[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 198 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7648-S7650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



              The Budget and Appropriations Process Reform

  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, earlier this month, Congress sent the 
President another continuing resolution to allow more time to resolve 
the partisan impasse that has us on the brink of a government shutdown 
once again. A continuing resolution just allows agencies to continue to 
spend money without knowing how much they actually get to spend.
  The current episode is yet another example of the breakdown of what 
should be the basic nuts and bolts of government--keeping the 
government open and funded. In other words, they have been spending 
money since last October without knowing how much money they get to 
spend. So I come to the floor today to talk about the need to reform 
our broken budget and appropriations process and to lay out a few ideas 
I have for how to do that.
  As chairman of the Budget Committee, I have worked on budget 
appropriations and process reform for several years and always believed 
that changes need to be guided by two core principles. The first 
principle is that reforms should end brinksmanship and the threat of 
government shutdowns; and No. 2, reforms should guide us to create 
enforceable plans to stop the outrageous growth of our Federal debt, 
which is approaching $22 trillion.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal debt held by 
the public, as a percentage of our economy, is at the highest level 
since shortly after World War II. That debt is expected to rise sharply 
over the next 30 years if current laws generally remain unchanged. 
Quite simply, our budget problems are too severe to be put off any 
longer. Yet our dysfunctional budget and appropriations process is 
making it harder for Congress to tackle our pressing fiscal challenges.
  To start, one easy thing we could do to improve the process is to 
change the names of the Budget and Appropriations Committees to better 
reflect each committee's function.
  The Budget Committee, which is tasked with crafting an annual fiscal 
framework to guide Congress, really should be called the Debt Control 
Committee. The Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for 
making the actual decisions about how money is spent each year, should 
be renamed the Budget and Appropriations Committee.
  Too often, when we come up against appropriations deadlines, as we 
are now, press reports declare that Congress has to pass the budget to 
avoid a shutdown. Not true. The budget passed a long time ago. In 
reality, the budget reflects the start of the process, and 
appropriations reflects the end. Changing these committees' names would 
more clearly delineate their actual responsibilities and thereby make 
it easier for them to be carried out and understood by the public.
  A second important change would be to finally admit that Congress is 
not capable of sending 12 appropriations bills to the President before 
the September 30 end of the fiscal year each year. The current process 
leaves Congress in a nearly perpetual quest to develop and pass 12 
funding bills for the next fiscal year to avoid a funding lapse. Yet 
the sheer size and complexity of the Federal budget and appropriations 
process virtually guarantee that Congress will not consider all the 
appropriations bills individually each year. In the last 40 years, we 
have succeeded only four times in passing all of the appropriations 
bills on time. Let me repeat that. In the last 40 years, we have 
succeeded only four times in passing all of the appropriations bills on 
time.

  Our inability to pass appropriations bills on the current schedule 
has made reliance on continuing resolutions a routine part of the 
process, and it comes with a cost. The Department of Defense has 
operated under a continuing resolution for an average of 81 days per 
year; that is almost 3 months per year since 2001, with a particularly 
bad spate since 2009, in which we averaged 134 days per year. That is 
almost 4\1/2\ months of not knowing how much they are going to get to 
spend, let alone planning for the future.
  Earlier this year, the Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer, 
identified $4 billion in waste owing to the lack of financial stability 
resulting from these continuing resolutions--this lack of knowing how 
much to spend. He said:

       Since 2001, we have put $4 billion in the trash can, poured 
     lighter fluid on top of it, and burned it. . . . It's enough 
     money that it can buy us the additional capacity and 
     capability that we need. Instead, the $4 billion of taxpayer 
     money has been lost because of inefficiencies [caused by] 
     continuing resolutions.

