Michael Enzi

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, section 4311 of S. Con. Res. 11, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2016, allows the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels in the budget resolution for legislation that would promote jobs in the United States through international trade. The authority to adjust is contingent on the legislation not increasing the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 to 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 to 2025. I find that Senate amendment 2065 fulfills the conditions of deficit neutrality found in section 4311 of S. Con. Res. 11. Accordingly, I am revising the allocation to the Committee on Finance and the budgetary aggregates to account for the budget effects of the amendment. 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. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his insights. This is the beginning of a process of eliminating coal mining in the United States. Here is a company that has their permit for 8 years for mining coal, and that permit took extensive permitting. Now what they are saying is that you have to take a look at where the coal is burned to see what the impacts are. That has never been one of the requirements. Again, it is one of those increases in regulation that this administration is fond of. It is designed to put things out of business, to raise costs. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article called ``The Case For Legislative Impact Accounting Economics 21,'' which is part of the Manhattan Institute.

Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the growing burden of Federal regulations and the need to rein in the creation of new rules and the expansion of existing rules. The regulatory burden in 2014 is reported to be nearly $2 trillion, and the Federal Register last year came out to nearly 78,000 pages of new rules and regulations. This chart shows that 78,000 pages of regulations is all too common, especially for this administration, where regulatory overreach has become normal, and the size of the Federal Register has topped 80,000 pages for 4 out of the 6 years of the President's time in office. With this administration, we are seeing a high-water mark of regulations that are drowning American families and businesses. The flood of regulations has been getting bigger every year for the past 2\1/2\ decades under administrations from both parties. We can't afford to keep piling on these rules. The economic burden of Federal regulations is clear. One study estimated that the regulatory burden in the United States cost more than $1.8 trillion in 2014 and was bigger than the GDP of India. My second chart puts this in perspective: Only the 10 largest economies are bigger than the U.S. regulatory burden all by itself. This burden is real. Some studies have estimated the regulatory drag on economic growth in the United States to be as high as 2 percent per year over the last 6\1/2\ decades. An annual report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute also noted that in 2014 regulations cost the average household nearly $15,000. A study by the Small Business Administration found that regulations increase costs by more than $10,000 per employee. The fact that we cannot afford this burden is just as clear. Economic growth in the first quarter shrank by seven-tenths of 1 percent. If we get a growth of 1 percent, it increases the revenue, without raising taxes, to the United States by $300 billion. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office. According to the President's budget person, it would increase it by $400 billion. Imagine what a seventh- tenths loss costs us. Complex regulations are costly and time-consuming, especially for small businesses. Small business owners and their employees have to take on dozens of different responsibilities to make their business work. They have to be compliance experts now, and that takes time and resources away that they need to put toward growing their business and succeeding. I have spoken to many businesses in Wyoming that have stopped measuring their permitting applications in pages because it is easier to measure them in feet. Businesses are struggling in this regulatory environment because they can't make long-term plans for investments. They don't know what new regulation might come out next month that will change their entire business model. And the problem with complex permitting and regulatory requirements is not just the cost that existing businesses have to bear; it also comes as a cost in businesses that don't even get started because the Federal Government has placed a mountain of paperwork between their idea and success. The rush of regulations by this administration is clear. President Obama's administration has issued more than 80 regulations that have a price tag of more than $100 million each. That is, at a minimum, $80 billion in costs for this administration's rules. But what is more disturbing is not just the willingness to churn out more redtape but to find new and creative ways to do it. Agencies are only supposed to create new rules when they have clear authority from Congress to do so and can demonstrate a real need for the regulations. However, we are seeing more and more examples of the administration finding new justifications and new interpretations of laws that Congress has passed in order to get around Congress. President Obama said that because he is unable to rely on Congress to achieve his agenda, he intends to use Executive orders. We have seen that with the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is collecting everybody's data as we speak, the National Security Agency, and so many other Federal agencies that are willing to read new authorities into existing laws and grant themselves new powers that Congress never intended. One place that is willing to force through an agenda regardless of congressional intent, the will of the people, or the Constitution, is in the energy sector. Energy is one of the main drivers of our economy. Yet, this administration is doing everything it can to wage a regulatory war on coal by releasing rules and regulations designed to make coal harder to produce and making energy more expensive to use in our Nation. Anyone who uses electricity should be concerned about this--oh yeah, that is everybody, isn't it? I recently talked to some sisters who were driving from Arizona to Wyoming. They were running low on gas, so they stopped in Colorado to fill up. The power was out at the gas station, so they couldn't pump gas or get a snack or use the restroom. All of these things--the gas pump, the cash register, the restroom lights--depend on electricity. Think of all the things around you that depend on electricity. Almost everything we do depends on electricity. Yet, this administration seems to want to do anything it can to drive up the cost of electricity. A few years ago, Senators on both sides of the aisle realized that coal is one of our best sources of energy, the only stockpileable one, and rejected a cap-and-tax as an extremely expensive and bad idea-- bipartisan. Now the administration is moving forward on a backdoor cap- and-tax proposal. They believe the best way to reach their goals of promoting alternative energy sources is to make the current sources more and more expensive to produce and to use. This hurts consumers, it hurts jobs, and it hurts our economy. It is a simple fact: Make it more expensive to mine coal, and the coal industry will be less profitable. Make it more expensive to use coal to produce energy, and consumers will see a hit on their energy bills each and every month. Make it more difficult to turn a profit with coal, and coal workers will find themselves with fewer benefits, less job security, and a lot less employment, which costs the government more for unemployment. This administration has made it clear that they do not care about these costs. The Small Business Advocate wrote EPA that their review panel on the Clean Power Plan was only checking the box and ``is unlikely to succeed at identifying reasonable regulatory alternatives for small businesses.'' The incomplete information they provided ``greatly limits [small entity representatives'] ability to propose potential regulatory flexibilities or discuss the costs and benefits of particular regulatory alternatives.'' Rural electric cooperatives, transmission companies, and municipal utilities are going to bear the costs of these coal regulations. This is where our communities get their electricity, so those costs will likely be passed on to consumers. Businesses really have no other choice. Several Members are pushing back on this regulatory overreach. For example, I am proud to cosponsor a bill Senator Vitter introduced earlier this week to protect small business from the onslaught of regulations. But the recent case of the Colowyo mine is a good example of how the administration does not care about a loss of jobs or costs to consumers and is a clear signal to Congress that we have to do more to oppose this. Coal produced by this mine is responsible for employing over 200 people. The Craig Power Station in Senator Gardner's State of Colorado sends power to a tristate cooperative which provides service in the West. If the cooperative goes offline, electricity prices for electric customers will rise. Why would it go offline? Because of a little vacation on the mine planned from 2007. Senator Gardner, will this affect your State's mine? But it also sets a wider precedent against our most dependable fuel source. So what does taking this one mine offline--I know they are picking on a small one. That is easier to do than pick on a big one. But what does it mean to your constituents?

