Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments to H.R. 636.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, before I give my speech, I ask unanimous consent for Senator Portman to have 1 minute.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss America's broken budget process and the Senate Budget Committee's continuing effort to provide solutions to place our Nation's budget on a better, sustainable path. Last year, on May 5, the Senate passed its first balanced 10-year budget since 2001. This was a big deal. It was thoroughly considered and amended to the tune of 71 rollcall votes, and 146 amendments adopted overall, and it provided an enforceable plan to get the Nation's exploding debt under control. On May 22, just 17 days later, we enacted legislation that violated the budget. Congress didn't even abide by the budget for a whole month. This trend has continued throughout the 114th Congress. Since passing its fiscal year 2016 budget plan, Congress has been unable to achieve any reduction in overspending called for in the balanced budget. Instead, Congress enacted legislation increasing spending by nearly $150 billion and reducing revenue by $478 billion over the 10-year window. Much of these violations were enacted as part of the end-of- the-year omnibus spending bill, which was drafted behind closed doors and passed under threat of government shutdown, completely outside of regular order. The truth is, America's budget process is broken, and it is preventing Congress from tackling the pressing fiscal challenges facing our country. The current budget process is designed only to spend and fails hard-working taxpayers. Each year, nearly $3 trillion is spent by Washington without any meaningful congressional review or consideration. What America really needs is a budget process built to save. The last time Congress reformed the budget process was in 1974. Times have changed, and the 40-year-old process has only grown more dysfunctional and antiquated. Until 1998, Congress had never failed to pass a budget, but in the last 15 years, Congress failed to pass a budget resolution more than half the time. Today, budgets from Congress and the President are increasingly tossed aside, leaving the country with no long-term fiscal plan. Our appropriations process is broken. Spending bills are nearly always late, creating crippling uncertainty for agencies, businesses, and the American people. We have completed all appropriations bills on time in only 4 of the last 45 years. In 15 of those years, we did not pass one appropriations bill on time. Instead of well-considered funding decisions, the government operates on short-term spending bills or continuing resolutions. We have had to use 173 short-term spending bills since 1977, and that is just 3 years after the Budget Act was passed. That is just the portion of the budget Congress has control over. Today, a growing portion of our budget is devoted to entitlements and other automatic spending. When Congress last reformed the budget process in 1974, this type of spending constituted only one-third of what was spent and two-thirds of the spending provided annually. This chart points that out: 1966, 33 percent on automatic pilot, 67 percent, annual review. Now, 70 percent automatic spending, 30 percent under annual review. And this is growing automatically. These don't have guaranteed revenue sources. Whenever the revenue source doesn't meet up with what we have already said would automatically be paid, it cuts into this 30 percent that we get for annual review-- automatically--and reduces the amount we get to actually make decisions on. I have talked about what could happen if the interest rates go up-- $19 trillion in debt. So $20 trillion at a 1-percent interest rate would cost us $200 billion a year. The norm, 5 percent, would cost us 1,000 billion, or $1 trillion, and we only get to make decisions--this part of it--on $1,070 billion. So how would we fund everything the government does on $70 billion? This crisis is coming. In 2016, 70 percent of Federal spending is provided automatically, essentially on autopay year after year without congressional review or approval. In 15 years, this runaway spending and interest will consume all of the taxes and revenues the Federal Government collects crowding out the functions we normally associate with good government. What would those be? Some really important ones would be national defense and border security, maybe transportation, maybe education. This mandatory spending operates with no connection between funding decisions and program performance. Given that this spending often continues in perpetuity, the least we can do is ensure that it is spent effectively. I want to repeat that part. The mandatory spending operates with no connection between funding decisions and program performance. There are a whole bunch of programs out here in the 70 percent that we never have to look at because they are going to get their money anyway. Nobody lobbies us on it because they get their money, anyway. So we don't have any program performance. How many of those do we suppose are not doing what they were originally intended to do? I am willing to bet a lot of them. In fact, I have looked at them and know it is a lot of them. The good news is there are bipartisan steps Congress can take now to fix America's broken budget process. The Senate Budget Committee has held a series of hearings and meetings to discuss bipartisan solutions that would, No. 1, improve the way Congress considers budget legislation, No. 2, update the antiquated accounting rules that would affect the information Congress uses to make tax and spending decisions, and, No. 3, set the country's finances on a sustainable path by establishing enforceable long-term fiscal targets. Congress can begin to regain control of the Nation's finances by reforming the procedures it uses to consider budget legislation. Based on conversations with Democratic and Republican members of my committee, I am pursuing the following reforms with the understanding that they will receive bipartisan support: First, the Senate's rules governing consideration of budget resolutions are overly burdensome and discourage passage of this important planning document. We can fix this by reforming what we call the vote-arama, the disgraceful ritual that has turned into a string of meaningless gotcha votes. The Senate should bring order to this chaotic process by establishing filing deadlines and limits on the number of amendments that can be offered. Second, the Senate should be required to devote floor time to consideration of annual appropriations measures--the annual spending measures. In Wyoming, the State legislature encourages full consideration of their spending bills by holding a budget session--that is, a session of the regular legislature--and it requires a two-thirds vote to consider any nonbudget legislation. We should have similar rules in the Senate to make sure we get our work done. Third, budget points of order should be meaningful. Today, they are routinely ignored or waived by Members of this body. The Senate should tie the waiver vote threshold to the size of the budget violation. De minimis violations--that would be under half a million dollars, probably--should be automatically waived, while large violations should be subject to up to a two-thirds vote threshold. It has to be a little more difficult for us to violate what we set out to do. Fourth, Congress needs to rethink the way it allocates Federal resources. Our fragmented budget process makes it nearly impossible to know how much of the government's resources are devoted to a particular policy goal. There is a different budget for the Budget Committee, a different one for the spending committees which are the appropriators, and a different one for the White House. I think it is intentional, so that we can't follow what it is. Our fragmented budget process makes it impossible to know how much of the government's resources are devoted to a particular policy goal. We should establish subcommittees within the Budget Committee to review entire portfolios of government spending and tax policy to ensure the programs and funding are actually accomplishing certain policy objectives. This would help identify both effective and ineffective programs, reducing waste, and focusing on results. We should also consider moving to a 2-year funding cycle. Funding uncertainty creates wasteful spending, disrupts government operations and planning, and reduces productive investment and hiring in the private sector. A biennial process would lock in 2 years of spending in law, providing Federal agencies, businesses, and the American people with certainty and predictability. That is why this commonsense solution has been supported by Presidents, legislators, and good- governance think tanks from both parties for decades. Once the Senate passes legislation to improve our internal budget procedures, we should move on to the more fundamental problems of the current budget process; that is, the antiquated accounting rules and our growing debt burden. The private sector applies modern advances in economics, accounting, and finance to accurately reflect a business's financial condition and the potential impact of new policies, but the Federal Government's budget rules haven't undergone comprehensive reviews since 1967. That was 50 years ago. This issue may seem dry and boring, but as an accountant, I can tell you that it is extremely important and exciting. Antiquated accounting techniques mislead Congress and the public, and they misstate the true cost of government activities. Updating these budget rules will provide Congress with the honest, accurate information necessary to allocate taxpayer dollars effectively and efficiently. Finally, Congress should get serious about addressing America's long- term debt crisis, which today totals more than $19 trillion and is expected to grow over $29 trillion by 2026--and that is just based on this 70 percent on automatic pilot. We need long-term, enforceable fiscal targets with guideposts along the way that ensure revenues and spending are moving in the right direction. Fiscal targets alone will not fix the Federal budget. Congress will need to enact substantial policy reforms if it wants to get our Nation's debt under control. Former Budget Chairmen Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad--one Republican, one Democrat--recommended establishing a bipartisan commission to submit a legislative proposal that would achieve long-term revenue, spending, and debt targets. Congress would then be required to consider and vote on the commission's recommendations without amendment. This is a creative, bipartisan approach to addressing politically difficult decisions that must be made to ensure this country's future prosperity. The Budget Committee has been working diligently on these reforms and stands ready to offer bipartisan legislation should the Senate choose to fix our broken budget process. The time to act is now. We are currently spending over $230 billion in interest on our debt every year, even with historically low interest rates that I talked about. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that every one percentage point our interest rates rise will increase America's overspending by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, or about $160 billion a year. That is a 1-percent rise in the interest rate--$230 billion--up another $160 billion, up another $160 billion. Interest on the debt will soon put America out of the business of protecting its citizens from foreign threats, educating our youth, and building national infrastructure like highways and roads. 