  While it is true that this year we were able to pass and get signed 
five appropriation bills prior to September 30--remarkably, an 
improvement from recent years--that still leaves seven bills yet to be 
enacted.
  To address this problem, I have proposed moving to a biennial system 
and halving the number of appropriations

[[Page S7649]]

bills considered each year so that six would be considered in the first 
session of Congress and six would be considered in the second--each of 
them, of course, for 2 years to allow for more planning. By providing a 
more realistic and attainable schedule, we could allow for a more 
thoughtful process for considering individual bills. We would free up 
more time for oversight of Federal spending. We would actually get to 
look at some of the details of the dollars we are spending, and we 
would reduce the likelihood of continuing resolutions and large, year-
end spending bills--with everything attached to it--that are 
inefficient and too often loaded with waste. We could also give 
agencies the certainty they need to plan and make wise decisions 
regarding how to implement funding.
  But successful and timely enactment of the appropriations bills is 
only part of the solution. We also need to look at the mandatory side 
of the ledger and programs that don't have adequate revenue to maintain 
obligations--the ones we don't ever get to make a decision on. Any new 
mandatory programs should be self-financing or offset by the 
elimination of existing programs that we would continue to fund. In 
other words, nothing should be mandatory if it doesn't have a stream of 
money big enough to pay for it.
  We also need to look at ending the spending bias that begins with a 
current baseline--current amount of spending--and automatically adjusts 
for inflation.
  To address the long-term structural deficit problems, we need to 
create enforceable spending targets that are monitored and enforced 
annually to make sure lawmakers stay focused on deficit reduction and 
achieving a suitable Federal budget. The newly revamped Debt Control 
Committee should be empowered to establish its targets and enforce 
spending constraints. For example, if we followed my penny plan and cut 
spending by 1 cent out of every dollar each year for the next 5 years, 
we could balance the budget.
  Once enforceable targets are agreed upon, we should conform the debt 
limit to them. I know that dealing with the debt limit in a responsible 
manner is a priority for many of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle. I am ready to work with them on it.
  We are not talking about sequester here; I am suggesting precision 
cuts on the low priorities. First of all, sequester happened late in 
the year, so there wasn't much money left to take the money out of, 
which made it a much larger reduction from those spending bills. They 
also picked the projects they thought would be most noticeable and cut 
those, realizing that the American public would rise up in arms and 
make sure that it was reinstated, and that happened. They always picked 
the most visible and the most painful.
  What we have to do is get to precision cuts in the things we haven't 
even looked at. I have a list of how many things we haven't looked at. 
Some programs haven't been looked at since 1983, but they continue to 
get an annual inflation increase anyway--sometimes greater than the 
annual increase.
  Each of the above suggestions would improve our process, help us 
control spending, and meet our constitutional obligations. I plan to 
pursue them in the next Congress and look forward to working with my 
colleagues on these and other ideas.
  However, while reforms are needed, the reality is there will never be 
a perfect process, and no reform by itself could force the hard 
decisions that are needed. What we need is leadership and a commitment 
from both sides to work together to do what we know needs to be done to 
confront these challenges.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on these critical 
challenges in the next Congress.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I start my remarks, in case they 
go beyond the time for a vote, I ask unanimous consent to finish my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         FIRST STEP Act of 2018