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 145, and that the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nomination; that following the disposition of the nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, how does the budget fund defense? That is what we are talking about. The balanced budget resolution recently approved by Congress recognizes the responsibility that the Federal Government has to defend the Nation while recognizing the threats our overspending and growing debt pose to our national security. That is why the balanced budget approved by Congress last month makes national defense a priority and provides for the maximum allowable defense funding under current law. Let me say that again. The budget provides for the maximum allowable defense funding under current law. That current law is a law which was signed by this President and provides vital support for our military personnel and their families, the readiness of our Armed Forces, and the modernization of critical platforms. Does anybody deny that this is a critical time? With the increasing number of threats around the world, our total defense spending level should reflect our commitment to keeping America safe and ensuring that our military personnel are prepared to tackle all challenges. While we have troops in harm's way, we need to do all we can to protect them. Given the global threat environment, the funding approach taken by the Senator from Arizona and the Armed Services Committee, which was bipartisan, ensures that the men and women of our Armed Forces have the resources they need to confront an increasingly complex and dangerous security environment. Is sequestration a threat to our military? If appropriated at the levels provided by the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, the defense budget would not face indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts known as sequestration, while it provides for the needs we are reviewing right now. People have a chance to amend the needs right now. If they think there is something in there that is not needed, they can amend it--they can try to amend it. There should be justification for what they want. This bill puts us on a path to spend $612 billion on defense this year. This is the same overall amount that was requested by the President earlier this year. Numerous officials at the Pentagon have made it clear that they see this funding level as the bare minimum budget needed to execute our defense strategy. So why are some Senators concerned about the level of budgetary resources this bill provides to the Department of Defense? They simply do not like the use of the overseas contingency operations funding, the OCO. It is important to note that those not familiar with the Budget Control Act--that is not the budget; that is the Budget Control Act. It was passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Obama back in August of 2011. It established a discretionary spending cap, but it also allowed for certain cap adjustments. The BCA caps can be adjusted for emergencies, disasters, program integrity initiatives, and OCO. Yes. That is in the Budget Control Act, the Budget Control Act passed August 2011 and signed by President Obama. Those are the four ways you can adjust the budget caps without forcing sequestration. Now, in the case of OCO--overseas contingency operations--funding, both Congress and the President have to agree that the funding should be designated in that manner. Therefore, the OCO funding in this bill will only occur if Congress appropriates it and the President agrees to it in the future. I would hope that when the President and his advisers said this is the overall level of funding they needed for defense, they meant it. But only time and the appropriations process will tell. Did the budget account for OCO spending? While there is no requirement to offset OCO spending, when we addressed the issue in our budget resolution, we accounted for every single dollar of OCO we assumed would be spent. Even with these OCO levels, the budget resolution still met its overall goal of balancing within 10 years. Let me repeat that. We accounted for every single dollar of OCO that we assumed would be spent. Even with these OCO levels, the budget resolution still met its overall goal of balancing within 10 years. It is good to see my colleague so concerned about the deficit, and I look forward to working with him to fully implement our balanced budget. This will ensure that we can get our Nation's fiscal house in order while providing resources needed for our national defense. Unfortunately, the concern expressed over providing OCO funding doesn't seem to be centered on the fiscal concerns because even most critics support the need for more defense money. No, their concerns are based on the demand to increase nondefense discretionary spending on a dollar-for-dollar basis with defense spending. But the only way to do this in the short term is by raising taxes on hard-working American families. Defense is making its case and has made its case. Nondefense has not. Do we really need to increase the caps? If we want to increase nondefense spending, Congress should take a closer look at what we are actually funding. Last year, we provided nearly $293.5 billion for more than 260 authorizations that have expired. Yes, we have 260 authorizations. That is where Congress says this is what we ought to be spending our money on. They expired, and we are still spending money on them--$293.5 billion a year. Usually, we talk about over 10 years here. That would practically balance the budget by itself over a 10-year period. Those are programs we need to take a look at. Those are programs that have expired. Some of those programs expired as long ago as 1983, but we are still spending money on them every year. That means we have been paying for some of these expired programs for more than 30 years, and it is not just the length of time these programs have overstayed their welcome, the funds we allocated to them every year are more than what the law called for in those authorizations when passed. In some cases, that means we are spending as much as four times what the bill allowed. Savings usually are found in the spending details, but Congress hasn't examined the details in some time, except on defense. We do the Defense authorization every year. These others, well, I mentioned one of them expired in 1983, some in 1987. I mentioned it is 260 authorizations. It affects 1,200 programs. Do you think in 1,200 programs for $293 billion a year we couldn't find $38 billion to match what we are doing in defense? We ought to be ashamed if we can't. It is time for Congress to take a look at these programs and decide if they are even worth funding anymore. After all, a project not worth doing well should not be worth doing at that time all. But how would committees know if they haven't looked at these programs in years? How would they know if they don't have a way to measure how well the programs are working? Were defense and nondefense spending treated equally under the BCA under the budget caps? The insistence that any change to the discretionary changes be based on dollar limits for both categories of spending fails to take into account the different treatment each took under the budget caps, the BCA. Defense spending, which makes up less than one-fifth of all government spending, received less than half of the reductions in the BCA. Defense spending also faced more budgetary pressure than nondefense spending because it is largely discretionary. Nondefense spending was able to distribute its BCA reductions over a larger amount of accounts and over a larger portion of mandatory programs. That provides a fudge factor. The continued insistence on tying both defense and nondefense spending together has left only the approach taken by this bill to fund the defense at the President's level. We know from the administration that the President's advisers are recommending he veto this bill. We also know some of my colleagues are considering blocking appropriations bills this year to force a government shutdown. Every bill should stand on its own for justification. No one is arguing the need for national defense. What they are actually arguing is the need for the nondefense increases. This is an attempt to leverage defense programming to get nondefense, which I mentioned the 260 programs, $293.5 billion a year that has expired--so they want this OCO to be replaced with a deal. What we are supposed to do in Congress is legislate, not deal make. But that is what is being proposed. Let's make a deal. Now, if they step back and look at the facts laid out today, hopefully, they can move away from this brinkmanship and realize the path they are on only leads to more uncertainty for the men and women in our Armed Forces. Strengthening our national defense and providing for the brave men and women of our military should be something both sides agree on. So what is the future of the BCA caps? It is time both parties get serious