Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record Senator Alexander's opening statement that he delivered yesterday at the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I would like to say a few words to send best wishes to a good friend of mine on her next adventure, LoLeta Marie ``Leta'' Record Tanner. I recently learned that Leta will be moving to Texas from our great State of Wyoming to live with her son. While I am overjoyed that she can be with her family, I am deeply saddened that Wyoming will no longer be the physical home to such a dedicated, strong, and loving person. Leta was born in Gillette, WY, in 1930. She graduated from Campbell County High School and then traveled to Denver, where she graduated from a small community college. A dedicated public servant and Wyomingite through and through, Leta served for more than 15 years in the Campbell County Assessor's office and district court and 12 years as a member of the Gillette City Council. She also worked for former Wyoming Senator Al Simpson for 10 years, both in his northeast State office and in Washington, DC. While her political career alone is impressive, Leta was always involved and giving her time to Wyoming. Leta is a dedicated member of the ranching community and the community at large as a member of Campbell County Cattle Women, Campbell County Wool Growers Auxiliary, and a member of Women in Business, just to name a few. She loved nothing more than working on the ranch with her family, and has worked tirelessly to support the next generation in agriculture. In 2002, Leta was the Campbell County Woman of distinction. She has done many wonderful things for the Gillette community and the State of Wyoming. She has been a generous supporter of family-oriented performance at the Cam-Plex Heritage Center in Gillette since 1996. In 2013, her donation to Gillette College in support of their Agriculture Education Center and Rodeo complex made it a reality. This state of the art facility features an indoor rodeo practice area, classroom, lab, and 20-stall loafing sheds. It is quite possible that, without Leta's support, this world-class facility and many other projects would not have come to fruition. The dorms at Gillette College will forever bear the name Tanner Village. Her willingness to help the community grow and thrive will never be forgotten. I am reminded of a few words my mother taught me: ``Do what's right. Do what's best. Treat others as you'd wish to be treated.'' Leta certainly embodied these principles and will continue to do so. Although she will be leaving our great State, Leta's legacy will live on and continue to be an example of just what is possible for Wyomingites of all ages. Leta, thank you for your years of tireless service to Wyoming. Diana joins me in sending our best wishes to you and your family. Stay in touch. Wyoming will always be your home. Thank you and God bless.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 20l9, P.L. 116- 37, included an instruction to the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget to file allocations, aggregates, and budgetary levels in the Senate between April 15, 2020, and May 15, 2020. Today, I rise to submit the required filing to fulfill that instruction. Specifically, section 205 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 requires the chairman to file: (1) allocations for fiscal year 2021 for the Committee on Appropriations; (2) allocations for fiscal years 2021, 2021 through 2025, and 2021 through 2030 for committees other than the Committee on Appropriations; (3) aggregate spending levels for fiscal year 2021; (4) aggregate revenue levels for fiscal year 2021, 2021 through 2025, and 2021 through 2030; and (5) aggregate levels of outlays and revenue for fiscal years 2021, 2021 through 2025, and 2021 through 2030 for Social Security. The figures included in this filing are consistent with the discretionary spending limits set forth in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 and the Congressional Budget Office's March 2020 baseline, as adjusted to reflect legislation enacted since the publication of the baseline. Enforceable figures in this filing exclude the direct budgetary effects of provisions in legislation enacted after the release of the baseline that were designated as an emergency pursuant to section 4112 of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 71, 115th Congress, which excludes those effects from calculations related to sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In instances where enforceable discretionary levels are required to be adjusted for spending designated as an emergency pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, those adjustments are included. In addition to the update for enforceable limits above, section 205 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 allows for the deficit-neutral reserve funds included in title III of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution to be updated by 3 fiscal years. Pursuant to this authority, all deficit-neutral reserve funds in the aforementioned title of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution are updated and available for use. For purposes of enforcing the Senate's, pay-as-you-go rule, which is found in section 4106 of the fiscal year 2018 congressional budget resolution, I am resetting the Senate's scorecard to zero for all fiscal years. All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables detailing enforcement in the Senate be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Senate recently considered three measures that were signed into law to combat the coronavirus. These measures, the Family First Coronavirus Response Act, P.L. 116-127; the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, P.L. 116-136; and the Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, P.L. 116-139, provided supplemental emergency appropriations to support activities related to public health and response to the coronavirus that qualify for cap adjustments under section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. The Family First Coronavirus Response Act included emergency appropriations totaling $82 million in revised security budget authority and $2,389 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority. The Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that these appropriations will result in $843 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act included emergency appropriations totaling $10,525 million in revised security budget authority and $319,158 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority. CBO estimates that these appropriations will result in $98,789 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. The Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act included emergency appropriations totaling $162,100 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority. CBO estimates that these appropriations will result in $113,132 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. As a result of the emergency designations, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $10,607 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $483,647 million and outlays by $212,764 million in fiscal year 2020. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2020 by $494,072 million in budget authority and $212,655 million in outlays. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, today I come to the floor to talk about the plight of America's small businesses, to talk about the plight of their owners, to talk about the plight of their employees. As a former small business owner myself, I am here to plead their case and reiterate how important it is that Congress helps them and helps them now. Small businesses are an important part of our American economy that help our country and its inhabitants to thrive, and they employ millions of people. Here is what Congress has done so far in response to the coronavirus crisis: We had package No. 1. It was $8 billion. Around here, that used to be a big number--$8 billion for healthcare. Then we did package 2, and that beefed up the healthcare needs and other things. I should mention that that package was put together by the House without input from the Senate. It was put together by Democrats without Republican input. We in the Senate saw the crisis, and even though Republicans saw things they did not want and things that were missing, the bill passed in 1 day without amendments. We held our nose and swallowed. We recognized the urgency of the situation. Now a package has been put together through task groups with equal representation from both sides of the aisle, and it is being decried as a Republican bill. This package is to take care of the second wave of disaster--the disaster of unemployment--massive unemployment--caused by government caution. Government caution is saving lives, but it is putting people out of work. The virus has closed businesses which, in turn, lay off employees. It has closed schools. It has changed every aspect of our daily lives, and it has left people isolated. It has put a strain on healthcare workers and first responders. It has done it in what was a strong and growing economy Why isn't there more concern for the employees out of work? Why haven't we already done at least the parts of this bill that give nongovernment employees some comfort and hope? The main reason is government can't identify with the small businessman. No one in Congress has to be concerned about how to pay his or her employees. That is the first place government money goes, even if government doesn't have any. Government employees--our staffs--know they have a job and they will be paid. Employees in the private sector don't have any confidence in their next paycheck in this new turmoil. Many have been laid off. They have lost their paycheck. They have lost their health benefits. The schools and daycare have closed. Their world has been upended. They went from a bright future to unemployed in a couple of weeks. Congress can't even imagine their dilemma. Congress is immune economically. A small business doesn't exist for the government; it exists in spite of the government. Someone with a lot of guts, determination, and what they think is a good idea had the gumption to start a business. They take risks without guarantees. Many folks, without any help from Congress, launched new businesses to sell their products or services and were successful enough to hire employees. At that point, they built a business family. Successful small businesses work in that way. They know their employees and share a sense of pride for helping to provide for them. They often know the family of the employee. Usually, they work side by side with those employees. They share their joys and their sorrows. But in contrast to government, they have to sell something of value. They have to make a profit or they have no money to pay employees. None of them like to lay off employees, but we have built a backstop of unemployment so that the employees can still get some money. However, the owner of the business doesn't have that backstop. The owner of the business would rather be employing his people. But here is the dilemma we have for our small businesses, and it is unprecedented: Government has effectively taken their customers away. Government, to protect people from the virus, has virtually closed down everything but grocery stores, hospitals, and clinics. Government has even recommended curtailing nonessential medical services if they are not for addressing the virus or some other life-or-death situation. But the real sector that has been hurt is the employees in the small business sector, through no fault of their own nor any fault of the person managing the business. Government has taken their jobs away. Answers are available and have been worked out by a group of equal number from both parties, but we continue to be stopped in our efforts. I sincerely hope this is not about bringing down the President or someone trying to take advantage of a crisis in order to gain political achievements otherwise not possible. I gave a speech last Friday about the way to save the employees of small businesses. The package was ready then. That employee retention package is part of what has been held up since Sunday. Yes, we stayed through the weekend to get a solution before the markets opened on Monday, but it was voted down. In record time, we accepted a Democratic bill written in the House last week without any amendments. Now a bipartisan product has been held up. For what? Some of the demands of those across the aisle have nothing to do with the virus. There are demands for climate change. The economic climate has changed and is changing daily, and they want to wedge in some ideas they know would fail standing alone. I have always said the best legislation is step-by-step