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. This would begin to put our Nation on not just another path but a better path. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following article, which appears in the Washington Times today, be printed in the Record: ``Government not close to paying for promises, CBO says.'' The subtitle is ``Tax increases, cuts needed to return to normal debt load,'' by Stephen Dinan.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, there is another article that the Washington Times did called ``Budget chairman to propose bipartisan overhaul of congressional budget process.'' It has bipartisan quotes from members of the committee. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I come to the floor on a regular basis and give some bad news, hopefully in small doses. If the small doses don't work, I am going to have to go to larger doses, but we do have a crisis of overspending. We are going to have some more opportunities to talk about that spending. Private sector pensions are what I am going to talk about today. Private sector pensions are relied upon by millions of Americans for retirement security. They are agreements that are made between an employer and its employees or a union and its members which allow the recipients to receive payments in retirement. Those payments are based on a formula that includes a number of factors, including years of service. I have worked on pension policy for all of my professional life. I have dealt with pensions as a young accountant, as the mayor of the city of Gillette, as a member of the Wyoming Legislature, as a member of the Senate Pensions Committee, as chairman of the Senate Pensions Committee, as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, as chairman of the Senate Retirement Security Subcommittee, as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and as chairman of the conference committee on the 2006 Pension Protection Act that saved pensions for thousands of workers without wholesale business bankruptcy. I also authored the 2006 Pension Protection Act, which dramatically altered the funding rules and made single-employer pension plans much more stable. The act also made significant changes to defined contribution plans that drastically improved participation. I believe it is safe to say I speak from my experience as a Member of this body, with a large background in pension policy, and I am concerned about where we are heading. Out of the 24,361 single-employer pension plans that we have information on, 4,486 are underfunded. The most recent actuarial estimations of the underfunding by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation is over $758 billion. That should concern us because the assets of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's single-employer insurance program are $85 billion. Let's see. Single-employer pensions are underfunded by $758 billion. That is rounding it down, actually. It should be $759 billion, with assets of $85 billion. Let me say that another way and say it again. The insurance program for that $758 billion only has $85 billion in assets. That is not even our biggest pension problem. Out of the 1,361 multiemployer pension plans, that means the collectively bargained agreements we have information on, 1,238 are underfunded. The most recent actuarial estimations of that underfunding is just over $611 billion. What are the assets of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation? They are $1.9 billion. In other words, the safety net for $611 billion is one and nine-tenths billion. I would equate that to trying to catching a whale shark with a net made for minnows. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. The PBGC wrote in its 2015 annual report that ``it is more likely than not that the multiemployer program's assets will be depleted in 2025.'' The insurance policy for collectively bargained pensions is on track to become insolvent in less than a decade. In fact, if the Central States Pension Fund goes under, it will reduce that amount considerably. Altogether, private sector pensions are underfunded by $1.35 trillion, or to put it in better perspective, $1,350 billion. On top of that, per the most recent actuarial data available for State and local pensions, the total amount of underfunding in public sector pension plans is $1.2 trillion, or $1,200 billion. The total amount of unfunded liabilities in both private and public sector pension plans is around $2,600 billion. That means these pension plans have agreed to pay out $2.6 trillion more than they have available. For reference, $2.6 trillion is $2,600 billion. It is more than double what our current annual spending is that Congress gets to make decisions on. That includes defense, transportation, agriculture, and education--twice what we spend on the things we get to make decisions on. I have heard from some of my colleagues who have come to the Senate floor and speak to the troubling predicaments of specific pension plans. Many of them are currently advocating for shoring up the United Mine Workers of America pension plan, which is just one of the 1,238 union pension plans that are underfunded. I am concerned about this for several reasons. First, if we take the steps my colleagues are advocating for with regard to the United Mine Workers of America, what are we going to do with the next underfunded pension plan that comes around looking for assistance? What about the plan after that? There are hundreds of private-sector pension plans in critical and declining or endangered status throughout America today so I am not sure how Congress would help the United Mine Workers of America and not the others. Paraphrasing President Washington: We are walking on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of our conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent. I have frequently heard my colleagues try to differentiate this case by speaking of a promise of a pension that was made to retirees in this particular union, but that agreement was between the members and the union. It was not an agreement with the Federal Government. Second, I find it necessary to remind my colleagues this country is $19 trillion in debt and consistently increasing its spending. We don't have the money to shore up pension plans. To be clear, despite proponents arguing that this legislation is paid for by coal companies' contributions to the Abandoned Mine Land Trust, in reality, it would be paid for by the taxpayers. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is funded by a tax levied on mining operators per tonnage of coal harvested. Interest from the abandoned mine land fund can be transferred to three trusts to support United Mineworkers' health care benefits of orphaned miners. Orphaned miners are those whose companies no longer exist but whose health plans still exist. If the abandoned mine land interest does not cover these health care costs, the three United Mine Workers' health care plans are entitled to payments from the U.S. Treasury. The AML interest payments are often not sufficient to meet the three United Mine Workers' health care plans' needs so the general fund of the Treasury provides the balance. For example, in fiscal year 2012, interest from the abandoned mine land fund paid $48.4 million toward the health care funds, and the U.S. Treasury general fund, the taxpayer dollars, provided $205.6 million. The AML interest cannot take on another obligation. Now my colleagues are asking taxpayers to pay even more than the health care for the United Mine Workers' beneficiaries. The portion of funds coming from the U.S. Treasury will only increase. As I mentioned, the AML trust is funded by a tax levied on coal harvested. The key word is ``harvested.'' It breaks my heart to say this, but according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. coal production, or harvesting, is projected to be down over 25 percent this year compared to 2014. In large part, that is due to the mercury air toxics standards rule, the stream protection rule, the Clean Power Plan, the freeze on Federal coal leases, the proposed increase in coal royalty rates, and everything else the administration is doing to shut down coal. Less coal being harvested means less taxes will be paid into the abandoned mine land trust fund. As those abandoned mine land dollars dry up, more and more of the money this bill proposes to use for United Mine Workers' health care and pensions will come from taxpayer dollars. Again, I will point out this agreement was made between the members and the union, not between the members and the American taxpayer. That bears repeating. The United Mine Workers of America agreement was made between the members and the United Mine Workers of America, not between the members and the American taxpayer. It is also worth noting that the AML fund is not unique in that it is comprised of fees paid by a specific industry or user base. One of the most significant pension problems we hear about today is the Central States Pension Fund, which I mentioned earlier and which includes a large number of truckers. That fund is going broke. So I will offer my colleagues an analogy using that fund. To be sure that there are roads to drive on, trucking companies pay a higher tax on their diesel fuel as well as taxes on truck and trailer sales, heavy tires, and heavy vehicle usage. Together with a tax that all consumers pay on every gallon of gasoline purchased, these taxes fund the highway trust fund. This trust fund for highways builds roads and pays for repairs and new bridges that the trucking industry and all drivers rely on. Using a dwindling AML trust fund to shore up the United Mine Workers of America pension would be like shoring up the Central States Pension Fund with the fund that builds highways because truckers pay into the highway fund. That is what the United Mine Workers of America is asking us to do. My guess is that, if we examined all of the pension plans in critical and declining or endangered status, we could probably identify a fund that relevant employers or employees paid into in some way. If we go down this road, what is to stop those funds from being raided to shore up the quasi-related pensions? Where do we draw the line? Lastly, I worry about the claims that we are helping all coal miners with this proposal when, in reality, the policy does absolutely nothing for miners who are not members of the United Mine Workers of America. According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 11,000 workers in the coal industry have lost their jobs in the last year, largely due to this administration's policies. Yet my colleagues have proposed a bill that would help only a portion of those people, and the bill wouldn't help put those folks back to work, developing the energy source that generated 33 percent of America's electricity last year. Instead, proponents of this bill are saying: If you are a member of the United Mine Workers of America, we want to help you with your health care benefits and pensions, but if you are not or if you want your job back, then too bad. I am not without sympathy for the United Mine Workers of America's coal miners. Remember, I helped the miners get their health care. Coal miners play an integral part in our economy, and my colleagues have heard me say time and again that America runs on coal. Nowhere is that more evident than in my home State of Wyoming, which produces 40 percent of the Nation's coal. In fact, we produce more coal than the second through the sixth States in coal production combined. I have the deepest respect for coal miners and am worried about those who have been laid off in Wyoming