about addressing our Nation's chronic overspending. We know some on both sides want the caps from the Budget Control Act changed-- but at what price for our Nation and the hard-working taxpayers? Without any changes to the BCA structure, just raising these budget caps without increasing the debt in the short-term would require increasing taxes. That is why we asked for the extra year to be able to work on this whole thing. If Congress is serious about addressing the challenges of the Budget Control Act, it has to first start by tackling its addiction to overspending and once again become good fiscal stewards of the taxes paid by each and every hard-working American. Of course, if the administration would stop overregulating, the economy would grow, and in a short time we would have more revenue without raising taxes. Yes, that is what both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget--one works for Congress and one works for the President--said; that if we could just raise the economy by 1 percent a year, CBO says that would provide $300 billion. The President's office says that would provide $400 billion in taxes. We are receiving more tax revenue right now than we have in the history of the United States, but we spend more than that. Of the amounts that we get to make a decision on, we are spending almost 50 percent more than what we take in. We can't continue to do that. We can't continue to afford the interest on the debt if we keep doing that. Americans are working harder than everyone to make ends meet. Shouldn't their elected officials be doing the same thing? By tackling these issues honestly and directly, we can help ensure that our Nation is safe and secure by investing in America's Armed Forces while also maintaining fiscal discipline. On a related note, the Senate Budget Committee has produced an indepth analysis of defense spending and the OCO funding provision as part of our June budget bulletin, which was published today. People interested in learning more can do so by going to our Web site: budget.senate.gov or contact on twitter@budgetbulletin. I close with some words from today's paper from the Casper Star- Tribune editorial: Many of the servicemen and servicewomen returning from faraway battlefields--Vietnam or any other place of conflict--have seen horrible, unspeakable things. They've been courageous in the face of death and destruction. Some gave up a relatively easy, safe life to travel far from home and fight for what we as a nation believe the world should be, or could be, someday. That kind of commitment doesn't come without pain or sacrifice--immense pain and sacrifice, in some cases. None of that has anything to do with politics. Politics is the arena of our elected leaders, not our troops, and it's both necessary and patriotic for us as voters to evaluate those leaders' decisions and actions and speak out against the ones we disagree with. That's democracy and dissent. But our troops are our representatives on the ground. We must not use our vaunted system of democracy as a tool to inflict pain on this brave group of people. They're not obligated to support our leaders' political ideologies any more than the rest of us, but uniquely, they have made it their responsibility to represent our treasured way of life at home and abroad in pursuit of a better, more peaceful world. And after they do that, they deserve the thanks of a grateful nation. That's how it should have been in the 1970s. That's how it is now. We must make it our responsibility to ensure that this is how it will always be. We have a crucial decision to make on funding our national defense. I don't think it should be held hostage to other budget concerns. Each of those should stand on their own. Each of those should review all of the things under their jurisdiction. I ask for you to defeat the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2015, at 10:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Transportation Security Administration: First-Hand and Government Watchdog Accounts of Agency Challenges.''

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2015.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on June 9, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, this has been an interesting few days as we have seen the Senate operate the way it is probably designed to operate. It is not supposed to be the fastest legislative body in the world. It is supposed to be one that goes over issues slowly and gives those issues full consideration. I am so pleased the bill before us has been through the committee process. It has been years since we have seen bills go through that committee process. Virtually all of the bills are coming through the committee process this year, and that means several hundred amendments have already been offered to this bill. A lot of them were considered in committee, some of them were considered duplicative, of course, but it brought this bill to the floor, which is very important for the economy of the United States. I hope we can work through the process and get the bill finished. In fact, I am relatively certain we will. It is not the prettiest way of doing it, but it is the way it gets done and has been getting done for centuries in the United States. A Balanced Budget Mr. President, what I really want to talk about today is the importance of a balanced budget. Over the past few weeks, we have seen America reacting to a Congress, and especially the Senate, which is back to work doing the people's business. The basic task of governing seems to have eluded this normal legislative body over the past 8 years and has decimated the faith and trust of hard-working Americans who yearn for a government that is both accountable and effective, and that is why passing a balanced budget represented an important step forward. Here are just a few of the headlines from around the Nation: ``Senate passes first joint congressional budget in six years,'' ``Senate Passes Cost-Cutting Budget Plan,'' ``Budget `A Feat Of Considerable Importance,' '' ``Balanced Budget Will Focus on `Every Dollar Spent,' '' ``Balanced Budget, A Step Forward,'' and ``Congress approves the first 10-year balanced budget since 2001.'' We know passing a budget was important because it symbolizes a government that is back to work, but it is also important to understand why passing a balanced budget is so vital to our Nation. What is the process? The Senate Budget Committee is tasked with the responsibility of setting spending goals. Congress has other committees that authorize government programs and are charged with overseeing their efficiency and effectiveness. We also have committees that allocate the exact dollars for these programs every year, but the Senate Budget Committee sets the spending goals. In other words, we set limits. This is why passing a budget is so important for our Nation. It lets the congressional policymakers who actually allocate the dollars get to work immediately by following our spending limit. This year, we are giving them an early start, and Leader McConnell is committed to allowing the Senate to do its job, and that means debates and votes on all 12 appropriations bills. What is the importance of a balanced budget? A balanced budget approved by Congress will play a crucial role to help make government live within its means and set spending limits for our Nation. A balanced budget will allow Americans to spend more time working hard to grow their businesses or to advance in their jobs instead of worrying about taxes and inefficient and ineffective regulations. Most importantly, it means every American who wants to find a good-paying job and fulfilling career has the opportunity to do just that. A balanced budget will also boost the Nation's economic output, but first we must get our overspending under control because Congress is already spending more tax revenue than at any point in history. If we can do that, we can help boost the economy and expand opportunity for each and every American. The big question is, What happens if interest rates go to their normal historical level? A balanced budget provides Congress and the Nation with a fiscal blueprint that challenges lawmakers to examine every dollar we spend. This is crucial because we currently spend about $230 billion in interest on our debt every year, which is a historically low interest rate of 1.7 percent. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that for every 1 percentage point that our interest rates rise, it will increase America's overspending by $1,745 billion over the next 10 years. That is a huge hit. To provide a clearer picture of how dire our Nation's fiscal outlook is, we have a looming debt of $18 trillion, and it is on its way to $27 trillion. If the interest rate were to go to a modest 5 percent, we would owe $875 billion a year just for interest, which does not buy us anything. That is more than we spend on defense; that is more than we spend on other government agencies. Interest on the debt could soon put America out of the business of funding defense, education, highways, and everything else we do. It is time to get serious. It is time both parties get serious about addressing our Nation's chronic overspending. In the budget, defense was given $90 billion more than the budget caps and $38 billion more than the President requested. We know both sides want the caps from the Budget Control Act removed, but at what price for our Nation and its hard-working taxpayers? Our military leaders have already told us the debt is a threat to national security. Removing the threat of sequester by raising these debt caps without increasing the debt in the short term would require raising taxes. When it comes to defense, we are literally trying to outbid the President, who, with a Democratic Congress, raised taxes to get his budget to that level. Last year, Congress funded items the Department of Defense didn't approve or ask for, and costs for major equipment exceeded approved amounts by billions--that is with a ``b.'' I know small businesses that were deprived of bids by companies that provided products different from the specs with no consequences. That is not fair to our troops or to our taxpayers. We should get what we ordered, and somebody needs to make sure that happens. It is time for Congress to truly work together to tackle our overspending and achieve real results and real progress for American families who are counting on us. How do we boost economic growth? American families understand that you cannot spend what you don't have and expect us to scrutinize every dollar we spend just like they have to and must do. In many ways, if the government would get out of the way, we could increase jobs by expanding the economy. A boost in economic growth means more real jobs from the private sector and small businesses across the Nation, not government ``make work jobs.'' In fact, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that if we were to increase the gross domestic product, which is the private sector growth, by 1 percent, that would provide an average of nearly $300 billion in additional tax revenue every year. How do we do that? One way is to reverse some of the many regulations that burden families and small businesses that provide little or no benefit. For many of these policies and regulations, we need to return to common sense, and that is not being done today. When we continually overspend year after year, we have the opposite effect on private sector jobs and economic growth that can actually lead to more sales and more jobs. Expanding the economy is the best way to raise money for government services, not by raising more taxes. Another important way to help the growth of our economy is to make the government more effective. If government programs are not delivering results, they should be improved or, if they are not needed, they ought to be eliminated. We need to be looking at those. The government has to expect the same tough decisions hard-working taxpayers are making every day. This is Small Business Week, and I want to mention my appreciation for Craig Kerrigan of the Oregon Trail Bank in Wyoming for writing a little article about the real issues for small business. Small business is the motor that drives this economy. He said: If they can't make a profit, no one benefits. This is the reality: They will tell you that the biggest threats and challenges they face in today's economy are health care, taxes and excessive regulations. A regulation affects a small business much more than it does a big business because they don't have a lot of people to spread the work over. Going back to Craig Kerrigan's article: They want to provide competitive salaries and benefits, and in most cases they do. But any cost that is forced upon them they either pass on to the consumer or they go out of business. It is interesting to note that those who force these costs upon small business are not the ones paying for them, and it is always easier spending other people's money. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter by Craig Kerrigan be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. How do we get a more effective government? One of the first places Congress should start is by reviewing the 260 programs whose authorization--that is their right to spend more money--has expired. Some of these programs expired as long ago as 1983, but we are still spending money on them every year. That means we have been paying for these expired programs for more than 30 years. It is not just the length of time these programs have overstayed their welcome, the funds we allocated to them every year are more than what the law called for. In some cases, that means we are spending as much as four times what we should be. You have to take care of your own doorstep. Yesterday, I had an oversight hearing for the Congressional Budget Office, which comes under the direction of the Budget Committee. It was the first oversight hearing in 33 years. Everybody needs to take a look at the programs they are in charge of and see if there are not some changes that ought to be made since the invention of the mobile phone, and, of course, that was a mobile phone about that big. The 260 programs that have expired are costing us $293 billion a year. That is over $2,935 billion--or $2.9 trillion--over 10 years. Eliminating these programs alone would almost balance the budget. In business, programs are reviewed every year or sometimes every week to see if they still contribute to the business and its strategic plan, and if there is not some improvement that will make things work better, they often look for small savings to help strengthen the organization and contribute to its bottom line. But in Washington, programs are not reviewed, let alone questioned, let alone scrutinized. Not even big amounts are questioned. Just think of how long it has been since we have taken a close examination of what we are spending money on. In 1983, ``The Return of the Jedi'' was the top movie and Americans were obsessed with the Rubik's Cube. Savings are usually found in the spending details, but Congress has not examined the details. It just has the big picture, which was painted long ago and has now expired. It is time for each committee to take a look at these programs and decide if they are even worth funding anymore. After all, a project not worth doing at all would not be worth doing well or would not be worth continuing funding for it. But how would committees know if they have not looked at the program in years? How would they know if they don't have a way to measure how well the programs are working? When I first came to the Senate, Yellowstone Park was going broke and threatening to shut down. Every year they said they were running out of money in August, and that is the prime time for the season. I checked the spending bill covering the park, and I found out it only lists how many employees and the total millions of dollars to be spent there. I asked for the details. Both the spending committee and the Department of Interior told me that was as much detail as they had. I asked for a printout of how the money was spent in the previous year. They said it was not available. I heard about millions of dollars in delayed maintenance. I asked for a list of what that consisted of, and I was sent a list of new buildings they wanted to construct. That is not delayed maintenance. In 1999, the Park Service was cited by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality for raw sewage that was flowing into the Madison River, which prompted a request to Congress for emergency repair funds. I asked why that wasn't taken out of the National Park Service emergency budget. There was an emergency fund with plenty of money available immediately for the problem at that time. I didn't get an answer, but I found out that they got more by asking for additional funding at a time of crisis. That is not how government spending is supposed to be done. That is why we need to have a balanced budget. That is why we need to have people scrutinizing the items that are under the jurisdiction of their committees. A balanced budget amendment is what many of the States are working on. We better show taxpayers that Congress is committed to a balanced budget, to make it ever more effective, because we are running out of time. It is not just because of the increase in the interest rates that are possible here, but currently, lawmakers in 27 States have passed applications for a Constitutional Convention to approve a balanced budget amendment, and there are new applications in nine other States that are close behind. If just seven of those nine States approve moving forward on the balanced budget issue, it would bring the total number of States to 34 States. That would meet the two-thirds requirement under article V of the Constitution and force Congress to take action on a balanced budget amendment. If this happened, one of the most important functions of Congress--the power of the purse--would be drastically curtailed, because there would be a new