legislation, but we always try to be comprehensive. Maybe that is so that it is incomprehensible and too big for anyone to understand or know. Now, here is how the small business employee retention part works: Businesses across America are shut down or considering shutting down. Many businesses don't have any sales. No sales, no money--no money to pay employees or other bills that come due. Every truly small business owner has that experience of sitting straight up in bed in the middle of the night and saying: Payroll is coming. Payday is coming. Do I have enough cash to pay my employees? That comes with a decrease in sales. But this time many businesses are faced with no business--no business--and not through a fault of their own. So the only controllable variable is employees. They can lay off employees to cut costs. If employees get laid off, they can file for unemployment, but they lose their health insurance at a time health expenses could be imminent. Most people in government can't appreciate this dilemma. It is happening in the business world. In fact, the lines at some unemployment offices are so long, they discourage filing. And the rule about keeping safe distance? Wow. In this instance, the government has essentially shut down many businesses, eliminating their sales and eliminating their cash to pay employees. For small business, their bank says: I am sorry. I can't loan you any money because you don't have any sales, and you can't pay me back. Government doesn't have to file bankruptcy, but small businesses do. The owner probably also has to pay rent, heat, and utilities, to name a few essentials. But their main concern is with employees. They need employees. They need trained employees. When they lay off their loyal, trusted employees, they can't be sure they can get them back later. So this bill has a solution, and I congratulate the people who worked on it. One of them has joined me here on the floor, Senator Shaheen. Senator Cardin worked on it. This bill has a solution. While Congress continues to negotiate it, here is the direction it is heading: The Federal Government will loan the businesses the money to pay their employees, provided they don't lay them off and they rehire the ones who have been laid off. The employees keep their jobs and their health insurance, even if the business is closed down. When things come back to more normal, if the owner has been keeping all of his employees, that part of the money that they got is forgiven. They are back in business. They have the skilled employees they had, and business can continue to pay the employees. That part of the bill alone generally takes care of employees of any business with less than 500 employees--yes, even 1 employee, which would be many businesses based in my home State of Wyoming. In Wyoming there are a lot of communities that do not even have 500 residents. We are a State made up of small towns, some of which have only one or two businesses. And in my State, hundreds are or could be laid off each day. Provisions to stop that are an important part of the bill. Another part of the bill helps those whose business is gone. In cases in which the pay retention for employees doesn't work, the unemployment has been increased up to $600 a week in addition to the normal unemployment benefits. And to keep things intact during the transition, the bill provides direct payment to every taxpayer of $1,200 if making less than $75,000 or $2,400 if filing jointly and making less than $150,000 combined. Plus there will be $500 for each child in the family. That is to tide people over while the other relief kicks in. But it shouldn't take long for the employer retention part to kick in, as all of the structure is in place now. Any community bank, any lending institution, can give the loan to a small business without having to check collateral or any of the other cumbersome steps to normally getting a loan, and the lender is guaranteed by the Federal Government. Loans to others. You have heard about big businesses that have lost their customers in response to the virus. Generally, if they have over 500 employees, they are ineligible for the employee retention piece, but there are loans quickly available. There are no grants for big companies, just loans, and the companies are prohibited from using the money to buy back stock and are also prohibited from pay increases or bonuses to managers. The loans are at market rate with no forgiveness. They will have to be paid back. This is a lifeline to keep jobs. There is money available to State and local governments--$186 billion. For hospitals there is another $75 billion; for veterans, $20 billion; another $11 billion for vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics; $4.5 billion more for the Centers for Disease Control, in addition to what was done before; $12 billion for K-12 education; $10 billion for airports; $20 billion for public transportation. These and other solutions have been held up by the Democrats. Every single Democrat has voted against cloture so far. They say they need more time to negotiate. They promise an agreement is imminent. My colleagues across the aisle have used Senate procedures to unnecessarily drag this out. Let me describe the Senate process and how long it can take to get a final product. It can be necessary to get three clotures. That means a vote supported by at least 60 Senators. Anyone absent counts as a no vote. Neither party has 60 Members. So the minority has great power. Many votes from their side are necessary. Anyone who is sick from the virus and cannot be here counts as a no vote. If the virus hits Congress harder, it will be harder for us to even function. So we can't wait. Back to how cloture works and why it takes so long, bills can be delayed in the Senate almost a week if even one person doesn't like it. That is what is happening now, except it is a lot more than one person. A shell bill from the House has been put up to conform to a constitutional rule that spending bills have to originate in the House. What we have been voting on isn't even the real bill. It is a shell. A motion to proceed to the bill has to be by unanimous consent or have cloture filed. If 60 Senators vote for cloture, then there can be 30 hours of debate on whether we should take up the real issue. To actually get to amend the bill takes another 60 votes, to allow amendments and another 30 hours, unless everybody agrees. After amendments are finished or if there is a feeling that we could be moving on without unanimous consent, there would be a final vote to close off debate. That would also take 60 votes. So the need to have leverage before the first cloture vote on the shell in order to negotiate just doesn't cut it, with the first vote or the second vote and the expenditure of 30 hours between each vote. That is why we stayed around and voted on Sunday, so maybe we could get the first 30 hours out of the way while negotiations went on and then get to the bill and then get to the amendments. My colleagues across the aisle are using this process to forward their agenda even for issues unrelated to this crisis. We are not doing climate change as part of this emergency bill. Everything should have a direct connection to the coronavirus. Rome is burning and Congress is fiddling. This bill should take care of our country's inhabitants and communities. Protections for small businesses, their owners, and employers are vital and an important piece of this response. I implore everyone to vote for cloture. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the leader. I want to thank him for all of his efforts to pull these task forces together who are now working across the aisle to come up with this package that we should be able to start working on today or tomorrow. I appreciate his comments that we are going to work through the weekend. This is unusual for the Senate and for the House, but the Senate is here, the Senate is working, and we are trying to come up with solutions that will keep America moving. I particularly want to talk about one piece of the package because I have been getting calls from small businesses--small businesses that are saying: We have been shut down; we have been told that we can't do anything with our business right now. Now, it is not all businesses. I do know that grocery stores are doing very well, probably having their best year ever. That will tail off a little later in the year, when people are oversupplied, but right now grocery stores are probably doing well. Every other part of the economy is doing poorly, whether it is restaurants or shoe stores. I think I saw where they even got permission now to deliver liquor. Before, you had to buy it in the store. You couldn't get it delivered to your house. But, it is a concession, because of the difficulty that we are having, to keep from shutting down every business. That concession has been made in some places now. But my point is that small business employs most of the people in this country, and small business is the one that is having difficulty right now. Big businesses always have a little bit of leeway, a little bit more of a forward plan, and because of their size, they have more flexibility. A small business does not have that. What has been brought to my attention this last week are people who have payroll coming up. They have said: Now, we have been kind of shut down--shut down by the government, they like to say, but it is shut down by the virus, actually. The virus is what is creating this panic, and in order to keep people well, we have suggested all these different things that people ought to be doing, and I hope they are following that. But, for small business, this is disastrous. If they are not selling anything, they have no cash to pay their employees. If they are not selling anything, they don't need the employees. If they don't need the employees and they fire the employees, then, they go onto unemployment. And the unemployment lines are long. That is not where we want people. We want people--particularly the ones who are trained for a particular job--to be available for that job the minute that job is available again. One of these packages takes care of that situation. One package will provide for loans to small businesses, provided they keep their people on. Now, remember, these people aren't producing anything. So there is no revenue coming in to pay that loan off. So it also provides that, provided they keep their employees and when the thing is over they still have their employees, the payroll part of that and any immediate need--there are other things that they absolutely have to pay. They have to pay their rent, or somebody else has a financial problem. They have to pay for the electricity and the heat and all of the regular things that a business has to pay for, besides employees. But, provided they have kept those employees on, those direct costs will be forgiven. So that is encouragement for every small business out there to relax a little bit. I always say that the definition of a small business is when the owner wakes up in the middle of the night and says: Tomorrow is payroll. How am I going to make payroll? Believe you me. That happens to those small business men out there. If you have a bad week, who doesn't get paid? The owner doesn't get paid. He has to pay those people, and he does pay those people because he wants those people around. That is the crisis we are facing: How do we keep those people around so that, when the business comes back, they are available and the business can go forward as it did in the past? This package will do that. I only wish that there was some way we could do it faster than Monday. And don't hold your breath. We are talking about Congress. That doesn't mean things will get done by Monday. They ought to be done today, but Monday looks like the earliest possible time that they can get done. So the message that I am giving is this: Small business men, hang on. Hang on a little bit longer. If this passes, you will be able to keep your employees. Their employees will be paid. That is important. That is the way to get money out into the economy: Pay employees, and let them keep their health insurance that way. If they go onto unemployment, they lose their health insurance. We don't want that to happen either So this is the solution that needs to happen right away for the employees, as well as the employers. I had a call from one this week who said: I have to declare bankruptcy. If you do something, will I not be eligible because I declared bankruptcy? It is a reorganization bankruptcy, but I need to reorganize so I can find the cash to pay my employees. So I am pretty sure that the bill has a stipulation in it that, if you declare bankruptcy after March 1, you will be eligible for this plan and be able to keep your business going--not in a comfortable situation, because none of us knows when this is all going to be over. None of us knows what the residual effects are going to be on the business world. But we do need to have a vibrant business world out there providing for the needs of people. We have really become reliant on others. Hardly any of us produce our own food anymore. Hardly any of us produce anything that we use anymore. We could and we can--and people probably are--just get by, but that is not what we are used to. That is not what we expect. That is not how we live. That is not how we enjoy life. We enjoy it by being able to have a job and buy the things that we need to have and do the recreation that we want to do. So I am hoping that this package can go through in an expedited way, and I am particularly hopeful that the small business part, which is where most of the people in the United States work, can go through so that they can be paid, so that they can keep their insurance, and so that they are ready to do what they have been trained to do and want to do and like to do when the time comes that this virus has passed and people can be out there doing all of the things that they like to do again. So I encourage the small business men to hold on. Help is coming. That is pretty tough to hear from Congress, I am sure, but this is one where I think people are realizing the severity and the importance of speed and how many people there are. Well, I don't think we have quite grasped how many people yet are involved in this and could be saved by this, but we will. I ask that the businesses hang on while we do our job, and I thank the Senate for staying through the weekend to work this problem so that we can do it in a timely manner--hopefully, by Monday. Hang on out there, America. Help is on the way. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate a statement in support of Sunshine Week, an annual event that spotlights the key need of a government-transparency. Without openness and access to how all levels of government spend tax dollars or make key decisions, accountability and oversight will lack. Where transparency is lacking, waste, fraud, and duplication tend to proliferate. The Government Accountability Office-GAO-regularly cites ``lack of transparency'' as a chronic problem across many agencies and programs. This can have serious consequences. This causes increased taxpayer spending and improper payments. This hinders competition. In turn, a lack of transparency can affect everything from public health to our national defense. Given the profound and far-reaching impacts of Federal programs and policies, the people need to know how their tax dollars are being spent. Without access to reliable, accurate information, how can we be sure good decisions are being made when it comes to spending the tax dollars of hard-working families? Sure that the policies we craft in this Chamber are working as intended? Sure that our limited resources go where they are needed most? Sure that the programs we create aren't causing harm? Well that is why, as the chairman of the Budget Committee, I have focused the last several years on enhancing transparency and improving both the quality and quantity of data available for all decisionmakers. I am extremely gratified that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, along with key organizations and experts, so often join these efforts. One step in the right direction is the Senate Budget Committee has started to publish regular scorekeeping reports. These are available for the public on the committee's website and track the budgetary impact of legislation approved by Congress against current spending levels. This helps provide other committees, Members of Congress, and taxpayers with ongoing updates about the fiscal implications of recently agreed upon legislation. In addition, there are obviously many unknowns when it comes to agencies implementing the laws and programs already on the books. To address this concern, I led a bipartisan group of 15 Senators last July, along with Senator Lankford, to urge the White House Office of Management and Budget to make a complete list of all Federal programs publicly available in a central, governmentwide website. This would help to identify and eliminate program waste and duplication. Because, believe it or not, there is no comprehensive list of each and every program the Federal Government funds. It still isn't available. The fact that legislators and taxpayers don't even know how many programs we have or what they do is troubling, particularly as we continue to create and fund new ones. In the past, GAO has identified massive amounts of duplication across the Federal Government, including more than 12 programs on financial literacy, 160 Federal housing assistance programs or activities, 94 green building initiatives, 253 crime prevention programs, 14 diesel emission reduction programs, 45 early learning and child care programs, and 163 STEM programs. Most recently, GAO's 2019 annual report on duplication found six different government programs engaged in quantum computing research. Clearly, all of these programs could be improved by some basic coordination or consolidation. This simple inventory has been on the to-do list for almost a decade. There have been previous attempts, but those have fallen short. We will continue working with GAO and OMB until the list is actually published. Most importantly, last fall, I joined with Senator Whitehouse to introduce bipartisan budget process reform legislation--the first bipartisan budget reforms approved by the Senate Budget Committee since 1990. The Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act would increase transparency in the congressional budget process in a number of ways-- by having Congress develop a fiscal plan that is easy to understand and offers the public a chance to view if Congress is living within its means, encouraging other committees to review the programs in their jurisdiction that are in most need of review, directing both GAO and the Congressional Budget Office to review program portfolios-portfolios are groups of programs with similar efforts. This has to be done on an ongoing basis. But that is not all the bill would do. We also need to require CBO to review and report to Congress on the accuracy of its past projections and cost estimates, along with an annual plan outlining their efforts to enhance transparency. We need to make public the information underlying cost estimates of major legislation and reports related to the debt-to-GDP ratio agreed upon in the budget resolution. We need to require CBO to provide more information to help better understand the true costs of our actions by including projected interest costs in estimates for mandatory spending programs, revenue changes, and supplemental appropriations bills. We need CBO to include 10 years of cost estimates for spending subject to appropriations, doubling the current practice of 5 years. We need to bring budget gimmicks into the light. CBO would have to produce public estimates of appropriations legislation that include the costs associated with doling out money before the revenue comes in. We should expose gimmicks like budget bait and switch. In Washington, we like to say that ``sunlight is the best disinfectant,'' and that is true, but sunlight does far more than disinfect. It lights the way. Opening the books and reforming the budget process will help make us better equipped to face the enormous fiscal challenges looming just ahead.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Senate will soon consider H.R. 6074, the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020. This measure provides supplemental appropriations to support activities related to public health and response to the coronavirus that qualify for cap adjustments under current statute. This measure includes $7,767 million in budget authority that is designated as being for emergency purposes pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. The entirety of this budget authority falls within the revised nonsecurity category. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these appropriations will result in $1,041 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. As a result of the emergency designations, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised nonsecurity budget authority by $7,767 million and outlays by $1,041 million in fiscal year 2020. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2020 by equivalent amounts. 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, reserving the right to object, if this unanimous consent were passed without a vote or even debate, that would become law. Passage of this request could infringe on the constitutional right of my constituents and many others across the United States. I believe firmly that would be the case and could even result in criminal charges against law-abiding firearms owners. So I object.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for February 2020. This is my fourth scorekeeping report since I filed the deemed budget resolution for fiscal year 2020 on September 9, 2019, as required by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, BBA19. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts agreed to in BBA19. In the Senate, this information is used to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act, CBA. The information included in this report is current through February 21, 2020. Since I filed the last scorekeeping report on January 15, 2020, only one measure was enacted with significant budgetary effects. On January 29, 2020, the President signed H.R. 5430, the United States-Mexico- Canada Agreement--USMCA--Implementation Act, into law. The measure implemented the USMCA and affected both revenue and spending. According to CBO, the USMCA Implementation Act will decrease direct spending outlays by $74 million over 10 years and increase revenues by nearly $3 billion over the same period. Direct spending effects are largely attributable to the act's provisions related to the dairy industry, while revenues are expected to increase due to higher receipts from tariffs on motor vehicles and parts. The USMCA Implementation Act also included $843 million in discretionary appropriations, designated as emergency spending, for Federal agencies to execute the agreement. Budget Committee Republican staff prepared tables A-D. Table A gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or falls below its allocations for budget authority and outlays under the fiscal year 2020 deemed budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. Legislation enacted since the enactment of BBA19 has resulted in six authorizing committees being in breach of their allocations. The direct spending effects of the USMCA Implementation Act were credited to the Finance Committee, which continues to violate its allocation over all enforceable periods. In total, authorizing committees have breached outlay limitations by more than $29 billion over the 2020 through 2029 period. Table B provides the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds the statutory spending limits. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. The table shows that the Appropriations Committee is compliant with spending limits for current the fiscal year. Those limits for regular discretionary spending are $666.5 billion for accounts in the defense category and $621.5 billion for accounts in the nondefense category of spending. The 2018 budget resolution contained points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs, CHIMPs, in appropriations bills. Table C, which tracks the CHIMP limit of $15 billion for 2020, shows the Appropriations Committee has complied with the CHIMP limit for this fiscal year. Table D provides the amount of budget authority enacted for 2020 that has been designated as either for an emergency or for overseas contingency operations, OCO, pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. Funding that receives either of these designations results in cap adjustments to enforceable discretionary spending limits. There is no limit on either emergency or overseas contingency operations spending; however, any Senator may challenge the designation with a point of order to strike the designation on the floor. The addition of $843 million in emergency-designated funds from P.L. 116-113 brings total emergency and OCO spending to $88.9 billion for the 2020 appropriations cycle. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by Congress. CBO provided a spending and revenue report for 2020, Table 1, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. The current level is now in excess of allowable levels by $15.4 billion for budget authority and $1.7 billion for outlays in 2020. Details on 2020 levels can be found in CBO's second table. Current-law revenues are currently below enforceable levels for all enforcement periods. Revenues are currently $34.4 billion, $150 billion, and $383.2 billion lower than assumed in the deemed budget resolution for 2020, 2020 through 2024, and 2020 through 2029, respectively. Social Security spending levels are consistent with the budget resolution's figures for 2020; however, Social Security revenue levels are $15 million below assumed levels. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule, Table 3. This rule is enforced under section 4106 of the 2018 budget resolution. The Senate PAYGO scorecard currently shows an enacted deficit decrease of $984 million in 2020, but enacted deficit increases of $361 million and $2.2 billion over the 2019-2024 and 2019-2029 periods, respectively. The deficit effects of the USMCA Implementation Act do not include the amounts designated as supplemental appropriations because those amounts are recorded as discretionary spending, which is not recorded on the Senate's PAYGO scorecard. This submission also includes a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the enforcement filing on September 9, 2019. Since my last filing, one point of order was raised. On January 16, 2020, Senator Toomey raised a point of order against the emergency designations in the supplemental appropriations title of the USMCA Implementation Act. That point of order was waived by a vote of 78-21. 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. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Chief Financial Officer Vision Act of 2020, shortened to be the CFO Vision Act of 2020. I am pleased to have Senators Warner, Grassley, Johnson, Lankford, and Perdue join me as cosponsors of this bill to strengthen Federal financial management and improve financial and performance data. Improved financial management--this is numbers; I know this puts people to sleep--improved financial management and better data can help us make more informed budget decisions and ensure that taxpayer money is wisely and appropriately spent. Effective financial management helps to safeguard taxpayer money and ensure that it is used lawfully, efficiently, and effectively for the purposes intended. Thirty years ago, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, known as the CFO Act. This law laid a new foundation for Federal financial management. It established a financial management leadership structure, provided for long-range planning, required audited financial statements, and strengthened accountability reporting, among other reforms. The CFO Act also called for improvements in the integration of agency accounting and financial management systems, in performance measurement and cost information, and in our financial management workforce. Since enactment of that act, we have seen substantial improvements in Federal financial management. Today, agencies have CFOs in place to provide leadership and accountability over financial operations, and most agencies receive clean audit opinions on their annual financial statements. However, serious and persistent problems remain. Many agencies have struggled to modernize legacy accounting systems and are unable to integrate their financial and performance data. Oftentimes, the Federal Government is unable to show the relationship between dollars spent and results achieved. After more than 20 years of trying, the Government Accountability Office still cannot give an opinion on the Federal Government's consolidated financial statements. They cite serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, among other issues. The legislation we are introducing would update that 1990 law in a handful of key ways to ensure sustained progress in improving Federal financial management. It is based in large part on a GAO--Government Accountability Office--review of the 1990 law and testimony last October from the Comptroller General of the United States, Gene Dodaro, before the Senate Budget Committee. First, the CFO Vision Act would standardize CFO and Deputy Chief Financial Officer responsibilities, which do vary across Federal agencies. To allow for better strategic decision making, the Chief Financial Officer Vision Act would specify that the Chief Financial Officer responsibilities should include budget formulation and execution, planning and performance, risk management and internal controls, financial systems, and accounting. The bill would also ensure that the Deputy Chief Financial Officers could provide continuity in the event of a Chief Financial Officer vacancy. Major financial management improvement initiatives can take years to implement, potentially outlasting the CFO's tenure. By establishing appropriate statutory responsibilities for the Deputy Chief Financial Officers, the bill would help minimize the effects of the CFO turnover. Secondly, the bill would update the governmentwide and agency-level planning requirements to ensure they are reasonable and allow for proper planning and monitoring. The updated plans would include projected milestones and estimated implementation costs. Annual status updates would allow Congress to track progress toward these milestones and how closely actual costs match those that were projected. Third, the CFO Vision Act would require the Office of Management and Budget to develop performance-based metrics to determine the status and progress of agencies and how they are making progress toward achieving cost-effective and efficient government operations. Currently, only limited financial management performance-based metrics exist, such as the financial statement audit opinion and reporting of identified material weaknesses. All accountants understand these terms. Currently, only limited financial management performance-based metrics exist, such as the financial statement audit opinion and the reporting of identified material weaknesses. I could say that a third time, and still people wouldn't understand it. This new requirement would provide a more complete and consistent measurement of the quality of the agencies' financial management. These performance metrics would be required to be included in the governmentwide and agency-level financial management plans and status reports. That means we will have more information to work with. Finally, our bill would require agency management to annually assess and report on the effectiveness of internal control--whether they are really keeping track of everything and ensuring that it is correct--the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and other key financial management information. Auditors would also be required to independently assess internal controls. Such assessments will improve confidence in the reliability of financial reporting. The CFO Vision Act builds on the CFO Act's foundation. By updating it, we can achieve more effective financial management, which I believe will ultimately lead to increased accountability and results and understanding by the Senators. I am pleased that our bill has been endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union, the Project on Government Oversight, the DATA Coalition, the R Street Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, Truth in Accounting, and Taxpayers for Common Sense. I think that means that there are accountants on the boards of all of those. This shouldn't be a controversial piece of legislation. It just should be an essential update so we know what is happening with the trillions of dollars that we are allocating, spending, and checking up on. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Chief Financial Officer Vision Act of 2020, shortened to be the CFO Vision Act of 2020. I am pleased to have Senators Warner, Grassley, Johnson, Lankford, and Perdue join me as cosponsors of this bill to strengthen Federal financial management and improve financial and performance data. Improved financial management--this is numbers; I know this puts people to sleep--improved financial management and better data can help us make more informed budget decisions and ensure that taxpayer money is wisely and appropriately spent. Effective financial management helps to safeguard taxpayer money and ensure that it is used lawfully, efficiently, and effectively for the purposes intended. Thirty years ago, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, known as the CFO Act. This law laid a new foundation for Federal financial management. It established a financial management leadership structure, provided for long-range planning, required audited financial statements, and strengthened accountability reporting, among other reforms. The CFO Act also called for improvements in the integration of agency accounting and financial management systems, in performance measurement and cost information, and in our financial management workforce. Since enactment of that act, we have seen substantial improvements in Federal financial management. Today, agencies have CFOs in place to provide leadership and accountability over financial operations, and most agencies receive clean audit opinions on their annual financial statements. However, serious and persistent problems remain. Many agencies have struggled to modernize legacy accounting systems and are unable to integrate their financial and performance data. Oftentimes, the Federal Government is unable to show the relationship between dollars spent and results achieved. After more than 20 years of trying, the Government Accountability Office still cannot give an opinion on the Federal Government's consolidated financial statements. They cite serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, among other issues. The legislation we are introducing would update that 1990 law in a handful of key ways to ensure sustained progress in improving Federal financial management. It is based in large part on a GAO--Government Accountability Office--review of the 1990 law and testimony last October from the Comptroller General of the United States, Gene Dodaro, before the Senate Budget Committee. First, the CFO Vision Act would standardize CFO and Deputy Chief Financial Officer responsibilities, which do vary across Federal agencies. To allow for better strategic decision making, the Chief Financial Officer Vision Act would specify that the Chief Financial Officer responsibilities should include budget formulation and execution, planning and performance, risk management and internal controls, financial systems, and accounting. The bill would also ensure that the Deputy Chief Financial Officers could provide continuity in the event of a Chief Financial Officer vacancy. Major financial management improvement initiatives can take years to implement, potentially outlasting the CFO's tenure. By establishing appropriate statutory responsibilities for the Deputy Chief Financial Officers, the bill would help minimize the effects of the CFO turnover. Secondly, the bill would update the governmentwide and agency-level planning requirements to ensure they are reasonable and allow for proper planning and monitoring. The updated plans would include projected milestones and estimated implementation costs. Annual status updates would allow Congress to track progress toward these milestones and how closely actual costs match those that were projected. Third, the CFO Vision Act would require the Office of Management and Budget to develop performance-based metrics to determine the status and progress of agencies and how they are making progress toward achieving cost-effective and efficient government operations. Currently, only limited financial management performance-based metrics exist, such as the financial statement audit opinion and reporting of identified material weaknesses. All accountants understand these terms. Currently, only limited financial management performance-based metrics exist, such as the financial statement audit opinion and the reporting of identified material weaknesses. I could say that a third time, and still people wouldn't understand it. This new requirement would provide a more complete and consistent measurement of the quality of the agencies' financial management. These performance metrics would be required to be included in the governmentwide and agency-level financial management plans and status reports. That means we will have more information to work with. Finally, our bill would require agency management to annually assess and report on the effectiveness of internal control--whether they are really keeping track of everything and ensuring that it is correct--the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and other key financial management information. Auditors would also be required to independently assess internal controls. Such assessments will improve confidence in the reliability of financial reporting. The CFO Vision Act builds on the CFO Act's foundation. By updating it, we can achieve more effective financial management, which I believe will ultimately lead to increased accountability and results and understanding by the Senators. I am pleased that our bill has been endorsed by the National Taxpayers Union, the Project on Government Oversight, the DATA Coalition, the R Street Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, Truth in Accounting, and Taxpayers for Common Sense. I think that means that there are accountants on the boards of all of those. This shouldn't be a controversial piece of legislation. It just should be an essential update so we know what is happening with the trillions of dollars that we are allocating, spending, and checking up on. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Dan Flavin, a Government Accountability Office detailee on the Budget Committee, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I suspect I couldn't have come to the floor at a better time. The President's budget did come out today. It consists of a set of documents a foot high. In my opinion, the whole pile should be replaced with a list from the President of what he thinks are pretty good ideas to do this year. I want to encourage people, including the Senator from Ohio, not to waste any time searching out the President's budget cuts. Nobody has listened to the President in the 23 years that I have been here. Congress doesn't pay attention to the President's budget exercise. I don't know why we put him through that. That is all it is. Congress holds the pursestrings, according to the Constitution. Congress is very protective of that constitutional authority. If you don't believe me, watch all the rhetoric that comes out on the President's budget. I am hoping that I hear something positive on it, but it is pretty hard to find anything positive with the funding situation that we are in. I do have to take issue with something that was just said here, that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act hasn't worked. It has worked. Now, a very important thing for everybody to know: The problem that we are in right now with our deficits doesn't have to do with the dollars that are coming in. The first year after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we took in more revenue than ever before. More people had jobs. More people were paying taxes. Companies were paying more taxes. They were doing more business. That results in more taxes. So, that first year, we got more money than we had ever had to spend before. The second year, we had more money than the first year. We keep getting more money to spend. The problem is we have no control over our urge to spend. Since CBO's June 2019 Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congress has passed and the President has signed legislation that would add more than $2 trillion to our national debt over the next 10 years. That is how we are spending. The increased spending caps from the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 are responsible for $1.7 trillion of that $2.1 trillion. It does include interest costs, but that is what we have to pay any time we have a debt. That $1.7 trillion passed with no debate. There was a budget point of order. I had established a budget point of order, which takes 60 votes. I missed by four being able to stop that. We can't spend that way. But that isn't the President's budget. That is our budget. Over the next few days, you will hear lots of complaints about the President's budget. Seldom will anybody mention anything good, and it has been that way for every President. You will hear lots of terrible things about the President's budget. You won't hear anything positive. In the present political atmosphere, you probably will not learn anything from the comments. Little of a positive nature is getting any coverage in Washington these days. Recently, I went to a hearing on the dangers of youth vaping. It turned into a diatribe about President Trump. Presidents' budgets, regardless of what President, are a chance for Members not in his party to beat up verbally on whoever is President. For that reason, I didn't hold a hearing on President Obama's last budget, and I will not be holding one on this President's budget for that reason. Let me repeat that. Because it turns into a diatribe against the President, I did not hold a hearing on President Obama's last budget, and, for that same reason, I am not going to hold a hearing on this President's budget. If you want the animosity of a budget hearing, the House of Representatives will have the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, for a hearing this Wednesday. You can take that in and get your dose of animosity if you want. It will be a chance for the House to ask loaded, venomous questions of the Director. The budget process is not working. The only thing of real value in any President's budget is our history of spending. That is what has already been done. We ought to look at that. We ought to see the mistakes that we have made, the way that we have piled up this debt. If Congress, for once, could spend a portion of the scrutiny they give to the President's projected cuts and, instead, look at the history of our spending, we might be able to gain ground. Yes, only cuts will be blasted, even though we never make cuts; we just keep spending. The official budget is done in the Senate and separately in the House and is only official if the House and Senate can reach agreement. When the two Chambers of Congress are opposite majorities, there is little chance for agreement. From history, I can assure you cuts will not be made. I can also assure you that seldom does any program get as big of an increase as the participants request, but that is changing. There is no spending constraint. There is seldom an attempt to find money to cover the costs, especially on new services that are dreamed up. I will do a budget. I will ask the Democrats to help put together a responsible budget, working with Republicans. That is really the only way it can work responsibly. What do I mean by ``responsibly''? The Budget Committee only sets limits on spending. A lot of people think that we dig into every detail and decide how much everybody is going to get. No. We set limits in a broad number of categories. It is the Appropriations Committee that allocates the specific dollars, but we always wind up spending beyond the limit set by the budget, even if a budget can be agreed on. How can that happen? When a spending bill or a spending idea comes to the Senate floor, the bill technically needs 60 votes to pass. To bust the budget limits also only takes 60 votes, so any idea or spending bill that is able to pass already, it already has the votes to bust the budget and put us deeper into debt. Congress also doesn't meet spending deadlines. If Congress passes a continuing resolution, which means we couldn't agree by the end of the fiscal year, the government stays open with permission to spend each month 1/12 of what it was allocated the previous year. That is what a continuing resolution does; it allows them to keep operating at what they had before. Continuing resolutions continue until both sides are able to negotiate what they want, but the new method of compromise is you can have everything you want as long as you will let me have everything I want. What kind of negotiation is that? Well, as I mentioned before, it is $1.7 trillion and one vote with no debate. Yeah. How would your Christmas shopping for your family work under those circumstances where everybody could have whatever they wanted? Wouldn't it even be worse if you were spending someone else's money for those Christmas presents? What if it appeared to be an unlimited supply of money? How long would that last? Of course, if a continuing resolution doesn't pass, the government is shut down. The employees are sent home. Federal public places are shut down and closed to the public. When agreement is finally reached, the employees come back. They are paid for the time they were off. They are way behind in their work, which hurts the economy when permits aren't released--and other things. We also have to pay lots of overtime to catch up for the time they were off. There are several proposals out there that could stop shutdowns and put pressure on Congress to get the spending job done on time. How long can we overspend? Well, interest, I think, is currently in the area of 2\1/2\ percent. If people lose confidence in the Federal Government, we will have to pay a higher interest rate in order to get the money to cover the debt. Yes, we have to pay the interest. If we default on the interest, the country defaults. If that interest rate were to go from the current 2\1/2\ percent to the normal 5 percent, we would only be able to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. You didn't hear me say anything about defense. You didn't hear me say anything about education. You didn't hear me say anything about infrastructure. You didn't hear me say anything except Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. That is what happens if people lose confidence in this, if they think we are overspending continually and that we don't intend to get control over it. I will tell you a few other things that you might not be aware of. Did you know that most Federal dollars are spent without Congress ever voting on it a second time? Those are called mandatory programs. Once a program is approved in the mandatory category, that spending is never voted on again. Worse yet, no one hardly ever looks at the program to see if it does what it was supposed to do. Nothing should be mandatory that doesn't have a source of revenue--that is, money--sufficient to fund it into the future. Do you know what that would amount to if we had that kind of rule on mandatory? Social Security no longer brings in as much money as we pay out. Medicare doesn't bring in the money that we pay out. Medicaid doesn't bring in the money that we pay out. In the mandatory programs, there are probably only about four that have a source of revenue to fund them. The rest all take money from the general fund, which means that the general fund doesn't really have any money for the discretionary things that we vote on--you know, that big fight we have once a year come October 1 to fund the rest of government--and mostly defense is in that category. I don't get invited to speak at many places. It is kind of depressing. But once the program is approved, mandatory spending is never voted on again, and no one looks at the program to see what it is supposed to do. They still get their annual money, even though some of these programs have expired. They had an expiration date, and we went past the expiration date, which means the program shouldn't exist anymore, but it does, and we continue to fund it, not only at its previous, expired level. We keep adding cost-of-living increases for it. Yes, it is probably needed, but what is the money really doing? No business would be in business if they didn't check even more than annually to see what is working effectively and eliminating those that aren't. We should be doing that task. When was the last time you saw a program eliminated around here? I have been here 23 years. Nope. Then there is the problem with program duplication. When I got to Washington, there were 119 preschool children's programs. Those are really important. If kids get the learning they need before they go to kindergarten, it makes a difference in the rest of their life--but 119 programs? Senator Kennedy and I worked together and merged quite a few of those. We eliminated some--so there are some programs that got eliminated--and we got that down to 45 programs. Five would probably do the job. We did pass an amendment to a bill that said that those had to be pared down to five programs, and that all of them had to be under the Department of Education. The reason we weren't able to get below 45 is because we didn't have jurisdiction over those in Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Those were all in other groups. In the area of housing, we have 160 programs--160 programs--and they are administered by 20 different agencies. So really, nobody is in charge. So nobody is setting goals. So nobody is checking to see if it is working. Nobody is checking to see if the program over here in one of those 20 is the same as the program over here in another one of the 20, which would allow them to be merged. Merging saves money. If you merge, you only need one director, instead of two, and you don't need all the assistants there were. You only need the assistants for one program, and the money that would be stuck in Washington can actually go to what we thought was going to get done. Every merger results in savings. Elimination results in more savings. How much better would it be to move the money to where the results are? The proposed budget reforms that Senator Whitehouse and I have worked on would provide for portfolio reviews. Here is how that