and across the country. I understand the unique health care needs of miners, and I respect the health care promise this country has made to the miners over many decades. I have supported those health care needs in the past, most specifically by working across the aisle to shore up the three United Mine Workers of America's health care funds back in the mid-2000s. I believe it is important that coal miners continue to receive quality health care. I also believe it is crucial that they, as well as all Americans, have the opportunity to live out their retirement years in financial solvency, but I also want America to remain financially solvent. I don't believe the efforts of my colleagues advocating for this United Mine Workers of America bill help the mine workers in a way that is fair to the Federal taxpayers or to the other coal miners across America. I also know the troubling truth about some of America's pension plans, as I pointed out on this chart, that are underfunded, as well as the faces of the participants within those plans. I have met with them and heard their stories throughout my professional life. There are facets of our retirement system that we can fix to help retirees, but I remain concerned about the use of Federal tax dollars to shore up specific pension plans and to make false promises. I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, each year the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame asks for nominations of farmers, ranchers, and others who contribute to the agriculture industry in Wyoming. After the nominations are received, a panel of three judges selects those who will be added to the hall of fame. This year U.S. Representative Cynthia Lummis is one of the hall's inductees. I think it's fitting that Cynthia is being added to the hall of fame's roster on its 25th anniversary because her participation, encouragement, and support of our State's farmers and ranchers deserve to be recognized on a momentous occasion for the Hall itself. Cynthia has a long background in agriculture, beginning on her family's ranch on Crow Creek. Growing up, she learned about the importance of being a good steward of the land, how to tend her family's livestock, and how to make good use of all the resources that were at her disposal. She also participated in 4-H, raising shorthorn cattle. Over time Cynthia became a skilled horseman, and she used that talent to good effect at the world's largest outdoor rodeo: Cheyenne Frontier Days. In fact, Cynthia was such an important addition to the ``Daddy of `em All'' that she is also being inducted into the Cheyenne Frontier Days Hall of Fame this year. It is worth noting that her parents, Doran and Enid, and her whole family have already been inducted into that hall, but this year, Cynthia will be recognized for her singular contributions, from repairing parade costumes to serving as ``Miss Frontier.'' Cynthia is fully deserving of that honor, and this is just another example of the mark she has left on every corner of our State. At the University of Wyoming, Cynthia received degrees in animal science and biology and was a member of the rodeo team. She then became the youngest woman ever elected to the Wyoming Legislature and also earned a law degree from UW. She put that degree to use as a clerk for the Wyoming Supreme Court and in private practice. After serving 14 years in the Wyoming House and Senate, where she focused largely on agriculture and natural resources issues, Cynthia served as Governor Geringer's policy director and was then elected State treasurer. While serving as treasurer, Cynthia became the first woman on the Cheyenne Frontier Days board of directors. For all of these reasons and more, Cynthia was named a 2005 Outstanding Alumna for the University of Wyoming College of Agriculture. But Cynthia wasn't done fighting for Wyoming or the agriculture industry. In 2008, she took the next step in her political career and was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Cynthia has proven to be up to the challenge of being our State's lone voice in the House, and I have been proud to work with her. Through all of this, Cynthia has been active in the operations of the Lummis family ranch. I am sure she will continue to work on behalf of the State and the industry that she has loved her entire life. I want to extend my congratulations to Cynthia for everything she has accomplished and for her induction into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. She would be the first to say she couldn't have done it alone, so I also want to recognize Cynthia's family and in particular her daughter, Annaliese, and her husband, Al. For years, Cynthia and Alvin were a team that took on the issues that will direct the future of Wyoming and our Nation, and I know Alvin would be so proud of her recognition in the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the tough situation my home State of Wyoming finds itself in and to urge my colleagues to take a page from Wyoming's book. Last week, Wyoming's Governor proposed cutting $248 million from the State budget because Wyoming has seen a reduction in revenue. To my friends from urban States, $248 million might not sound like a lot of money, but that amounts to 8 percent of Wyoming's budget. The downturn in energy development--particularly coal--reduced Wyoming's revenue last January, when the legislature met, and they had to make cuts. Then new figures came out after the legislature was over requiring the Governor to make cuts to meet the new level of revenue that there is, which is requiring him to make additional cuts of 8 percent. Around here, we don't make cuts; we reduce the amount of increase a program gets and we call that a cut. The Governor had a very clever way of prioritizing. He asked every agency to give him a list of the things they are doing and suggest where they would take a 1-percent cut, a 5-percent cut, and a 10- percent cut. Then all he had to do was compare the lists. If it wound up on all three lists, it wasn't that important. If it was only on the 1-percent list, maybe there was some value to that program. That is the chart Wyoming is using to make their 8 percent cuts. That doesn't leave easy cuts for the Governor to make, but the Governor-- while he acknowledged that he didn't like to cut, he did what he is supposed to do, and that is to lead the State. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has failed to do the same. We all agreed to the Budget Control Act in 2011, which called for average annual cuts that wound up--the one time we have done it--being 7 percent to 9 percent. But you have to remember that is from an increased baseline, not a total cut, and it happened in the fourth quarter of the year because we didn't get the spending bills done in time, which is the norm around here. But if you have to take a 2- percent cut in the last quarter of the year, you are making an 8- percent cut of the money that you have left. That is not far off from what Wyoming faces, and we have a lot more money and a lot more programs to work with to find those cuts at the Federal level. In fact, we have 260 programs that I keep talking about that have expired that we spend $293.5 billion on. I talked about that enough a year ago that we got that down to $256 billion, but now we are spending $310 billion on expired programs. Wyoming's annual budget is $1.5 billion, compared to the Federal discretionary budget--those are the program we get to make decisions on--of $1,100 billion. Wyoming has about 8,500 State employees, compared to about 2.7 million Federal civilian employees. If Wyoming can find a way to cut its budget, the Federal Government should be able to do the same. But instead of leading the way, people in this body and the House and the administration acted like the sky was falling after they agreed to the Budget Control Act. As a result, while Wyoming stays on firm financial footing, the United States has gone from owing $14 trillion--that is $14,000 billion--in 2014 to owing $19 trillion-- $19,000 billion--today, and we are on track to owe $29 billion by 2026. Here is where one of the difficulties comes in. We are at $19 trillion and on our way to $20 trillion. If you were paying 1 percent interest on $20 trillion, that would be $200 billion a year. We are actually paying a little bit more than that already, but the norm for the Federal Government is 5 percent. If that $200 billion in interest becomes five times that amount, it becomes $1,000 billion in interest. I just mentioned that we only get to make decisions on $1,100 billion-- actually, it is $1,070 billion. So if interest rates increase and we pay $1,000 billion in interest, we would have $70 billion left to fund the military, education, commerce, roads, everything that the Federal Government does right now. We have to reverse that course and address the Federal Government's insatiable appetite for spending, which is leading to America's mammoth national debt. I have several ideas on how we can make reasonable but real progress on our debt. First, we need to take a page from Wyoming's playbook. My home State has acknowledged how much money it has and is making targeted cuts to live within its means. Unlike the Federal Government, they aren't trying to make the cuts hurt politically so they can get pressure from people to spend more and more. Let me explain. When we had the government shutdown because the spending bills weren't done a few years ago, the Administration shut down the national parks, which, incidentally, raise money for the Federal Government. In Jackson Hole where the Tetons are, the federal government actually put up barriers so that people couldn't use the parking lot to take pictures. They also put up signs that said you can't park along the road. I had to ask the Park Service where they got the money to put up the barriers and I had to ask them why they put up the barriers to begin with. They said: Well, we didn't want people putting their garbage there because there would be nobody to pick up the garbage. I said: That is easy. Remove the garbage cans. There is no cost to that, and nobody will have to pick up any garbage. But that's not the way the Federal Government does things. They don't look for the easy solution; they look for the most painful one. They even barricaded off the World War II Memorial here during the 2013 shutdown. We furloughed a bunch of people during that time, but when they came back to work, we paid them for the time they were off. It really cost a lot to try to save a little bit of money and not get our work done on time. We should learn to cut the worst first, not the best first, because if you cut the best, you have people complaining and they get the money reinstituted. Governor Mead is making smart cuts. He is proposing smaller cuts for the department of corrections because that agency already saw its budget cut severely in March. The Department of Family Services faces a smaller cut because it serves as the State's safety net. And the Public Defender's Office isn't expected to see any cuts because they are already strapped for resources. The Federal Government should be doing the same thing and cutting the worst first. I would argue that we should focus on identifying and eliminating the wasteful spending that occurs here in DC before we look to important programs and services in our home States, but this isn't something we should guess at. Like Wyoming, we should require all government departments and agencies to list what they do best and what they do worst, although I have never seen anyone admit to anything they do worst. So I would suggest we do the prioritization system like Wyoming went through where every agency has