constitutional limit on what Congress would be allowed to borrow. Now, I mentioned before that I think we have been overspending. We are scheduled to overspend by $468 billion this year. How much do we get to actually make decisions on? That amount is $1,100 billion. If we were to balance the budget right now, we would have to do a 50-percent cut in everything we do, and that is not even talking about an increase in interest rates. So, in conclusion, Americans are working harder than ever to make ends meet. Shouldn't their elected officials be willing to work harder too? We need to pass a balanced budget as an important step, but that is just a first step and, unfortunately, that was the easy part. Congress has to get serious about tackling its addiction to overspending and once again become good fiscal stewards of the taxes paid by each and every hard-working American taxpayer. Earlier this month, on the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day--or V-E Day--our Nation's Capital had the rare privilege of seeing and hearing World War II airplanes, our Arsenal of Democracy, fly over the National Mall and the U.S. Capitol Building. This flight and these planes remind us that as a nation, we rise together or we fall together. Those planes also remind us that when we work together, we succeed together. Let us commit to work together to end our overspending and balance our budget. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the pending business, which is the trade promotion authority, also known as TPA, adding to the many initials we are throwing around these days. I thought the Senate came to an agreement to move forward on this legislation, and as promised by the majority leader allowing amendments, but we are not getting to vote. I hope we can note that the objections are not coming from the Republican side of the aisle. I believe the United States must engage in a global marketplace if they are going to survive economically. I also understand there are concerns about TPA. In particular, there is confusion about what exactly happens when Congress passes a TPA bill. History provides us an insight into why Congress created this particular authority. Article I of the U.S. Constitution states, ``Congress shall have the Power To . . . regulate Commerce with foreign nations.'' For over 150 years, Congress established tariff rates directly. However, under the Reciprocal Trade Agreement of 1934, RTAA--more initials--Congress delegated this authority to the President, who could reduce tariffs within preapproved levels in reciprocal trade agreements. In response to Presidential overreach under the act, Congress enacted the first trade promotion authority bill in 1974. Since that time, Congress has regularly enacted TPA legislation which defines U.S. negotiating objectives and priorities for trade agreements. As an added measure, Congress includes time limits on the use of TPA and retains the option to disapprove of an extension when the President requests one. Finally, each Chamber has the right to exercise its constitutional authority to change TPA in an implementing bill. The underlying TPA bill builds on the tradition of Congress setting the terms for trade by expanding the transparency and consultation requirements for the administration. The procedure allows any Member of the House or Senate to unilaterally push to remove TPA authority if he or she believes the White House has not consulted fully with Congress. This is an important check to ensure that Congress is not turning over the fast-track keys to an administration that will disrespect the negotiating objectives Congress sets in its TPA bill. I am confident in supporting TPA because it advances the ball on the Trans-Pacific Partnership--TPP. The TPP agreement is not just a trade agreement, it is an economic and strategic agreement. The TPA parties already include a number of nations the United States already has bilateral free-trade agreements with, including Australia, Chile, Singapore, and Peru. This starting point ensures that TPP includes the highest standards of trade favorable to an economically free and fair market. Additionally, we know the United States needs to continue setting the tone in the Pacific region both economically and politically. The TPP achieves the goal by taking the first step in creating the leading trade agreement of the 21st century. Let me give some examples of how TPP will benefit Wyoming. Despite having no direct access to the Pacific Ocean, in 2014, businesses from Wyoming exported $1 billion in goods to TPP partners, which would grow under the new agreement. For Wyoming, most of its trade is in the natural chemical industry. A key industrial and chemical product I have spoken about on the Senate floor is soda ash. Wyoming also exports machinery and energy products to these Pacific markets. I must also add that over two-thirds of the firms exporting goods from Wyoming are small- or medium-sized businesses. Exports are increasingly playing a role in job growth in my State. In 1992, just 12 percent of the jobs in the State of Wyoming were tied to international trade. As of 2013, one in six jobs in Wyoming is dependent on international trade. The TPP agreement is an opportunity for Wyoming's businesses, especially in mining, manufacturing, and agriculture, to expand their markets and grow. This is why on April 22 I voted to support TPA in the Senate Committee on Finance. Trade promotion authority also plays a key role in advancing the interests of our Nation's most competitive businesses, including technology and medical innovation. I have long spoken about the importance of protecting American innovations overseas. The United States remains a leader in innovation and technology because of our strong protections for intellectual property. The TPP would include the highest standard to date for new innovations. I look forward to advancing TPA and want to give credit to Chairman Hatch and Leader McConnell for the open amendment process they are trying to get on this bill. I will also mention, briefly, that I oppose expanding TAA--another good acronym--without a closer look at how it mimics and duplicates Federal workforce training programs. As the former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I am extremely familiar with the existing Federal programs that Congress funds to improve workforce training. TAA is redundant, and now is not the time to increase spending. As chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget, I cannot ignore programs that add new spending. That is why I intend to vote against expanding it and adding it to the underlying bill. I hope we will take a look at the TPA within the amendment process, and I hope people will pay attention to an article that appeared in the Casper Star Tribune, which is our State newspaper. I assume it appeared in many other newspapers. The title of this article is ``The left is so wrong on the Trans-Pacific Partnership.'' The article goes into some of the reasons Democrats might be trying to deny this from happening. If you look at the strategy, I think that probably is where a lot of the amendments are headed--to actually defeating it, not to help it along, not to improve it, and that is wrong. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the article I just mentioned.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the conference report to accompany S. Con. Res. 11, the budget resolution, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today we have the historic opportunity to put our country on not just another course but a better course. This is because Congress is poised to approve its first balanced 10-year budget since 2001. This balanced budget represents a ``lean in'' moment for a Congress under new management to confront rapidly growing deficits borne from our government's habitual overspending which plagues America and its taxpayers. Understanding this historical context is critical because our Nation currently faces one of the largest forecasted deficits since the end of World War II. The joint Senate-House budget agreement, which produces billion-dollar surpluses in its final years, would be an accomplishment unequaled since 1947. The new leadership in the Senate is committed to getting back to work, which will allow us to begin rebuilding the trust of working Americans. Instead of allowing political points and partisan gridlock to take precedence over responsible governing, we are once again doing the people's business. Make no mistake--America faces overwhelming odds as we work to steer our ship of state to more sustainable and fiscally responsible waters. Even as we take in record revenues and taxes, our Nation is still unable to live within its means. As some of America's greatest leaders have previously noted, these challenges are not undertaken because they are easy but because they are hard. Americans who work every day to pay their taxes and provide for their families understand that it is time for the Federal Government to live within its means, just as they