works. Each committee would have to look at all of the programs, of the type that would be in their jurisdiction if it weren't handled in a bunch of other places. So those other places would have to look at the ones under their jurisdiction. If we can get that portfolio review, I think we would find that some of those areas where we are doing it time after time, mostly by just adding to Washington bureaucracy. We want the money out there where the problem is. We think we are solving problems, but we are not solving problems. We are just hiring more people in DC. We used to have a policy that the last person hired would be the first person fired and that resulted in an increase in government, too, because as soon as you got hired, you could expand your workload so you needed an assistant, and now you weren't the first in line to be fired. That has resulted in a lot of people working in Washington. How much money actually makes it to the problem? We ought to see if the money makes it to the people or if we are just increasing Washington bureaucracy. Over the next few weeks, I will be going into some detail on each of these problems with budgeting. I will also be promoting the budget reforms that Senator Whitehouse and I and the Budget Committee have put out favorably. I think that is the first budget provision in about the last 2 two decades that has come out of the committee in a bipartisan way. Now, I could tell you that the reforms that we proposed will not solve all of the problem. You can't take that big of a leap when you have that big of a problem. But while those reforms will not solve the problem, they should help to make the solutions more noticeable. We are having trouble getting that on the floor, too. I really came to the floor to eliminate some of the concerns about the President's budget. I want people to know that they don't all have to fly to Washington to make their case to the Budget Committee for their program. Once the Budget Committee sets the parameters, then, the detail comes into play with the Appropriations Committee. Talk to your appropriators. They spend the money--the exact dollars. Do your work there, but be sure your program is as effective as it can be. Also, take a little look at how many similar Federal programs there are. See if there can be a savings by merging some, thus getting more money out in the field where you are and getting more money on the problem. Once again, the President's budget came out today. It consists of a set of documents a foot high. In my opinion, the whole pile should be replaced with a list from the President of what he thinks are pretty good ideas to do this year and, hopefully, there will also be a little piece in there that says how you can pay for it. So don't waste any time searching out the President's budget program cuts. Congress doesn't pay any attention to the President's budget exercise. That is all it is--an exercise. Congress holds the purse strings, according to the Constitution, and Congress is very protective of that constitutional authority. Now we need to do the work that goes with that authority. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the trial of President Trump. After information from more than a dozen witnesses, over a hundred questions, and days of oral arguments, I believe the House failed to prove its case for the two Articles of Impeachment. The House's story relies on too much speculation, guessing games and repetition. It fails to hold up under scrutiny. The House claims to have proven its case, but insists on more evidence. It was the House's responsibility to ensure it had developed a complete record of the evidence it needed to make its case, and it is not up to the Senate to start the process over again. There were contradictions in the House's case from the very beginning. The House counted on repetition to make its claims seem true, but often didn't provide the underlying evidence. For example, the House managers relied on telephone records for timing, but speculated on the content of the calls. The House managers claimed the President wanted to influence an election, but it is difficult to see how the House's rush to bring this case in such a haphazard manner is nothing more than an attempt to influence the 2020 election. The House managers asked the Senate to do additional witnesses in 1 week, which could mean the Senate would essentially have to start the trial all over. I not only can't call their efforts adequate, I have to say they have been entirely inadequate. Consequently, I did not vote for more witnesses or more evidence and will vote to acquit the President on both counts. I hope we can learn from everything we do, especially in regard to impeachment. The animosity toward President Trump is unprecedented, and I believe it is the reason we have ended up where we are today. I believe we should give each newly elected President a chance to show what he or she can do. We should provide them the opportunity to prove themselves and demonstrate our faith in our country and its leadership. We have to give the President an opportunity to lead or even to fail. Unfortunately, President Trump was promised an impeachment from the day he was elected, before he even took his oath of office. On the day of his inauguration, before any official act, there were riots where, and I quote from the New York Times, ``protesters threw rocks and bricks at police officers, set a car on fire and shattered storefront windows.'' I have never seen that kind of conduct before stemming from the result of our democratic process. I hope to never see it again. The obstruction continued as President Trump's nominations were held up in an unprecedented way. This obstruction kept the new President from getting his key people in place. The few nominations approved had to work with career or hold-over staff from the previous administration. We have read in news articles that some of those staffers not only disliked their new bosses, but they tried to actively undercut their policies. Sometimes they even delayed or used inaction or gave adverse advice. These types of tactics were used to put blame on their boss and on President Trump, and that ultimately hurt our country, too. Again, almost immediately after the election came the call for investigations, ending with the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. This investigation went on for almost 2 years. When the Mueller investigation didn't yield the desired results, the President's detractors returned to the continuing cry for an impeachment. The volume and pitch increased even as the 2020 election got closer. Eventually, the House of Representatives found its latest accusation. Yet, not willing to conduct a thorough impeachment investigation and wanting to reach a foregone conclusion as the election year approached, the House of Representatives hurried its investigation so it would be done before Christmas and the Senate would be forced to address these articles as a new year started. Ironically, after all that rushing and taking shortcuts, the House delayed sending the articles to the Senate until the new year. All of this was just the latest example of the efforts to block President Trump's agenda. I have now served in two Presidential impeachment trials, one during my first term and this one in my last. I have never underestimated the responsibility of the task at hand or forgotten the oaths I took to uphold the Constitution. There are few duties senators will face as grave as deciding the fate of the President of the United States, but just like 21 years ago, this decision is about country, not politics. These experiences have helped refine my views, which I will now share. Our Forefathers did well setting the trial in the Senate where it takes a \2/3\ majority, currently 67 votes, to convict. They could see the difficulty it would bring to the Nation if impeachment could easily be convicted by a slight majority. Even though it is not the law, I would counsel the House not to impeach without at least a \3/5\ vote in their own body, and that should include some number from the minority party. I have also come to believe that impeachment should be primarily about a criminal activity. Impeachment is inherently undemocratic because it reverses an election, so in election years, the bar for considering impeachment and removal goes even higher. Ultimately, the American people should and will have the final say. The House of Representatives must also be sure to complete its investigation. It shouldn't send the Senate impeachment charges and then expect the Senate to continue gathering more evidence. The House should subpoena witnesses and deal with defense claims such as privilege, even if that means going through the judicial process rather than placing such a burden on the Senate. The House cannot simply rely on repetition of possibilities of violations, no matter how many times stated, to make their accusations true. A complete investigation means the investigators don't rush to judgment, don't speculate about the content of calls, and don't rely on repetition of accusations about the content of such calls as a substitute for seeking the truth. During the initial investigation, witnesses should have already been deposed by both sides before it comes to the Senate. The President's counsel must be allowed to cross-examine all persons deposed by the House. Then, and only then, can any of the witnesses be called to testify at the Senate trial. The House investigation has to be complete. Finally, I would call for our outside institutions to also think about how they contribute to the well-being of our country. I have often said that conflict sells. It might even increase sales to consumers of news for both parties, but I fear that we are all treating this like a sport, speculating which team will win and which will lose. I suspect that some venomous statements about this process have ended some friendships and strained some families. In the end, if we lose faith in our institutions, our friends and our families, we will all lose. We desperately need more civility. That is simply being nice to each other. My mom said, ``Bad behavior is inexcusable.'' It violates the Golden Rule as revised by my mom, ``Do what's right. Do your best. Treat others as THEY wish to be treated.'' One of the first movies I saw was the now-ancient animated picture, ``Bambi.'' I am reminded of the little rabbit saying, ``My Mom always says, if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all!'' I believe we all agree on at least 80 percent of most issues, but the trend seems to be shifting to concentrate on the other 20 percent we don't agree on. That 20 percent causes divisiveness, opposition, venomous harsh words, and anger. Too often, it feels like our Nation is only becoming more divided, more hostile. I do not believe that our country will ever be able to successfully tackle our looming problems if we continue down this road. As we move forward from this chapter in our Nation's history, I hope that we will focus more on our shared goals that can help our Nation, and not the issues that drive us apart.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge the retirement of my friend, Dr. Jim Naramore. Dr. Naramore is retiring after 40 years of service practicing family medicine in Gillette, WY. He has been an outstanding doctor to many patients in Gillette, including myself, and will be remembered for his excellence in medical care and helping out in the community. I know Dr. Naramore not only as a leader in my hometown of Gillette but also as my personal doctor. About 25 years ago, I wasn't feeling well and went to see Dr. Naramore. He ran some tests and soon discovered that I had a torn heart valve. By that night, I was in open heart surgery to repair my heart valve, and it has served me well since. I credit Dr. Naramore with saving my life. Dr. Naramore has spent his entire career helping people and giving back to the community. Born and raised in Gillette, WY, Dr. Naramore received his bachelor's degree from John Brown University, his medical degree from the University of Utah, and completed a family practice residency at the University of Nebraska affiliated hospitals. After his residency, Dr. Naramore returned to Gillette to work in the emergency room at the Campbell County Memorial Hospital. In 1980, Dr. Naramore began his practice and became a full-time member of the medical staff of Campbell County Memorial Hospital. In 1981, he moved to private practice at Family Health in Gillette. His family health clinic has provided excellent care to residents of Gillette for years and has attracted much needed providers and specialists to the area. Dr. Naramore has served in countless leadership positions both in Gillette and around Wyoming. He has received many awards for his hard work and outstanding achievements, most recently receiving the 2019 Outstanding Healthcare Award. Dr. Naramore is a committed man of faith. He is actively involved in his church, serving as an elder, deacon, worship leader, and Sunday school teacher. The University of Wyoming has a slogan saying that the world needs more cowboys. Well, I would also say that Wyoming needs more doctors, especially doctors like Dr. Naramore. If his past is any indication of his future, I think it is clear that he will be closing the door on this great chapter of his life and moving on to something new. Whatever that may prove to be, I am certain it will make good use of his abilities, background, and experience. Diana joins in sending our best wishes to Dr. Naramore and his family. We thank him for his hard work and dedication to his patients and community throughout his career.