to list all the programs they do and suggest which ones they would cut at 1 percent, which ones they would cut at 5 percent, and which ones they would cut at 10 percent. That way we could tell which programs agencies felt were really the most valuable to fund and force agencies to make the easier cuts first instead of cutting the programs we need the most. That way, we can maintain what we do well and cut what we don't. We need to prioritize how we spend taxpayers' dollars, just like Wyoming. Second, we need to implement my penny plan, which cuts overall spending by 1 percent--that is one cent out of every dollar we spend-- and cap future spending so that government lives within its means. If we did that, within 5 years we could balance the budget. Wyoming is finding a way to cut 8 percent. Why can't this body agree to cut 1 percent each year until our revenue is the same or less than expenditures? I am pretty sure after the first year people would say: You know, that wasn't too bad; we can live with that. And I think they would suggest we do two cents instead of one cent and get this done faster so that the next generation has hope for the same kind of country we have enjoyed. Lastly, Congress needs to thoroughly consider and review its spending. The Wyoming Legislature considers its spending bills on time because they have created incentives to encourage it, and they use a 2- year spending cycle that provides more certainty and predictability than an annual cycle. Congress should follow Wyoming's lead by forcing timely consideration of regular appropriations bills--spending bills-- and locking in that funding for 2 years instead of 1. A biennial process would also allow more time to review the details of proposed spending, eliminate duplication and waste and ensure the elimination of the worst first. Mr. President, I would like to make one point to differentiate the problem Wyoming faces from the problem we face here. Wyoming is facing spending cuts because of declining revenues from oil, gas, and coal, which provide 70 percent of the State's budget. Those reductions are due to direct actions this administration has taken to make it harder to drill for oil and gas and to mine for coal. But at the Federal level, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. This year alone, we have seen attempts to increase spending by tens of billions of dollars without offsets. We cannot spend our way to prosperity. We definitely need to look at expired programs. I sit up nights worrying about our Nation's $19 trillion debt and how it will affect our children and grandchildren. We have run out of money and are living on what we borrow from other countries. If we don't get serious about cutting spending soon, the programs people enjoy and rely on won't just shrink, they will disappear entirely--again, think about my example of what happens if we go to 5 percent interest for this country. It is long past time for us to apply reasonable constraints on our spending, and if we need a blueprint of how to do it, we should look to my home State of Wyoming. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I wish to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. On August 25, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed a bill creating the National Park Service to oversee the country's parks and monuments. Since then, the National Park Service has been asked to serve generations of visitors by helping to provide a gateway to the wonders of our nation. Our children and grandchildren have had the opportunity to experience things that cannot be fully appreciated by pictures in a book or lessons in a classroom. May that gateway remain open for the next 100 years and beyond. Now, this is something we should all celebrate, but it is especially important to me because Wyoming is home to some of the best National Park Service areas in this country, including the very first national park. Yellowstone National Park was named our first national park in 1872, well before the existence of the National Park Service. It was ``set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people'' for good reason. Every elementary school student learns about Old Faithful, the geyser that erupts about 17 times a day at Yellowstone, but Yellowstone is also home to more than 60 different mammals, more than 300 different birds, more than 15 species of fish, and 10 species of reptiles and amphibians. Of course, Yellowstone isn't Wyoming's only national park. My home State is also home to Grand Teton National Park, which was established in 1929. In addition to boasting one of the most recognizable mountain ranges in the world, this park is home to the famous Snake River. I also mentioned that the National Park Service helps to oversee national monuments. That includes the country's first national monument, which is also in Wyoming. Devils Tower was declared the first national monument in 1906 and is one of the most unique formations in the world. It is a great place for hiking, climbing, or just taking in the views. Wyoming is also home to Fossil Butte National Monument, which contains one of the largest deposits of freshwater fish fossils in the world. At this monument, you can see fossils of everything from perch to stingrays. I would be remiss if I did not mention Fort Laramie National Historic Site in Wyoming. Fort Laramie was established as a fur trading fort in 1834 and became an Army post in 1849. The fort was the site of many important treaty negotiations and became a part of the National Park System in 1938. My home State also has the Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. There are about 28 miles of trails, boating opportunities, and historic ranches at this national park area, which was established in 1966. These are just a few of the 412 areas managed by the National Park System, but I think they are some of the best. Wyoming is proud of its national park areas, and we are proud to celebrate the National Park Service's centennial. I want close by acknowledging the hard work of the men and women who have maintained these special places of discovery and learning in Wyoming and across our Nation. Thank you to the over 20,000 men and women of the National Park Service who go to work each day as caretakers, craftsmen, and teachers to make America's national parks second-to-none. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits, while sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Senate will soon consider the conference report to accompany H.R. 2577, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017. This conference report provides funding to combat the Zika virus. For these efforts, the bill provides $991 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2016 and $39 million and $382 million in outlays for fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017, respectively. These figures include rescissions of emergency funds 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 the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act of 1985. The inclusion of these designations makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. The conference report to accompany H.R. 2577 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). 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 with these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. On May 26, 2016, I made adjustments to the budgetary aggregates and the Committee on Appropriation's allocations for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 to accommodate emergency spending found in S. amendment No. 3900 to combat the Zika virus that qualified for a cap adjustment under BBEDCA. The adjustments I make today take these prior adjustments into consideration and reflect the appropriate level for overall adjustments for considering this legislation. As a result, I am decreasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2016 by $107 million in budget authority and $108 million in outlays. I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2017 by $172 million in budget authority and decreasing outlays by $125 million. Further, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by reducing revised nonsecurity budget authority by $107 million and outlays by $108 million in fiscal year 2016. Finally, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $172 million and reducing outlays by $125 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, along with my colleague, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senator Sanders, I wish to honor and recognize the outstanding service of David Weiner on his retirement after 32 years of public service, including 25 years at the Congressional Budget Office. David's expertise as a forecaster, modeler, and policy analyst have made him an invaluable contributor to the development of much of the key tax legislation of the past quarter century, starting with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Since 2013, David has led CBO's tax analysis division, superbly overseeing its forecasts of tax revenues, cost estimates of legislative proposals, reports on important current issues in tax policy, and development of the modeling infrastructure needed to conduct those tasks. David's first job in Washington was as an evaluator at the U.S. General Accounting Office. He then moved to the Office of Tax Analysis in the Department of Treasury, where he constructed models to estimate revenue effects and produce economic analyses of numerous tax proposals, including those related to capital gains, corporate tax integration, and taxpayer compliance. At Treasury and later at CBO, David was also responsible for the forecasts of individual income tax receipts. CBO was very fortunate in 1991 when David brought his skills to the agency, where he built and maintained microsimulation models used for forecasting receipts and analyzing changes in the distribution of tax burdens. He also wrote influential studies on critical topics in tax policy, including marriage penalties and bonuses in the tax system and effective Federal tax rates. In the tax analysis division, David served as the unit chief for modeling from 2002 to 2009, Deputy Assistant Director from 2009 to 2013, and Assistant Director for the rest of his tenure at CBO. As head of the tax analysis division, David has led his staff in providing high-quality and timely analysis of tax policy and budget issues. His expansive knowledge of tax policy and how it interacts with other facets of public policy has been a tremendous resource to the Congress. Colleagues who have worked with David appreciate his uncanny ability to find solutions to challenges and his commitment to producing top-caliber analyses but they will especially miss his wit, his generosity with his time and knowledge, and his compassion. I know my colleagues join me in extending our thanks and appreciation to David for his service to our Nation. We wish him well in his retirement from CBO and hope he will continue in future years to lend his expertise to the analysis of important tax policy issues. I would like to now yield to my colleague Senator Sanders for his remarks.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate all who have worked on this bill but particularly Senator Casey's leadership and Senator Klobuchar's leadership on this issue that just passed. Here is a terrible thought: Every year, thousands of children are abducted and taken away from their homes. This bill provides new tools to connect missing and exploited children with their families, while also respecting important and appropriate safeguards of taxpayer privacy. Senators Casey, Klobuchar, and I have worked together on this matter for several years. We worked with outside groups such as the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and the National Association of Police Organizations, and we are proud that both organizations have endorsed this legislation. With new tools and better collaboration between Federal and State authorities, law enforcement agencies can send a strong signal to those who are perpetrating this type of crime. I hope this act will help law enforcement officials solve these cases more quickly for the benefit of the youth who have been exploited. I yield the floor to my colleague from Minnesota.