do. Just imagine if these families spent and borrowed the way the Federal Government does. It would mean that a family with a median income of $52,000 would spend $61,000 a year. The family would add an additional $9,000 to the $311,000 they already would owe on their credit card. American families know they cannot live on borrowed money, and neither can the Federal Government. This balanced budget shows these families that if they can do it, so can we. As with any budget, it is important to let the numbers speak on how this proposal helps make America stronger and more secure. This joint Senate-House congressional budget balances the budget within 10 years without raising taxes. It achieves more than $5 trillion in savings. It produces a $32 billion surplus in 2024 and a $24 billion surplus in 2025 and stays in balance. It boosts the Nation's economy by more than $400 billion in additional economic growth over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is expected to grow 1.2 million additional jobs over the next 10 years, again based on the Congressional Budget Office data. This balanced budget achieves real results and allows the Federal Government to support Americans when it must and get out of the way when it should. Let me tell you about some of the highlights of this budget agreement. The balanced budget ensures a strong national defense. It invests in our military personnel and the readiness of our Armed Forces in the current global threat environment. It ensures that defense spending reflects the commitment of Congress to keep America safe and ensure that our military personnel are prepared to tackle all challenges, both at home and abroad. The balanced budget provides for repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. It provides for the repeal of ObamaCare, including all of its taxes, regulations, and mandates. It paves the way for real health care reforms to strengthen the doctor-patient relationship, expand choices, lower health care costs, and improve access to quality, affordable, innovative health care. In other words, it delivers on what the President promised but never delivered. It focuses reconciliation instructions on the key congressional committees with jurisdiction over ObamaCare: the Senate Finance Committee; the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; the House Energy and Commerce Committee; the House Education and the Workforce Committee; and the House Ways and Means Committee. The balanced budget preserves Medicare. It preserves Medicare and protects seniors' access to health care by extending the life of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund. It repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board--IPAB--the unelected, unaccountable board of 15 bureaucrats created by the President's health care law that will make decisions on benefit cuts. It accounts for the recent enactment of legislation that addressed the Medicare Program's sustainable growth rate--SGR--or more commonly called the doc fix. The balanced budget supports stronger economic growth. It boosts U.S. economic growth and private sector job creation by balancing the budget, reducing the debt, and putting a halt to government overspending to reduce the cost of work and investment, as well as the cost of starting and growing a business. It expands the Nation's economy by more than $400 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, under the old way of doing the accounting. It provides an estimated 1.2 million jobs for the U.S. economy by 2025, based on data provided by the Congressional Budget Office in its traditional ways of evaluating. It boosts the Nation's gross national product by 1.4 percent per person after accounting for inflation by 2025, according to the Congressional Budget Office. This boost in economic growth will all come from the private sector. Government spending does not contribute to its growth. As my fellow Budget Committee member and businessman Senator Perdue notes, expanding government does not help grow the economy. The balanced budget improves accountability and effectiveness of government. It is important to note that a balanced budget will help make our government more efficient, effective, and accountable. If government programs are not delivering results, they should be improved, and if they are not needed, they ought to be eliminated. This agreement between the Senate and House will help Congress prioritize and demand results from our government programs. There is no doubt that this will be challenging for every single Member of Congress, but I believe we are up to the task because the American people are counting on us. This budget agreement improves transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the Federal Government by cutting waste, eliminating redundancies, and enacting regulatory reform, and there is plenty of that out there we have not looked at yet. It calls for modernizing Medicaid by increasing State flexibility and protecting those most in need of assistance. It improves honest and responsible accounting practices as part of the Federal budget process by ensuring that fair-value accounting estimates are used, which provide a more honest accounting method. This is in addition to the honest, dynamic scoring method that more accurately tells us what legislation will cost hard-working taxpayers. It improves the administration and coordination of benefits, and it increases employment opportunities for disabled workers. This budget also calls on Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That point is especially important because we must show taxpayers that Congress is committed to a balanced budget and not to overspending, so we can make our government more effective. But we are running out of time. Currently, lawmakers in 27 States have passed applications for a convention to approve a balanced budget amendment and new applications in 9 other States are close behind. If we had 34 States, that would cause us to have a constitutional convention to balance the budget. If just seven of those nine States approve moving forward on the balanced budget issue, it will bring the total number of applications to 34 States. This would meet the two-thirds requirement under article V of the Constitution and force Congress to take action. The other side often says they cut the Federal deficit in half during the President's term in office, but I think using the word ``deficit'' is meant to be confusing. People think he reduced the debt by one-half. Actually, the President has increased the Nation's debt dramatically. What we are talking about when we say ``deficit'' is the amount of overspending, the amount we spend compared to what we bring in. Yes, that is deficit, but it is overspending, and if we call it overspending, it will not be confused with bringing down the national debt, which is not even touched and which under the President's budget only gets worse. In his most recent budget released earlier this year, the President proposed a plan that never balances and includes huge spending increases. It also includes a $2.1 trillion tax increase--that is $2,100 billion of tax increases--while it adds $8.5 billion--or $8,500 million--to the national debt. The Senate recently voted on his budget, and it was rejected 99 to 1. There is no question that balancing the budget is a daunting task. Last year, our Nation overspent by $468 billion, which, if left unchecked, is set to rise to $1,000 billion. We are in control of $1,100 billion in discretionary spending, and this year we will spend $468 billion more than we take in. I will repeat that. We are only in control of $1,100 billion in discretionary spending, and this year we will spend $468 billion more than we take in. This is an unsustainable financial path, and if Congress did what every American family has to do--live within our means--we would have to cut our annual discretionary spending in half. That would be a 50- percent cut. This is because we spend 1\1/2\ times what we take in for items on which we can make decisions. No family or State government can do that for very long, but the Federal Government does it every year. Our budget is not perfect, but it is a start. It provides Congress and the Nation with a fiscal blueprint that challenges lawmakers to examine every dollar we spend. This is crucial because we currently spend over $230 billion in interest on our debt every year, and that is at an interest rate of 1.7 percent. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that every 1 percentage point that our interest rates rise will increase America's overspending by $1,745 billion over the next 10 years. We have a looming debt of $18 trillion on its way to $27 trillion. If our interest rates were to rise to 5 percent, which is the historical norm, we will have to spend almost $700 billion annually, out of the $1,100 billion we get to make decisions on, to pay the interest on our debt. This would be catastrophic for our Nation's economy. It is vital that we address this situation now while we still have some choices. To provide a clearer picture of how dire our Nation's fiscal outlook is, if we were forced to balance the budget in 1 year, we would have to eliminate most of our defense spending, most of our highway spending, and most of our education spending. This drastic 50-percent cut would be needed because of our consistent overspending and our interest payments, which are set to explode. What are the two best ways to make a difference? First, Congress should look at the more than 260 programs whose authorization--the right to spend money--has expired. Some of these government programs expired in 1983, but we are still spending money on them every year. That means we have been paying for these expired programs for more than 30 years. In some cases, we spend as much as four times the spending authority that has expired. We have to look at those programs. For the 260 programs that have expired, we are spending $293 billion a year. Normally, we talk about over a 10-year period. Over a 10-year period, that would be $2,935 billion. Eliminating those programs would almost balance the budget. They can't be eliminated, but they should be looked at regularly. That is why we have authorizations that expire. That is so we are forced to take a look at them. No, that is so we should be forced to take a look at them; obviously, we don't. We don't do that because we want the committees of jurisdiction to have a hard look at the expired authorizations and make them current or, if there are duplications, eliminate the programs that are not needed after all or, with duplication, we ought to be able to at least get rid of half of the administrative bureaucracy on it and make sure the money gets out into the country where we promised it. Now, there is a second way. The other way we can balance the budget is to grow the economy. The Congressional Budget Office tells us that if we were to increase the gross domestic product, private sector growth--again, this is not referring to government GDP; that is just private sector growth--if we were to increase the private sector growth by 1 percent, that would provide an additional $300 billion in additional tax revenue every year. I think that could balance the budget. But first we must get our overspending under control because Congress is already spending more tax revenue than at any point in history. When we take the tax revenue from the individuals and from the businesses, we slow down this growth that would provide the additional $300 billion in tax revenue every year. If we grow the economy, we will expand opportunity for each and every American. Now, I know in their speeches our friends from across the aisle will criticize us for not being finished by April 15. But think of it this way: We did something in 4 months that they could only accomplish once in 4 years, and that is produce a budget--let alone a budget that actually balances. While they were in charge, they often didn't produce a budget by April 15 or October 1 or even January 1. In fact, they produced only one budget conference agreement in the last 6 years, so don't criticize us for what we are doing. While we may have taken a few extra days, we did get it done, and this budget is poised to play a vital role in helping Congress get back to the work of doing the people's business. And when we get it done on time, the spending committees can begin on time. Hopefully, that will give the spending committees time to look at this duplication and the unauthorized spending we have. Now, some point out that the President was able to get his budget out on time. That is true, but the last time I checked, he didn't have to run it by 535 elected officials as we do; he just had to run it past one elected official--himself. I should mention that is the first time in 6 years he has gotten a budget to us on time. We even had to have a rollcall vote today to proceed to this privileged conference report. I don't understand that. The Senate Budget Committee is tasked with the responsibility of setting spending goals. Congress has other committees that authorize government programs and they are charged with overseeing their efficiency and effectiveness. We also have committees that allocate the exact dollars for these programs every year, but the Senate Budget Committee sets the spending goals. In other words, we set limits and we set some enforcement. This is why passing a budget is so important for our Nation. It lets the congressional policymakers who actually allocate the dollars get to work by following our spending limits. This year, we are giving them an early start. Leader McConnell is committed to allowing the Senate to do its job, and that means debate and votes on the 12 appropriations bills--the 12 spending bills. This is an important occurrence in the Senate, because over the past 8 years, appropriations bills have been as rare as ice cubes in the desert. I wish to thank my colleagues in both the Senate and the House for all their hard work in producing a joint budget agreement that balances within 10 years, does not raise taxes, strengthens our Nation's defense, protects our most vulnerable citizens, improves economic growth and opportunity for hard-working families, and stops the Federal Government's out-of-control spending. These important steps, and still others to come, show Congress is back working for the American people to deliver on the promise of a government that is more accountable. This is something each and every American expects and deserves from its leaders in Washington. With action on our balanced budget, we will deliver. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENZI

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time under any quorum call be equally divided between the two sides.

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

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind comments, and I know, as the ranking member of the Committee on Finance, he will be doing a lot of things to see that things in this budget happen, and I suspect they will happen a lot the way they are here. I would like to mention just a couple of things, though, for him to note because he mentioned the wildfire suppression. I know how passionate he and Senator Crapo have been on wildfire suppression. I want him to note that section 3208 preserves the wildfire suppression funding. One of the things that has always concerned me since I got here was that we have these emergencies for all sorts of things. When I first got here, they were $5 billion a year; now they are up to $7 billion a year. But any time you are budgeting and you know something is going to happen every year, it ought to be in the budget. So I put in $7 billion for emergencies, and that will help to provide some of the funding for his suggestion of the wildfire suppression. A couple of the other paragraphs the Senator from Oregon would be interested in are 4319 and 4320. We did not throw out everything. We did do some combining of ones that were very similar to make sure that in the 183 proposals we had for reserve funds, we could come up with a few fewer that would incorporate the ideas of everyone. Some of the previous speeches mentioned what we were doing to Medicare. There aren't a lot of specifics on Medicare because, again, the Finance Committee--which Senator Hatch chairs and Senator Wyden is the ranking member on--will have to make a lot of those actual decisions. In fact, almost everything that is in the budget requires some additional action, and that additional action even has to be signed by the President. So if we are way off, it is not going to happen. But I am thinking there will be a lot of bipartisan action on this. On Medicare itself, all we in the Senate did was go with the same Medicare cuts that the President suggested in his budget. We made one small change in that. We said those Medicare cuts, the money that will be saved in Medicare, has to stay with Medicare. That is a difference that we have with the President. When we did ObamaCare, there was $714 billion worth of Medicare that was taken out and spent on other parts of the program. We could have done the doc fix back then really easily, but that was spent in other places. One of the promises we made was that if there were some changes in Medicare--and there ought to be some changes in Medicare. Actually, the government ought to take a look at everything it does on a regular basis and do it better or, if it is not working, do without it. But Medicare does serve a need in this country, and the money that comes from Medicare ought to stay in Medicare but used in better places in Medicare, where it is more needed. So I hope people will actually take a look at the document that is here. Incidentally, on the Medicare proposal, the House came to the Senate proposal and eliminated a couple of things they had. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time remaining on the conference report be yielded back at 5:30 p.m. today and that the Senate vote on the adoption of the conference report.