  Mr. GRASSLEY. We are here today to begin debate on a piece of 
legislation called the FIRST STEP Act of 2018. This happens to be the 
most significant criminal justice reform bill in a generation.
  Our country is based upon the rule of law. If someone commits a 
crime, they should be punished, and that punishment should be severe 
enough to deter others from committing crimes.
  But for our criminal justice system to serve our society well, it has 
to do more than punish and deter. Recidivism rates are far too high and 
drive crime rates up. In the Federal system, 49 percent of prisoners 
are rearrested within 8 years, and 32 percent are convicted of new 
crimes. We must better prepare prisoners to leave behind their criminal 
past and to become productive citizens when they leave the prison 
system.
  We also need to make sure that criminal sentences are tough enough to 
punish and deter, but not be unjustly harsh. Sentences should not 
destroy the opportunity of redemption for inmates willing to get right 
with the law.
  The FIRST STEP Act is tough on crime, but it is also fair. To tackle 
the recidivism rates in our country, the bill establishes evidence-
based programming that has reduced recidivism at the State level. We 
have evidence from the States of Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, and many 
others to justify that fact.
  The bill provides incentives for inmates willing to put in the work 
to complete these programs. Under this bill, a prisoner may earn 10 
days of time credit for every 30 days of successful participation, 
which they can apply toward prerelease custody. However, access to 
these incentives is available only to those who pose little risk of 
committing new crimes.
  The FIRST STEP Act requires the Bureau of Prisons to implement a risk 
assessment system to determine an inmate's risk of returning to crime 
after prison.
  Access to the earned-time credits is limited to those who pose a 
minimum or low risk. The bill also makes clear that violent and high-
risk criminals convicted of certain serious offenses are ineligible for 
the prerelease custody program.
  The list of disqualifying offenses includes crimes relating to 
terrorism, murder, sexual exploitation of children, and gun crimes, 
among others that are listed in the bill. All fentanyl traffickers are 
disqualified from earning time credits.
  The bill also makes sentencing fairer by returning some discretion to 
judges during sentencing. Some have called for eliminating mandatory 
minimums or cutting them back severely.
  I happen to be a supporter of mandatory minimum sentences because it 
helps law enforcement take down criminal enterprises, but at the same 
time, I recognize there is some unfairness in how these mandatory 
minimum sentences are sometimes applied. The FIRST STEP Act leaves in 
place these maximum sentences but also addresses overly harsh and 
expensive mandatory minimums for certain nonviolent offenders. Locking 
up low-level offenders for needlessly long prison sentences diverts 
resources that are needed elsewhere to fight crime.
  To address this, the FIRST STEP Act makes a number of changes to 
sentencing guidelines. First, the legislation clarifies that enhanced 
penalties for using a firearm during a crime of violence or drug crime 
should be reserved for repeat offenders of such crimes. That is what 
Congress had intended when it created the enhanced penalty in the first 
place.
  Second, the bill would reduce the three-strike penalty for life 
imprisonment to 25 years. The 20-year minimum is reduced to 15 years. 
The bill also broadens the mandatory penalties, applying them to more 
of the worst criminals.
  Third, the bill provides for more judicial discretion by expanding 
the existing Federal safety valve to include more low-level, nonviolent 
offenders. Consistent with the existing law, the judge cannot apply the 
safety valve unless the defendant has fully cooperated with law 
enforcement.
  Lastly, the bill also allows for the retroactive application of the 
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, which reduced the 100-to-1 disparity in 
sentencing between crack and powder cocaine.
  I want to acknowledge President Trump's leadership on criminal 
justice reform. Without the President's engagement, we wouldn't be here 
today.

[[Page S7650]]

The President deserves credit for brokering a deal that improves 
fairness and supports law enforcement.
  A tremendous amount of credit is also due to my colleagues in the 
Senate who helped to forge a bipartisan compromise on complex issues. I 
emphasize ``bipartisan compromise'' because the people in the 
grassroots of America, even in my State of Iowa, think there isn't much 
bipartisanship going on here.
  I would especially like to thank my colleague, Senator Durbin. He has 
been a partner through this entire process.
  A bipartisan cosponsor includes Senator Lee, who has done a 
tremendous amount of work on this. In fact, he started with Senator 
Durbin before I even got involved. We also have cosponsorships by 
Senators Booker, Graham, Whitehouse, Scott, Feinstein, Cornyn, and 
Leahy. They all deserve praise for reaching this deal.
  The product of years of negotiating and listening to each other is a 
bill that will reduce crime, strengthen faith in our judicial system, 
support law enforcement, and give thousands of people a better shot at 
living good lives.
  As we go to this very important first vote on this bill, which is to 
invoke cloture, I urge all of my colleagues to join with President 
Trump and our bipartisan coalition of supporters to support the FIRST 
STEP Act.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________