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for January 2020. This is my third scorekeeping report since I filed the deemed budget resolution for fiscal year 2020 on September 9, 2019, as required by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, BBA19. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts agreed to in BBA19. In the Senate, this information is used to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act CBA. The information included in this report is current through January 7, 2020. Since I filed the last scorekeeping report on December 4, 2019, four measures with significant enforceable budgetary effects have been enacted. The first measure enacted this reporting period, H.R. 5363, the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act, FUTURE Act, cleared the Senate by voice vote and became P.L. 116- 91. The bill included two provisions with significant cost over the 10- year period: a permanent extension of mandatory funding for historically Black colleges and universities and additional mandatory funding for the Pell Grant program. To offset these provisions, the measure allows the Department of Education to access taxpayer data when administering Federal student aid programs. Overall, CBO estimates that the FUTURE Act would reduce outlays by $997 million in the first year, $835 million over 5 years, and $435 million over 10 years. This measure was charged to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The second measure enacted this reporting period was the conference report to accompany S. 1790, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020. This measure, which became P.L. 116-92 and was charged to the Armed Services Committee, authorized appropriations for the Nation's national defense apparatus for the current fiscal year. In addition to the authorization of funds, the conference report included changes in law, notably to the Survivor Benefit Program, that would affect direct spending and revenues. According to CBO's estimate, the measure would increase direct spending by $5.6 billion over the 2020 to 2029 period. The third measure, H.R. 1158, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, became P.L. 116-93. This bill provided funding for fiscal year 2020 programs within the jurisdictions of four Senate appropriations subcommittees, including Defense, Commerce-Justice-Science, Financial Services and General Government, and Homeland Security. CBO estimated that the bill would bring total budget authority provided for programs covered by these four subcommittees to $860.3 billion in fiscal year 2020. Of the amounts provided, $767.6 billion was considered regular appropriations and $92.6 billion qualified for cap adjustments under existing law. The final measure with significant effects enacted this reporting period was H.R. 1865, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. This bill, which became P.L. 116-94, provided appropriations for fiscal year 2020 for the remaining eight Senate appropriations subcommittees, extended numerous expiring programs and tax provisions, repealed several healthcare taxes, expanded access to retirement plans, provided additional resources for pensions for miners, and contained several provisions related to various foreign policy initiatives. CBO estimated that divisions A-H of the bill, which provided discretionary appropriations, would bring total appropriated budget authority for covered programs to $539.9 billion in fiscal year 2020. Of the amount provided, $520.4 billion was provided as regular appropriations and $19.5 billion qualified for cap adjustments under existing law. CBO further estimated that divisions I--Q of the bill would increase deficits by $408.9 billion over the 2020 through 2029 period. Divisions A--H were charged to the Appropriations Committee; divisions I and K were charged to the Banking Committee; division J was charged to the Foreign Relations Committee; division L was charged to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; divisions M, N, O, and Q were charged to the Finance Committee; and division P was charged to the Commerce Committee. The measure passed the Senate by a vote of 71 to 23. Budget Committee Republican staff prepared tables A-D. Table A gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the fiscal year 2020 deemed budget resolution. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. Legislation enacted to date has resulted in six authorizing committees breaching their allocations provided by BBA19. In total authorizing committees have breached outlay limitations by more than $29.1 billion over the 2020 through 2029 period. Table B provides the amount by which the Senate Committee on Appropriations is below or exceeds the statutory spending limits. This information is used to determine points of order related to the spending caps found in sections 312 and 314 of the CBA. The table shows that the Appropriations Committee is compliant with spending limits for current the fiscal year. Those limits for regular discretionary spending are $666.5 billion for accounts in the defense category and $621.5 billion for accounts in the nondefense category of spending. The 2018 budget resolution contained points of order limiting the use of changes in mandatory programs, CHIMPs, in appropriations bills. Table C, which tracks the CHIMP limit of $15 billion for 2020, shows the Appropriations Committee has complied with the CHIMP limit for this fiscal year. CHIMPs enacted as part of the 2020 appropriations cycle include $5.7 billion from changes to the Crime Victims Fund and $9.3 billion in changes to accounts related to the Children's Health Insurance Program. Table D provides the amount of budget authority enacted for 2020 that has been designated as either for an emergency or for overseas contingency operations pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. Funding that receives either of these designations results in cap adjustments to enforceable discretionary spending limits. There is no limit on either emergency or overseas contingency operations spending; however, any Senator may challenge the designation with a point of order to strike the designation on the floor. To date, more than $88.0 billion has been enacted with either the emergency or overseas contingency operations designations for the 2020 appropriations cycle. In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by Congress. CBO provided a spending and revenue report for 2020, table 1, which helps enforce aggregate spending levels in budget resolutions under CBA section 311. Following the enactment of the two minibus appropriations bills in December and the continued spending of authorizing committees, the current level is now in excess of allowable levels by $15.4 billion for budget authority and $1.7 billion for outlays in 2020. Details on 2020 levels can be found in CBO's second table. Current-law revenues are currently below enforceable levels for all enforcement periods. Due to the enactment of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and to a lesser extent this year's national defense authorization bill, revenues are currently $34.4 billion, $150.7 billion, and $386.2 billion lower than assumed in the deemed budget resolution for 2020, 2020 through 2024, and 2020 through 2029, respectively. Social Security spending levels are consistent with the budget resolution's figures for 2020; however, Social Security revenue levels are $15 million below assumed levels. CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, pay-go, rule table 3. This rule was established under section 4106 of the 2018 budget resolution. The Senate pay-go scorecard currently shows a credit of $965 million in 2020 but deficit increases of $1.1 billion and $5.2 billion over the 2019-2024 and 2019-2029 periods, respectively. Please note that the deficit effects of division I through division Q of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 are excluded from the Senate's pay-go scorecard pursuant to title X of division I of that law. This submission also includes a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the enforcement filing on September 9, 2019. I raised two points of order during this reporting period. On December 17, 2019, I raised the long-term deficits point of order against the national defense authorization conference report for increasing deficits by more than $5 billion in years following the current budget window. That point of order was waived by a vote of 82 to 12. On December 19, 2019, I raised the same point of order against the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, but that was also waived with a vote of 64 to 30. 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, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Senate will soon consider H.R. 5430, United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act. This measure provides supplemental appropriations to implement the trade agreement that qualify for cap adjustments under current statute. This measure includes $843 million in budget authority that is designated as being for emergency purposes pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. The entirety of this budget authority falls within the revised nonsecurity category. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these appropriations will result in $334 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. As a result of the emergency designations, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised nonsecurity budget authority by $843 million and outlays by $334 million in fiscal year 2020. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2020 by equivalent amounts. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. I thank the Senator. I got to meet this delightful lady in Thermopolis, WY, some 70 years ago. I need to tell you a little bit about Thermopolis, WY, and how I wound up there. During the war, my dad was a welder on ships, and after the war, he moved around the country doing different welding projects, one of which took him to Thermopolis, WY. He welded on the dam there. Dams in the West are used to control floods. They are big projects, and they have a huge impact on communities. This particular one not only controlled floods, but it turned into a great fishery. My folks went to Thermopolis, WY, and they also built a trailer park. It was the first modern trailer park in Thermopolis. By ``modern,'' I mean there was a central building that had indoor showers and flush toilets. You need to understand a little bit about Wyoming. We are small. At that time, there were two cities in Wyoming. To be a city, you had to have more than 3,000 in population. As soon as you had 3,000 in population, you could declare yourself a first-class city. In those early days, Casper--the energy capital at that time--and Cheyenne--the State capital at that time--exceeded 3,000. What effect did that have on the communities? The Presbyterians, the Methodists, and the Congregationalists got together and divided up the towns that were small, realizing that they couldn't support all three churches. There was one town that was so small that they actually got together and formed a community church. What is a community church? That is where these three denominations worked together. At one time, there would be a Presbyterian minister who was there, and 2 years later, there would be a Methodist minister who was there and, 2 years later, a Congregational minister who was there. That is where Jerry Brown was the Sunday school teacher, and that is how I came to meet her. One of the big realizations, because of this community church thing and the changing of the pastors every 2 years, is that I thought every 2 years the Lord's Prayer changed. She helped me to understand that dilemma. That is where I got to meet Mrs. Brown. She was a Sunday school teacher, and I wound up in her Sunday school class. She taught the kindergarten class. When we first started, she actually moved up a couple of times with me as the classes got combined and as I got older. At that very first