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, section 3112 of the conference agreement directs the Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO to produce, alongside CBO's conventional estimates, cost estimates that incorporate the macroeconomic effects of major policy changes. With respect to the designation of the major legislation that would fall within this definition, the chair of the Committee on the Budget in the Senate shall exercise the authority granted under subsection (c)(1)(B)(ii), in consultation with the appropriate chair or vice chair of the Joint Committee on Taxation, to designate a revenue measure as major legislation. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I have been here most of the day listening to comments about the budget. I am fascinated by the budget speculation that has gone on here. Of course, I do know I only had 6 weeks to make up a budget for us to debate, and add to, subtract from, and then to conference. But a lot of what has been said is not actually in the budget. Of course, one of the comments was that it should be a bipartisan budget. In the whole time I have been here, there has not been a bipartisan budget. The majority party has always gotten to take the lead and outline what they see as a vision. But in the past, I remember we used to do our opening statements on the budget in the Budget Committee and then get a copy of the budget we had just commented on. I thought that was wrong. I provided them with it the day before the statements were made so they could make better comments on the budget and have better amendments. What I really would have liked to have done is to have released it even a little earlier. I proposed this to them in exchange for them doing their amendments in advance so we could see their amendments and they could see our amendments. That would lead to a much more bipartisan budget event. That was not agreed to. Now we are down to the point where we are talking about this final conference report, where we have gotten the House and the Senate to agree on a position. I noticed a lot of people today said we were cutting highways. We are not cutting highways. There is a provision in there to take care of highways. I think everybody--both sides of the aisle--wants to make sure we have adequate highways in America. How we get there might be a little different. The President suggested we put a mandatory tax on money that is held overseas by companies to force them to bring it back. If that is done in too short of a period, that would bankrupt a lot of companies because they do have those invested in things overseas. But it is something everybody looking at international tax reform has been talking about. One of the difficulties is, if you do give a reduction in the amount of tax in order to encourage them to bring it back without making it mandatory, it shows up as a huge cost to the Federal Government. Right now they are taxed at 35 percent. If we were to say they could bring it back at the 14 percent the President suggested, that would be a 21-percent cost to our budget. But if we leave it at 35 percent, nobody is bringing that money back here. If we put it at 14 percent and make it mandatory, I guess they would bring the money back here, if we didn't bankrupt them. That will be considered in the Finance Committee in the tax reform package. I am certain something will be done on that to make us more competitive overseas, to bring the money back. I know they are talking about taking, as the President suggested, a portion of those funds to take care of the highways in the beginning, but we still have to have a long-term way to take care of highways, and that is going to require some bipartisan action. Virtually everything that was talked about today in the way of criticism is something that still has to be done. It has to be done with a majority vote, and it has to make it through the whole Senate process, which probably requires 60 votes, which means it is going to be bipartisan, and then every one of those things we were accused of doing has to be signed by the President. They have to be reasonable. They cannot be unreasonable, as we are seeing in there. Some do not even exist. For instance, we were accused of cutting Head Start money. That is not in the budget. There were some cuts to Head Start. That was part of the sequester a couple of years ago. I was astounded when some of the Head Start people came to my office and said: We got cut 7\1/2\ percent. I said: No, no. It is 2.3 percent. They said: No. We got cut 7\1/2\ percent. What I found out was that the bureaucracy in DC kept their money and took it out on the kids out there. Kids were taken out of Head Start. They realized their error and they made some different changes and they restored the money out there. I asked my people: Ok. You got your money back? They said: Yes, but we still couldn't put our kids back because our costs went up so high under ObamaCare on health care for our employees that we had to put all of that into health care. That was not how it was supposed to work either, but that is how ObamaCare works. They also talk about us cutting Pell grants. We moved Pell from mandatory to discretionary. It was not cut. It was moved so it could be reviewed on a regular basis, just like everything else. The estate tax was mentioned. Again, that is a Committee on Finance issue that would have to be dealt with. It has not been given approval for all the years that have been asked for, but that does not mean somebody cannot request it. We will see if the Finance Committee can find some way to do it. I think we can tell from the discussion that probably was not going to happen. The numbers speak, and the speculation does not. But here are some of the things this budget does: It balances the budget within 10 years without raising taxes. It achieves more than $5 trillion in savings, so it puts us on a slope to get to a balanced budget in 9 years. It produces a $32 billion surplus in 2024 and a $24 billion surplus in 2025 and it stays in balance. It boosts the Nation's economy by more than $400 billion in additional economic growth over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is expected to grow 1.2 million additional jobs over the next 10 years--again, according to the Congressional Budget Office statement. The balanced budget ensures a strong national defense. Yes, that is in there. The balanced budget provides for repeal and replacement of ObamaCare. The balanced budget preserves Medicare. We heard about these cuts to Medicare. There are some savings in Medicare. Under our plan, instead of those being spent on other programs outside of Medicare, those are to be used for Medicare. We already saw that we did the doc fix. That is so the doctors would be adequately paid so they would continue to take Medicare patients-- very important. That is taken care of in this budget. The balanced budget supports stronger economic growth. Note that the boost in economic growth will all come from the private sector. Government spending does not contribute to this growth. As my fellow Budget Committee member and businessman Senator Perdue notes, expanding government does not help grow the economy. The budget agreement improves transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of the Federal Government by cutting waste and eliminating redundancies and enacting regulatory reform. It calls for modernizing Medicaid by increasing State flexibility and protecting those most in need of assistance. It improves honest and responsible accounting practices as part of the Federal budget process by ensuring that fair value accounting is used, which provides a more honest accounting method. I am the first accountant to chair the Budget Committee. It is very important for me to have it so we can tell exactly where things are going, not just in the first 10 years, which is what we have been typically doing, but looking at the outlying numbers too. We are going through a baby boom retirement right now, and the number of people under Social Security is going just like that. We did not change Social Security. Under the Budget Act, we are not allowed to change Social Security, but we are going to have to take a look at it. Looking at those numbers in the long term is going to force both sides of the aisle to take a look at what we need to do to save what we are used to. This new honest accounting will tell us more accurately what the legislation will cost the hard-working taxpayers. It improves the administration and coordination of benefits, and it increases employment opportunities for disabled workers. It calls on Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment for the Constitution. There are a bunch of States that are working on it and 27 States passed the requirement for us to do that. Nine other States are close behind. If seven of the nine agree to that, we will have to actually balance the budget. How difficult is that? Last year, we overspent $468 billion. The dollars that we get to actually make decisions on are about $1,100 billion. Some people call that $1.1 trillion. I do not think that really tells the story; 1,100 billion sounds like a lot more than $1.1 trillion. So $468 billion overspent on an $1,100 billion decision process, that is 50 percent. If we were to balance the budget, we would have to cut that by 50 percent, and people really would be concerned. Why do we have to do that? Interest rates alone will cause us to do that. If the interest rates go up to what they normally would be--right now we are spending $230 billion, and that is at an interest rate of 1.7 percent. With interest rates rising, we would have to spend $1,745 billion over the next 10 years just on interest. Another reason we need to get this budget done is so appropriators can get started. They are the ones that do the spending bills. There are 12 spending bills out there that get into the specifics of the things we are spending. All we did was give a blueprint for the overall picture for each of those 12 spending committees. But they need to take a look at what they have jurisdiction over and see where there is duplication, fraud, waste, and programs that are not even working. We have a bunch of programs out there that we have not reauthorized. That means they have expired, but we are still spending money on them-- $293 billion a year on them. We have to do better. There are two ways we can make a difference. We can look at those 260 programs and see if--if they have not been looked at for a long time, see if there couldn't be some savings there. Secondly, we can try to grow the private sector economy. Private sector growth by 1 percent would provide more than $300 billion in additional tax revenue every year. That almost balances the budget by itself. There are some things we can do if we start looking at how we can keep from impeding business, get business going and make it more competitive in the United States, and we can do better. I hope the people will all support the budget we have. It isn't perfect. We had a short time to work on it compared to the time the other side had to work on it in previous years, but we did it, and now we need to finish it. I ask for my colleagues' support on the budget.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. ENZI

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