to offer more choices and lower costs for getting the health care that Wyomingites and all Americans should be able to access. We need meaningful, comprehensive change in health care that will take us away from ObamaCare and in a new direction that will meet the promises that were made years ago. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I will suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time in the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. It has already exceeded the time it was supposed to go.

Mr. ENZI. Go ahead.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I am going to return the discussion to the legislation that is actually on the floor at the moment, and that is the Water Resources Development Act. It is a necessary update for Corps projects and for water quality systems, and I applaud the chairman and the ranking member for working in a bipartisan manner to ensure its passage. However, the amendment's inclusion of direct spending for Flint and other public drinking water supply systems doesn't comply with the Budget Committee's rules of enforcement. It would provide $100 million in drinking water State revolving funds, it would provide $70 million in water infrastructure loans, and it would provide an additional $100 million for lead exposure programs. The Flint provisions will also result in $53 million in revenue loss from increased utilization of tax-exempt bonds to finance water infrastructure projects. The sponsors have sought to offset this new spending by prohibiting new loans after 2020 under the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing--ATVM--Program. This program was originally created in 2008 and was designated as an emergency. When Congress determines that an expenditure is an emergency, we make a conscious decision to spend above the limits of the budget. We tell the American taxpayer that these dollars are necessary to respond to sudden and unforeseen circumstances. In the case of the ATVM, Senators argued that the emergency designation was necessary to respond to the precipitous drop in auto sales caused by the 2008 credit crisis and subsequent recession. Because advanced technology vehicles manufacturing dollars were originally provided under an emergency designation, budget rules will not allow the cancellation of future ATVM funds to be used as an offset. Phrased simply, if ATVM money didn't count going out, it cannot count coming in. What we are talking about is dollars that might go out after 2020. In our budget process, we are going to have to refrain from trying to spend future money in the present. It just won't work. The Government Accountability Office has recommended that Congress rescind all or part of the remaining credit subsidy due to the lack of demand for new ATVM loans, and Congress ought to do that. The remaining dollars in the ATVM Program should not be spent. That was a 2008 crisis, not a 2016 crisis and definitely not a 2020 crisis. But to use the emergency ATVM money 8 years later to increase unrelated spending represents a failure of Congress to act as good stewards of taxpayer money and is not compliant with our budget rules. Congress must use restraint when designating expenditures as emergencies. If we don't, future lawmakers will simply designate everything as an emergency to escape the budget limits and then, years down the road, reprogram the funds for an entirely different nonemergency purpose. The Senate must be judicious with its use of emergency-designated funds or risk diluting the meaningfulness of the designation altogether. The CBO has estimated that under Senate scoring rules, the substitute amendment increases the on-budget deficit by $299 million over the 2016-2026 period. As such, it exceeds the 2017 enforceable Senate pay- as-you-go levels. I do have a motion that I will be making at the appropriate time, but in order for other discussion to happen, I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, parliamentary request: Is this the proper time for me to make the motion? Has everyone finished with debating?

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would mention that the Congressional Budget Office has prepared a revised cost estimate for the committee- reported S. 2848, and I have a copy of the letter here, which says that CBO estimates that the net changes in outlays and revenues that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures would increase budget deficits by $294 million over the 2016-2026 period. As such, the pending measure, substitute amendment No. 4979, would violate the Senate pay-go rule and increase the on-budget deficit over the period of fiscal years 2016- 2026. Therefore, I raise a point of order against this measure pursuant to section 201(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for September 2016. The report compares current law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2016, the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, P.L. 114-74, BBA 15. 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. This is the sixth report I have made this calendar year. It is the third report since I filed the statutorily required Fiscal Year 2017 enforceable budget limits on April 18, 2016, pursuant to section 102 of BBA 15, and the tenth 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 June 8, 2016. The information contained in this report is current through September 6, 2016. Tables 1-7 of this report are prepared by my staff on the Budget Committee. Only table 1, which tracks compliance with committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA, has changed from my previous report due to legislative activity. Of the 16 authorizing committees in the Senate, 14 are in compliance with their allocation over the enforceable 10-year period, Fiscal Year 2017-2026. The two committees not in compliance, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, were pushed out of compliance through passage of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act, PROMESA, P.L. 114- 187, and the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, P.L. 114-182, respectively. During this same period, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation reduced direct spending by $8 million over the 10-year period with the passage of the FAA Extension, Safety and Security Act of 2016, P.L. 114-190. In total, table 1 shows that authorizing committees are $502 million in budget authority and $483 million in outlays above allowable direct spending levels over the 10-year window. Tables 2-7 remain unchanged due to the legislative impasse over the Fiscal Year 2017 appropriations process. 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 totals agreed to by the Congress. Because legislation can still be enacted that would have an effect on Fiscal Year 2016, CBO provided a report both for Fiscal Year 2016 and Fiscal Year 2017. 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 2016 exceed the amounts in last year's budget resolution by $138.9 billion in budget authority and $103.6 billion in outlays. Revenues are $155.2 billion below the revenue floor for Fiscal Year 2016 set by the budget resolution. As well, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed for Fiscal Year 2016, while Social Security revenues are $23 million below levels in the budget. For Fiscal Year 2017, CBO estimates that current law levels are below the Fiscal Year 2017 enforcement filing's allowable budget authority and outlay aggregates by $974.1 billion and $592.2 billion, respectively. The allowable spending room will be reduced as appropriations bills for Fiscal Year 2017 are enacted. Revenues are above the levels assumed in the enforcement filing by $200 million in Fiscal Year 2017, $410 million over 5 years, and $544 million over 10 years. This is the product of revenue increases in both PROMESA, $370 million over 10 years, and P.L. 114-182, $192 million over 10 years, and an $18 million reduction in revenues over 10 years from the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act of 2016, CARA, P.L. 114-198. Finally, Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed in the Fiscal Year 2017 enforcement filing, but the enactment of CARA reduced Social Security revenues by $6 million over 10 years. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate's pay-as-you-go rule. As part of the Fiscal Year 2017 enforcement filing, the Senate's pay-as-you-go scorecard was reset to zero. Since my last filing, legislative activity has resulted in an increase in the deficit of $81 million over the Fiscal Year 2016-2021 period, but deficit reduction of $61 million over the Fiscal Year 2016-2026 period. Over the initial 6-year period, Congress has enacted legislation that increased outlays by $491 million and revenues by $410 million. Over the 11-year period, outlays were increased by $483 million and revenues by $544 million. The Senate's pay-as-you-go rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the Fiscal Year 2008 budget resolution. Finally, there is one new entry in the enforcement table included at the end of this submission, which tracks the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor. On June 29, 2016, a 425(a)(2) unfunded-mandate budget point of order was raised against PROMESA. This point of order was waived through a motion from Senator Hatch by a vote of 85-13. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.