one, for Bible school, we held it outdoors underneath the pine tree--a huge pine tree. I can still remember sitting there, enthralled with her descriptions as I held my New Testament. Of course, since I was in kindergarten, I couldn't read, but she filled in for that and gave me a great background. Later, of course, I ran into a book by Robert Fulghum titled, ``All I Really Need To Know I Learned in Kindergarten.'' For me, it was kindergarten Sunday school. And my teacher, of course--well, she was my first Sunday school teacher and my last living Sunday school teacher. Some of the things she taught were to share everything; play fair; don't hit people; put things back where you found them; clean up your own mess; don't take things that aren't yours; say you are sorry if you hurt someone; and be aware of wonder. And ``wonder'' is, if you put some seeds--and we did this--in a paper cup with dirt and you water it, the plant goes up, and the roots go down. Some people would say nobody knows why or how, but Mrs. Brown said: That is not true. God has a plan. He knows you. He watches out for you. If you see things going wrong, check your direction because it might not be where God wants you. All of this was a good basis for my life. I have always appreciated seeing her through the years, particularly when we have visited that church again, which is still a community church, although most of the towns have split those up into more than one denomination. But I have to say that if the criteria is 3,000 people, by the time the town gets to a first-class city size, the one church is so well established that it is hard for another one to actually get established in a small community like that. As long as there are wonderful people like Mrs. Brown teaching kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and other kids in small communities, this country will be a great place. I thank her for all the background she gave me and ask for your prayers for her family. I thank the Senator.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Reserving the right to object. Does that mean I won't get to give the comments before we vote? There has to be some comments about the point of order. Looking at the clock, the number of people waiting, it looks like I am being cut of that time. Would that be a correct interpretation?

Mr. ENZI. Then I have no objection.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise to raise a point of order on the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, which provides funding for eight appropriations subcommittees and includes numerous tax and healthcare provisions and other new legislation called ``authorizations.'' That is code for bills that haven't been debated on the Senate floor. These are Christmas presents for everyone, all put on the Federal credit card, which is overspent already. This legislation was unveiled Monday afternoon and totals more than 1,800 pages, and here we are on Thursday, with just hours to go before a government shutdown, being asked to vote on a bill that has not been subject to amendment or debate and that the Congressional Budget Office tells us will increase deficits by more than $400 billion over the next 10 years. Actually, by the time you add in interest costs to this debt, it is half a trillion in 10 years and $2.1 trillion on 20 years. That is according to the Committee for Responsible Federal Budget, which added in that interest. They added it up. So that will be half a trillion dollars of new overspending in one vote, and what makes it so expensive is that we are trying to do something here to buy everybody's vote. This bill completely bypassed regular order and violates nearly all the Senate self-imposed budget rules with its billions of dollars in giveaways and tax policy changes. We are legislating on funding bills. Legislation is supposed to be scrutinized differently, especially if they pay out real money. I will remind my colleagues that our national debt stands at just over $23 trillion, and the Congressional Budget Office tells us that the Federal deficits are already on track to exceed $1 trillion this year and every year thereafter. That is besides this $2.1 trillion add- on. We should be talking about how to address the budgetary mess we are in, not pressing the gas on an unsustainable fiscal trajectory, which is exactly what this bill does. We are making promises that can't be fulfilled. Now, some people will mention the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, but I need to emphasize and remind you that that boosted the economy. It created jobs, it increased wages, and it is bringing in more revenue than ever before--ever before. But we are spending it faster than it is coming in. So it is not a revenue problem. It is a spending problem. Now, rather than an aberration, busting has become commonplace. This is the second time this week that I have come to the floor to raise a point of order against legislation that violates the budget. But to be fair, from a budget perspective, this bill is exponentially worse than the Defense authorization bill we considered earlier this year. It is at least 50 times worse. I oppose this legislation. I oppose adding to the already massive debt burden being placed on future generations. The pending measure, the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1865, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020, would cause a deficit increase of more than $5 billion in each of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in fiscal year 2030. This increase violates section 3101 of the 2016 budget resolution. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 3101(b) of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. I have been here long enough to know that you will now hear a list of wonderful things that are on this bill. You will not hear how to pay for all of these Christmas presents. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. The Senate will soon consider two measures: the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1158, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, and the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 1865, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. These measures contain spending that qualifies for cap adjustments under current law. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 includes multiple instances of cap adjustment eligible spending. The measure includes $70,855 million in spending designated as being for overseas contingency operations, OCO, funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. This budget authority, all of which falls into the revised security category, would result in $40,336 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. The measure further includes $17,503 million in spending designated for disaster relief pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of BBEDCA. This budget authority, all of which falls into the revised nonsecurity category, would result in $984 million in outlays. The measure also includes $1,771 million in revised security category budget authority that is designated as an emergency pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates that this budget authority, as well as other emergency designated changes, would increase net outlays by $914 million this fiscal year. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, also includes $2,500 million in nonsecurity budget authority that is designated as being for the periodic U.S. Census pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(G) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates that this budget authority will result in $1,800 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. Earlier this year, I made an adjustment to accommodate funding in this amount for this purpose and reaffirm those funds for use for this measure. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 also includes multiple instances of cap adjustment eligible spending. The measure includes $8,645 million in spending designated as being for OCO funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. This budget authority, $645 million of which falls into the revised security category and $8,000 million falls into the revised nonsecurity category, would result in $2,327 million in outlays in fiscal year 2020. The measure includes $1,842 million in spending designated for program integrity pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(B), section 251(b)(2)(C), and section 251(b)(2)(E) of BBEDCA. This budget authority, all of which falls into the revised nonsecurity category, would result in $1,481 million in outlays. The measure also includes $6,764 million in revised nonsecurity category budget authority that is designated as an emergency pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates that this budget authority, as well as other emergency designated changes, would increase net outlays by $1,705 million this fiscal year. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 also includes $2,250 million in nonsecurity discretionary budget authority for wildfire suppression operations pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(F) of BBEDCA. This budget authority and its associated outlays of $2,250 million qualify for an adjustment under the law. Earlier this year, I made an adjustment to accommodate funding in this amount for this purpose and reaffirm those funds for use for this measure. As such, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised nonsecurity budget authority by $27,880 million, revised security budget authority by $79,500 million, and general outlays by $47,747 million in fiscal year 2020. Further, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2020 by $107,126 million in budget authority and $47,534 million in outlays. I ask unanimous consent that this notice and the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his words. I will add to that, I hope. As we approach the end of the first session of Congress, I think it may be prudent to look back at some of the news surrounding the current state of the Nation's budgetary affairs. Unfortunately, none of the news is good. This past summer, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, which increased the last 2 years of the Budget Control Act's discretionary funding caps. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that the bill has increased their forecast of the Nation's projected deficits by $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. I will be the first to admit that it is largely due to mandatory programs, which already have inadequate revenues. In the fall, we received final tax and spending data for fiscal year 2019. The report showed the deficit for the last fiscal year was $984 billion, even though revenues were greater than ever before. Relative to the size of the economy, that deficit--an estimated 4.6 percent of GDP--was the highest since 2012. This also marked the fourth consecutive year the deficit increased as a share of the economy. These growing deficits at a time of economic strength should be a warning sign to all. Yet hardly a whimper was heard. In October, our national debt hit the $23 trillion mark. It was in the papers for a while, but interest quickly waned. We simply cannot continue down this path. I know the bill before us is well-intentioned, and it contains many proposals that I support. Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Reed and our Armed Services colleagues have worked hard to deliver the Defense authorization bill, and I commend them for the work they put into trying to reach agreement with the House. Unfortunately, CBO tells us this bill will significantly add to our debt both in the near and long term. This is much different than the budgetary impact of the bill the Senate approved earlier this year. Ultimately, this bill furthers the practice of passing legislation while ignoring the budget rules of the Senate and our overspending problem. All of this borrowing will continue to cost us increased interest payments and will hamstring future generations of Americans. Congress has the power to correct course now, and I look forward to working in good faith with the proponents of this legislation. Until that work can be completed, I have to oppose it. Mr. President, the conference report accompanying S. 1790 would cause a deficit increase of more than $5 billion in each of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in fiscal year 2030. A benefit that isn't funded, once put in place, will never be taken away or even reduced. This increase violates section 3101 of the 2016 budget resolution. Therefore, I raise a point of order under section 3101(b) of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that this point of order be debatable until the postcloture time on the conference report to accompany S. 1790 expires.