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

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, a few moments ago I got to speak to 45 students from 5 towns in Wyoming who are here for National History Day competition. So it is only fitting that I rise today to recognize a historic event, and that would be the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts of America receiving a congressional Federal charter. On this day in 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Charter of the Boy Scouts of America, and I am submitting a resolution to commemorate that important event. The congressional charter has helped the Boy Scouts to become one of the largest youth organizations in the United States. In fact, it is estimated that more than 110 million Americans have served as members within its ranks. Scouting offers those young people friendship, an opportunity to set positive goals, and outdoor experiences. But, above all, Scouting is about building character and service. That concept of service is based on a young boy in London who happened to guide an American through fog, and when the American tried to pay the boy, the boy said: No, that was my good deed for the day. The man brought that concept back to the United States and started the Boy Scouts. A few years later, in 1916, they got the Federal charter. The service that Scouts perform is immeasurable, but there are many noteworthy moments I'd like to mention. During World War I, Scouts played an important role by collecting used paper and glass from homes. Scouts also sold Liberty Bonds valued at over $147 million. That was a lot of money at that time. President Roosevelt called on Scouts to help the needy during the Great Depression, and throughout World War II, the Scouts again collected materials and sold war bonds. The call to service continues, and today Boy Scouts are doing projects all over this country, thousands of hours every year, to earn their Eagle award. Another service opportunity will happen next year when the National Scout Jamboree takes place 13 months from now in West Virginia. Volunteers are needed for that effort. The jamboree dates back to 1937 when more than 27,000 Scouts camped on the National Mall, right out there. On July 19 of next year, 35,000 Scouts and Venturers will arrive at the Summit Bechtel Reserve in West Virginia for the 18th National Scout Jamboree. I went to a National Scout Jamboree at Valley Forge when I was in Scouts. It started with trains on the West Coast and picked up cars as it came through each State, heading east to Valley Forge. It was the largest civilian movement of people in the history of the United States. It was an opportunity to get together with people who were fellow Scouts from all over the United States, as well as from other countries. I remember getting to meet some Australian Scouts at that particular jamboree. We were having a campfire with them in the evening, and somehow a garter snake happened to come through the camp. They leaped up and hacked that snake to pieces. We said: What is that all about? They said: In Australia, we have 25 snakes and 23 of them are poisonous, so we try to kill them first and then identify them. There are a lot of opportunities in Scouts. This jamboree will provide some outstanding experiences, adventures, and achievements for merit badges through a number of outdoor sports such as whitewater rafting, rock climbing, and zip-lining. In keeping with the Boy Scout slogan of ``Do a Good Turn Daily,'' there are also opportunities to participate in service projects near the reserve. I am especially excited by next year's jamboree because Matt Myers, the Scout executive director from my home State of Wyoming, is the National Scout Jamboree director. But Matt can't do this alone. Thousands of volunteers have to work to make the jamboree a success by serving as first responders, media specialists, IT support, doctors, and more. An interesting thing about these volunteers is they have to pay their own way to the session, they have to pay the same fee as everybody who camps there, and they have to spend two weeks of their vacation volunteering. When they had the last jamboree 3 years ago, I think there were 8,000 of these volunteers that came and dedicated their time to the boys in Scouts. Scouting has meant a great deal to me and my family over the years. Incidentally, there are 10 U.S. Senators who are Eagle Scouts. The normal percentage would be about 4 percent. In the Eagle Scouts you learn a lot of leadership skills and are also encouraged to participate in your community, your country, and the world. Scouts do that. Incidentally, there are a whole lot more in this body who have been in Scouts. I remember one saying that he made it only to Life Scout, and he wanted me to know that they call it Life Scout because if that is as far as you get--if you don't make that next step to Eagle--you will regret it for life. But no matter what rank you go to in Scouts, no matter how long you are in Scouts, you will learn some things that you will not learn anywhere else. Part of it is the merit badge system. We have a Scout in Wyoming who has earned all 132 of the merit badges--what a tremendous adventure in personal finance, safety, and career exploration. You can learn about just about any career working on a merit badge, and you can find out what is involved in it, what you have to know, how you get into that profession. There have been some outstanding Scouts over the years. Richard Byrd, when he went to the South Pole, took a Boy Scout with him. That was the first Scout to visit the pole, and there have been opportunities for Antarctic Scouts at the South Pole ever since. Paul Siple was the first Scout who got to go because he earned the taxidermy merit badge. The expedition wanted to capture some of the animals to have specimens when they came back to the United States, so Siple was chosen. A year and a half ago on the space station, there was a Boy Scout. He had been to an academy and had been a test pilot, but after he was selected and got to see his reviewed application, there was only one thing on the application that was circled, and that was ``Eagle Scout.'' While he was up in the space station, they had a piece of equipment break loose. Anything floating around in space, especially if it is big, can be a real hazard. So the Scout took the thing and tied it down using a clove hitch. Of course, they reported back to NASA and said ``We have this little problem.'' NASA worked on it for 2 days and sent back word that they needed to tie the equipment down with a clove hitch. NASA sent instructions. But the Scout had already taken care of the problem. This shows that you never know what you can learn in Scouts and how it can be used later. Yesterday I got to meet with some of the Upward Bound TRIO students. Those are kids who would be first generation college students. One of them was named Michael Nadig. He was proud to tell me during our meeting that he is an Eagle Scout. I am pretty certain that this young man is going to complete his college because one of the things that an Eagle Scout represents is a symbol of perseverance and a quest to get extra knowledge. I am pretty sure Michael is one of those young people who is going to get that extra knowledge and make it through college. I am pleased to meet with Scouts everywhere and hear of their adventures and remember my own. And Mr. President, today I am proud to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Boy Scouts Federal Charter. The values of leadership, service, character, and achievement will live on, thanks to the Boy Scouts of America. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to offer for the Record the Budget Committee's cost estimate of S. 2837, the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2017. The reported measure provides $56.3 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2017, which will result in discretionary outlays of $64.4 billion. The reported bill matches its section 302(b) allocation set forth in S. Rept. 114-273 for budget authority for both the security and nonsecurity categories, and matches the 302(b) allocation for outlays. The bill is not subject to any budget-related points of order. I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, on June 10, 2016, the Congressional Budget Office released a detailed cost estimate for S. 2943, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. This measure was reported by the Senate Committee on Armed Services on May 18, 2016, and includes provisions that affect authorizations for appropriations, revenues, and direct spending. As chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, I will use this estimate for scorekeeping and budget enforcement purposes. Senators and their staff can access the full estimate on CBO's website, www.cbo.gov/publication/51683. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a summary of CBO's cost estimate be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for June 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. This is the fifth report that I have made this calendar year. It is the second 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 ninth 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 May 11, 2016. The information contained in this report is current through June 6, 2016. Tables 1-7 of this report, which are prepared by my staff on the Budget Committee, remain unchanged from the May report. 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 for both 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 $974.3 billion and $592.4 billion, respectively. The allowable spending room will be reduced as appropriations bills for fiscal year 2017 are enacted. Revenues are at the level assumed for fiscal year 2017. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in the fiscal year 2017 enforcement filing. 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, which remains its current balance. The Senate's pay-as-you-go rule is enforced by section 201 of S. Con. Res. 21, the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. New to this report are two additional tables that track the Senate's budget enforcement activities. The first table, Enforcement Report of Legislation Post-S. Con. Res. 11, fiscal year 2016 Congressional Budget Resolution, shows the 11 levels-based points of order that were raised after passage of the last budget resolution but before my April 18 filing. The largest budgetary violation during that period was the nonappropriations portion of H.R. 2029, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. The final table of this filing, Enforcement Report of Legislation Post-Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 Enforcement Filing, shows the three points of order that have been raised since my April 18 enforcement filing. Two of those three points of order were raised against emergency designations in an appropriations bill. The first was raised against the emergency designation in Senator Blunt's amendment No. 3900, that provided $1.1 billion to address the Zika virus. This point of order was waived with 70 votes. The second was raised against the emergency designation in Senator McCain's amendment No. 4039, that would increase spending by $7.7 billion for the Veterans Choice Program. This point of order was waived with 84 votes. 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 appreciate having this opportunity to share some news with the Senate about a very important anniversary we are celebrating in my home State. This is the year the Triangle X Ranch, one of our State's great attractions, is marking its 90th year of operation. As you can imagine, the Triangle X has quite a story to tell of those 90 years. It began in the early 1900s when a visitor fell in love with an especially beautiful area of Wyoming. It continues to this day, its 90th year, cared for over the years by five generations of the Turner family. The people of my home State have a great fondness and appreciation for the Triangle X because it reminds us of our Western heritage and our love of the land and all it provides. It reminds us of our growth as a State and what it was like to live in Wyoming back in those days. The Triangle X Ranch Web site tells the story of the ranch. It begins, back in the early 1900s, when John and Maytie Turner liked to take ``fun vacations,'' as they called them, to Yellowstone National Park. It was during one of those visits they had a chance to see an area around Jackson Hole for the first time. It was one of those storybook encounters--or to put it another way: love at first sight. Life was a lot tougher back then, so when they decided to make the area their home, they had to bring their sons back with them to get things started. It took a tremendous effort to build their home so they would have a place to stay. Even today, it is hard to imagine what an effort it took for them to live what had become their dream. For starters, they had to bring the logs from some felled trees to their home site so they could build the basement of what would become their home. Once that was done, they had a place where they could live while they built the rest of their house. Everything was difficult. Providing for the essentials they needed took planning and some time. Just taking a trip to the nearest town took several days. They had to grow or produce their own food, and while they were at it, they had to come up with ways of making something of a living. This paragraph from the history section of their Web site says a lot about what their life was like back then for them and for many of those who had left the comforts of home and traded them for the great freedom and excitement of Wyoming and the West: ``Because there was no electricity, wood supplied heat and kerosene lamps brought light to interiors. Refrigeration was provided by large chunks of ice that had been cut from nearby beaver ponds in the winter and stored in piles of sawdust to keep through the summer. A fresh meat supply was provided by the Turners' cattle herd, chickens and big game harvested in the fall. Surprisingly, most of these methods of supply continued through the 1940s.'' The next generation saw more changes to the ranch. It was now a dude ranch. Their Web site describes how it became an ``authorized concession of the National Park Service--the last dude ranch concession within the entire National Park system.'' Today, a fifth generation of the Turner family is working the ranch and greeting guests, both new and returning friends, the lifestyle their family has loved for all these years. As each guest comes to the Triangle X, they receive the kind of education you just can't get from watching a movie or reading a book. You are immersed in a lifestyle that provides you with a front row seat to what life was like in the days of the old West. As you can tell, I enjoy talking about the people of Wyoming, our businesses, and our unique brand of hospitality. I can't encourage you strongly enough to come to Wyoming and get a taste of what life was like back in the days when the West was the best part of our national heritage--and you will see that it still is. When you come to my home State, you might stop by the Triangle X and then explore some more of Wyoming and the West. Our homegrown businesses are one of the special things about Wyoming. Together, they form the backbone of Wyoming's economy and they keep us headed in the right direction. They are the strength of Wyoming and the West, and they are one of the reasons why people keep flocking to Jackson and the other cities and towns of Wyoming. I will close by once again congratulating all those who are a part of the Triangle X story. They have made a difference in our State and in the lives of all those who come to visit. I would also like to invite my colleagues to come and see my home State. You can't beat our scenic beauty, hospitality, and our history and legacy as a State. I can promise you that you will have an adventure in Wyoming that you will remember for a long time to come. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits, while 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. On May 19, 2016, the Senate agreed to Senate amendment No. 3900, filed by Senator Blunt. This amendment provides funding to combat the Zika virus. The amendment would increase budget authority by $1,098 million in fiscal year 2016 and increase outlays by $147 million and $508 million in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017, respectively. The amendment includes language that would designate its spending as emergency pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act of 1985. The inclusion of these designations makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act. As a result, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2016 by $1,098 million in budget authority and $147 million in outlays. I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2017 by $508 million in outlays. Further, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Appropriations Committee by $1,098 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority and $147 million in outlays for fiscal year 2016 and by $508 million in outlays 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, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want the Presiding Officer and my colleagues and the people of America to know what is keeping me awake nights. It is actually thoughts of my grandkids and their future that keep me awake nights. I see a bleak future for them because of our overspending, and I hear their small voices saying: You were there. Why didn't you fix it? Why didn't you give us the chance you had? We didn't want anything for free. We just wanted an opportunity to earn our own way to what was the American dream. How are we going to answer that question? I am not just asking the Members of Congress, I am asking everyone in America because everyone has and is getting benefits from this great country at the expense of the future. Let's look at the problem together. Here is where we are right now and where we are headed: Our national debt isn't sustainable because of the interest alone. Interest on the debt could mean we would have to make cuts to programs we never dreamed of cutting. We already owe $1,900 billion. Sometimes that is called $19 trillion. I prefer to call it $19,000 billion; it sounds like more. That is soon headed to $20,000 billion, or $20 trillion. We have already exceeded that. At 1 percent interest--and that is interest alone--interest would amount to $200 billion a year. We need to worry about when the interest rate gets to the norm of 5 percent, and that could happen as early as in the next 3 years. Imagine if the interest rate went to 5 percent; 5 percent is the historic average for Federal borrowing. Excluding mandatory spending, we currently only get to make decisions on $1,070 billion a year. Do the math. Five times $200 billion is $1,000 billion. Remember, we only get to make decisions on $1,070 billion a year. So interest alone could crowd out almost the entire annual budget. What would that extra $70 billion fund? When that happens, could we forget about funding defense or education or agriculture or any of the other programs we are expected to fund? What we are doing is not sustainable. What would we be forced to cut just to pay the interest? How many people do you think would be willing to invest in America just in order to get their own interest paid? The answer is no one. Incidentally, we may already be borrowing to pay interest, but so far no one knows it--yet. From a Bloomberg business article, ``There's an acknowledgement, even in the investor community, that monetary policy is kind of running out of ammo.'' That was said by Thomas Costerg, the economist at Standard Chartered Bank in New York City. A lack of monetary ammo will drive up interest rates dramatically, forcing us to pay even more interest on our debt. Because we are the largest economy in the world, there isn't anyone who could bail us out. There are lots of causes to this problem. Let me cover some of them. We don't ever look back at what we have done. We keep looking forward to new things we would like to do to help everyone out. Every elected official has great ideas for something that might make a difference, but we don't look to see if it already has a similar program or if what we already do in that area is working. In fact, the bills we passed don't have enough specificity to know if we are achieving what we hoped we would get done. Without measurable goals, we can't measure progress. We don't include specificity for how we are going to achieve our goals, which allows or forces agencies to go where they want to go. We never know if we actually solved the problem we started out to solve. For some Federal employees, it is important never to get the problem solved as their jobs might be eliminated. Have you ever had an agency come to you and suggest that their mission no longer exists so we should end their funding? Not that I know of. Once a young man came to me and he said: This will probably cost me my job, but what I am doing doesn't have to be done at all. By telling you this, I will probably lose my job, but I feel strongly about it. I told him he ought to be promoted and worked to have that happen. I want to congratulate Senator Grassley for his efforts on whistleblower protection so employees can point out problems without retaliation. We have regulations that cost jobs and the economy for very little value. We have a rule that there has to be a cost-benefit analysis for any project over $100 million of impact, but that is seldom done, and there are few standards for doing it anyway or requirements to actually force it to be done. The benefits might be costed over decades while the costs are immediate and continuing. If we can improve the private economy by 1 percent, we would increase revenue to the Federal Government by $400 billion without raising taxes. Instead, we have gone from GDP--that is private sector productivity--from 2.7 percent down to 0.5 percent. That is a huge loss of tax revenue. We have regulations that have been on the books for years that haven't been reviewed to see if technology has made them outdated. Regulations cost jobs but only in the private sector. When is the last time you remember a Federal employee being laid off because of budget cuts or ending a program? I know we passed a major education bill here recently, and we eliminated the national school board and a lot of the national requirements. So when we had the new nominee for Secretary of Education, I asked him how many jobs that was going to save in the Department of Education. He said: Well, none. We are just going to move them around and use them in other places. Wrong answer. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we saved 237 jobs that will not have anything to do. There are 96,000 Federal employees in the District alone. What are they all doing? An example is a principal who came to see me my first year here. He had been filling out Federal reports for a long time, and he wondered where they went. So I sent him to the Department of Education, and he spent a semester there and followed all those reports around. Then he came and reported to me. He said: You know, they really look at those carefully. They make sure every single blank is filled in. They make sure every single blank has a logical answer. If it doesn't, they send it back. They get it back, and they check it over again. Then, they file it and nobody ever looks at it. I have been trying to get rid of some of those forms since that time. How about expired Federal programs? Last year I spoke often about the 260 programs we still have that expired, but we are still spending money on them to the tune of $293\1/2\ billion a year--260 programs expired, $293\1/2\ billion paid out to them each year. One of them expired in 1983, another one in 1987, and most of them before 2006, and we are still giving them money. After a year of harping on it, I find that we have reduced the number of expired programs from 260 to 256, but we have increased the spending on expired programs from $293 billion to $310 billion. That is not progress. Here is another part of the problem. I have this housing chart. There ought to be savings from better organization. We have 20 Federal agencies here. Somebody once said that if you take the 26 letters of the alphabet and you picked any 3 or any 4 and you put them in any order you want to, there would be a Federal agency by that name. We have 20 of those right here, and that isn't the whole chart. It would take a much bigger chart to show the whole story, because these 20 Federal agencies oversee 160 housing programs. How many housing programs does it take? What are they doing? Could they be combined? We don't look at that. Wouldn't consolidation of these result in some kind of savings? Maybe consolidation would result in some efficiency. Shouldn't all of this be controlled by one entity? What are we trying to achieve in housing? Do we have 160 different plans and goals? Shouldn't we consider that a major economic sector and have that a separate part of our budget? Can't some of the programs be combined? When I came to the Senate, there were 119 preschool programs for children. We all know and acknowledge the value of preschool and how it increases their earnings later on and cuts down on the amount of crime and helps the economy. We all know and acknowledge that value, but Senator Kennedy and I found that many of them have been evolved into expensive childcare services rather than education, and they weren't meeting their goals. We were able to get those programs down from 119 to 65. That was all that was in our jurisdiction of Health and Education. Later we were able to get some of those others down to 45. Two years ago, I got an amendment passed that the programs had to be reduced to five and all of them put under the Department of Education. Even though that is the law, that hasn't happened yet. Does the Federal Government ever take a cut in dollars? We get instant complaints if the requested increase is less than what was asked for--not less than what they had the year before, less than what was asked for. Only in government is that considered a cut. Our budgets and spending are set up to allow everyone to get what they got last year, plus the amount of inflation. We call it baseline budgeting. Many governments have gone to economic sector budgeting under a cap of expected revenues. You don't look at what the expected revenues are. Some governments only borrow for long-term infrastructure investments. We borrow for day-to-day expenses. As I mentioned earlier, we could be borrowing to pay our interest on our debt. I am not even going to cover the Tax Code that has evolved from raising the basic money to run the government to a way to legislate social programs or for special benefits to individuals and businesses. Our Tax Code is costing us jobs. What are some of the other causes of our debt problem? We are really good at new and super ideas. Every idea is designed to help out the folks back home. They all lend themselves to the greater good, but if they aren't paid for, they steal from the future. We found many ways to steal from the future. We are spending money that will not be there for our kids or our grandkids to spend. As my grandpa would say, it is ``like milking a cow in a lightning storm, they'll just be left holding the bag.'' We fudge these new ideas into existence. The easiest way is to do a demonstration program. Demonstration programs let you ease into the spending a little at a time--boil the frog slowly. You just start it in a few cities or States to show what a difference that idea would make. Demonstration programs are always sold on the basis that a successful program will show the local benefit and will be taken up locally because they have seen the advantage. I am not aware of a single program that hasn't been spectacular. Every program works out as planned, except for the part about being valuable enough to be adopted and paid for locally. So the need for the money to continue to be spent continues and continues. Not only that, if it worked so well for the few, it needs to be expanded nationally so everyone can benefit. Unfortunately, while there may have been offsets for the original programming, there was never a source of ongoing funds for the continuance of the program, let alone for its expansion. The next way to trick hard-working, tax-paying Americans is to make it a mandatory program. Here is a mandatory versus discretionary chart. This is the $1,070 billion I talked about that we get to make decisions on. These are the mandatory programs that we have, and they are growing faster and faster. As the baby boomers kick in, you will see such a rapid escalation here that I don't know how we will ever be able to afford it. Fifty years ago, 30 percent of spending was mandatory. We got to make annual decisions on 70 percent of the money. Because of the expansion of the mandatory programs, 70 percent of spending is on autopilot and funded every year without a vote, and we only get to make decisions on 30 percent of the money. Some of the mandatory programs used to have their own revenue stream, sufficient to cover the amounts paid out. Social Security is a prime example. When it was set up, you couldn't retire until you were 65, and life expectancy was 59. There used to be more people working and paying into Social Security than the amount paid out to recipients. When that happened, the excess money was spent--yes, spent--and bonds were put in a Social Security drawer backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. If interest rates go to 5 percent, how well do you think that will work out? Pension funds for bankrupt companies of coal miners and the Central States multiemployer pension fund are going broke now, not 20 years, not 30 years, not 40 years in the future. They are going broke now. But they are a symptom of what we are about to face. People are talking about Puerto Rico and how they need a bailout. Who would bail out the United States? Who would have enough money to do that? We go to mandatory programs, so we don't have to figure out how to pay for programs. It continues without further votes or review. Everyone wants their favorite program to have dedicated funds, except we don't dedicate funds to it and we ran out of real money. Mandatory spending used to mean that there was a dedicated stream of money sufficient to cover the cost of the program without dipping into the general fund. Here is a chart that shows how we are doing on that score. Let's see. Here is dedicated income as a percent of spending for 2015--actual--and income covered just 51 percent of spending. In 2016, we only covered 49 percent, and in 2017, it might bump back up to 50 percent. Where does the other 50 percent come from? It either has to be stolen from the future or taken from the present, which means that less can be done under the regular budget. Another funding trick that we use is to allocate funds from the future to spend in the present. We take funds from up to 10 years out. We imagine that they already came in and sometimes we spend them in 1 year. That is borrowing from the future. That is borrowing money that our kids will need for the dreams they have for their kids and America. That brings me to emergency spending. Any event that can be considered a crisis can be considered for emergency spending. Hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, and even failures by Federal agencies can be considered emergencies. In earlier years when I looked at emergencies, it looked to me like we spent about $6 billion a year on emergencies. Recently, I decided I needed to have that figure checked. To my surprise, I found out that we have $26 billion a year in emergencies that is unpaid for and will be borrowed from the future or borrowed on the debt. This little chart points that out. We are billing an average of $26 billion for emergencies. Anytime you know you are going to have some expense every year, maybe that ought to be a part of the budget. Maybe we ought to plan on it. Maybe we ought to figure out how we are going to pay for it. What are you going to tell your grandkids you did to give them opportunities? Do you want to be here to answer that question when Social Security is cut by 20 percent to fund defense because interest payments have used up all of the money we get to make decisions on? Can we consolidate programs? Can we be sure they have measurable goals and hold them to achievement? Can we watch regulation to see that it achieves its goal with a minimum of jobs lost? Can we review old programs for elimination or consolidation when we look at new ideas? Can we find ways to fund our ideas without stealing from the future? How will you answer to your grandkids for what you have done? I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I would like to get into the numbers on something that folks in Wyoming are having to deal with. The number I would like to highlight is one. As an accountant, I am sure you thought I was going to get much more complicated, but it is important for my colleagues to hear that there is one health insurer in Wyoming offering exchange plans this year--one. In October last year, people around Wyoming read the news that WINHealth, one of two major medical insurers operating in the State, would close down. That was bad news, and I had constituents who were in a tough spot. They say that misery loves company, and, unfortunately, we have company now. This year, Alaska and Alabama join us--one insurer on the State exchanges, thousands of people losing their plans. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming has been working to provide options, but the fact remains that we have fewer choices now. If I think back to the ObamaCare debate, President Obama and my colleagues across the aisle promised that ObamaCare would bring more options, security, lower costs. The majority leader at the time, Harry Reid, said: [W]e are bringing security and stability to millions who have health insurance . . . What we will do is ensure consumers have more choices and insurance companies face more competition. I think it is safe to say that that hasn't quite materialized. What we are witnessing is another broken promise, the failure of ObamaCare to deliver again. Some of my colleagues have been on the Senate floor talking about insurance premiums going up, and they are going up, at shocking rates. ObamaCare has been quite a comprehensive reform of health care. Now your costs are higher, and you may have no choice in your insurer or the structure of your insurance plan--sounds like a great deal. ObamaCare has weighed down health insurance with unworkable plans, high costs, and a risk pool that is significantly sicker than expected; and now, somehow, people seem surprised to find that we have insurers leaving the market, either by choice or because they have gone bankrupt. Look at the national carriers that have left the exchanges: UnitedHealth, Humana, and Aetna in some States. These folks have looked at the exchanges and said, We can't anymore. We could look at the co-ops that have closed. Twelve have closed-- more than half. Look at the States that may have some counties with only one insurance option. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation's tracking, more than 650 counties may have just one insurer for the exchanges in 2017 in Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arizona, and Oklahoma. What answer do my Democratic colleagues have for this absolutely unacceptable situation? I have mostly heard silence. The people we represent deserve more than silence or rhetorical finger pointing. They need relief, and they need real, meaningful changes that will let people buy health insurance in a free market without a government chokepoint at every turn. Let's be clear: This is not a failure of the free market. These are not open marketplaces that have failed. They are government-run exchanges selling government-mandated and government-approved health insurance. I encourage my colleagues to consider what the option is if we fail to roll back this damaging law. What will we be left with? I extend an open hand to work with any of my colleagues who want to make reforms to our health care system that will truly deliver on the promises of more options, security, and lower costs. Thank you.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, reserving the right to object, this was debated extensively and considerably for more than 1 hour, equally divided, just last week, and was resolved by a vote in this body. I don't think there is anyone in this body who isn't worried about the Zika virus and who doesn't want to do everything that can be done in the quickest way possible. It was determined to be an emergency and was put into the bill that way. There was Senator Nelson's bill for $1.9 billion, but it lacked specificity on how that was to be spent, so the $1.1 billion was the one that got the vote. I was hoping it would be the Cornyn vote that was passed because it was offset with health prevention money we already have. Those funds can be used for just this kind of need. I don't know why there would be an objection to using that for the Zika virus, but there was. Even so, we resolved it. We resolved it without offsetting it, adding another $1.1 billion to the deficit, and were able to move that project forward. So in light of that, I object.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have a fondness for the Senator from Florida, as well, and recognize that he is further south and that they, perhaps, have more mosquitoes than we do, although even Alaska would have a competition with that. But we did pass emergency money for this. We did declare it an emergency and pass $1.1 billion. That is $1,100 million to work on this problem. Before, we had the Ebola problem. That was the crisis of the year, and we allocated money to that. We allocated more money to that than it needed. That is why some of that money was brought over as an emergency into solving the Zika problem. I have been doing some research as the Budget Chairman, and I found that we have about $6 billion worth of emergencies every year. We ought to budget for what we know is consistent. Unfortunately, I had them look it up, and I found that we actually spend $26 billion in emergencies every year. That ought to be a part of the budget and not just passed on to future generations. They are going to have their own emergencies that they are going to need to solve. Somehow we are going to have to get control of this. I am pleased we have a bipartisan effort going to see if there aren't some solutions that can be built into the budget process. But that is not what I came over here for to begin with. Madam President, we have the right, when a government rule is finalized, if we don't agree with it, we can get a petition. If we can get enough Senators on a petition, we can get a guaranteed 10 hours of debate and an up-or-down vote on that rule. In America, we are trying to get people to save more for retirement, to invest more--and now this administration makes it harder to do so. I rise to speak in support of H.J. Res. 88, expressing congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Department of Labor with respect to investment advice. How many people do you think are going to be willing to seek investment advice if they have to sign a contract before they can even see if that is the person they want to work with? It is called the fiduciary and conflict of interest rule. We are all against conflict of interest. There aren't even a lot of people who know how to spell ``fiduciary.'' That is to confuse people about what this is about. We do have a retirement coverage gap in America. There are tens of millions of Americans who are not prepared for retirement. The regulation put forward by the Obama administration that we are debating today will limit the advice that individuals seeking access to retirement plans can receive. That will increase the size of this retirement gap. This regulation will significantly impede the ability of low- and middle-income Americans to save for retirement. They will simply not have anyone to answer their questions and provide advice. For many years, I have heard the goal of this regulation is to force financial advisers to work in the best interest of their clients. I am completely in favor of financial advisers doing so. I have cosponsored legislation requiring that practice in law. I have cosponsored it and tried to pass it. In fact, in my almost 20 years of working on retirement policy in the U.S. Senate, I have never met anyone who doesn't agree that financial advisers should act in the best interests of their customers. The problem with this rule is, it goes far beyond requiring a best interest standard. It goes so far as to effectively prohibit the means by which low- and middle-income Americans receive retirement advice. A massive regulatory regime has been created by this rule. It will undoubtedly raise the costs in a $24 trillion--or to put it in numbers that are easier to understand, a $24 thousand billion industry. Sure, large companies and retirement savers with large assets will probably be able to deal with the increased costs, but what about the small investors, the small advisers, the people interested in retirement savings, the ones who have modest assets--like most of the cities and towns in Wyoming. This rule will negatively impact the services and choices available to investors. I can't imagine why limiting options, limiting choices, and limiting services is being touted as a victory for anyone. My home State of Wyoming is hurting. Our energy-based economy is declining significantly, largely due to regulations added by the Obama administration. Now that same administration is issuing a regulation that will hurt the future savings of my constituents. Wealthy Americans across America will not be affected by this rule. Yes, wealthy Americans will not be affected. They can go about receiving their retirement advice the same way they always have. However, many of my constituents will be affected by this rule. Their retirement savings will suffer. It is as simple as that. There are approximately 28.8 million small businesses in America. Those businesses create two out of every three new private sector jobs and employ nearly half of America's workforce. I am a former small business owner. I know well what it takes to run a small business. This rule will hurt retirement coverage among small businesses. It will create burdens, limits, and options for small businesses trying to offer retirement plans. In my experience, that will result in one of two things--either increased costs or no access to retirement advice. The Obama administration is going to force small businesses to choose between paying increased fees, which could jeopardize the success of the business and therefore the jobs of the employees, or not providing access to retirement savings for their employees, which jeopardizes the lifelong income of those employees. It is a no-win situation for small employers that are trying to take care of their employees and grow their business. I always say to learn from the mistakes of others as there is not time enough to make them all yourself. This regulation has been tried before. We have precedent to look to when examining the impact this rule will have on our economy. A very similar change was made in the United Kingdom just a few years ago, but this March the United Kingdom released a study which confirmed that there is a very disturbing retirement advice gap for low- and middle-income individuals, the very ones I am talking about that will be affected here in America. I have read how this administration--as well as some of my friends on the other side of the aisle--has said that rule is different than that issued by the United Kingdom. Here is the thing: it is not all that different. The impact will be the same, and this is what has happened: Wealthy individuals are getting access to retirement advice while middle- and lower income individuals are not. I have not understood, nor will I understand, why this regulation was put forward and finalized. The Department of Labor itself admitted on February 29 that relatively little is known about how people make planning and financial decisions before and during retirement, but that didn't stop them. The Department of Labor, which is the proponent of this rule, does not know how people make financial and planning decisions before and during retirement. Why would they go ahead with such a disastrous regulation? Why should such a seemingly disastrous regulation be put forward when it is unknown how many people it will affect? Perhaps they should start by finding out how average people make investment and retirement savings decisions. The regulation we are debating today has been lauded as one that will help low- and middle-income individuals save for retirement. I refute that claim with two main points. First, an analysis of a very similar change to a retirement system has proven that the opposite has occurred. Second, the authors of this regulation know little or nothing about how many people this will impact or even in what ways. People who give investment advice give it just fine right now, but they can see what is coming. That is why they have been to my office and visited with me about what they are going to have to do with the people who come to them for investment advice--or the people they want to provide services to. There will likely be unintended consequences of this new regulation, and as we have seen those will likely be painful consequences. As I stated in the beginning of my remarks, we have a retirement coverage gap in America. I have been working for almost 20 years in the Senate to help close that gap. All this new regulation will do is limit retirement advice for the people who need it the most. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution of disapproval. I yield the floor.