[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7080-S7083]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL REFORM ACT
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Bipartisan
Congressional Reform Act I introduced with Senator Whitehouse and many
of my colleagues.
Last month, the Senate Budget Committee approved our legislation--
that is the Senate Budget Committee--by a vote of 15 to 6, marking the
first major legislation reported by the committee on a bipartisan basis
in nearly 30 years. I am pleased that 21 Senators have now joined
Senator Whitehouse and me as cosponsors of this bill.
Since I became chairman of the Budget Committee, we have had more
than a dozen hearings on budget process reform. We have met with
budgeting experts, including some outstanding State officials, and we
have listened to insights and concerns shared by colleagues on both
sides of the aisle. Along the way, we collected a lot of good ideas
that we tried to incorporate into our bill, and I thank all those who
contributed.
Now, this legislation will not solve all of our fiscal challenges. It
does, however, represent a good-faith, bipartisan effort to reform our
budget process in a way that encourages long-term planning, realistic
and responsible budget assumptions, and the end to the brinksmanship
surrounding our Nation's statutory debt limit.
This bill will also make evident what needs to be done next. I think
we struck a pretty good balance. The Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget says the bill ``would improve transparency and
accountability in the budget process'' and would ``make the budget
resolution into a more effective governing tool.''
According to the Concord Coalition, which was founded by some
Democrats, ``This legislation would move the budget process in a very
positive direction.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters from the
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Concord Coalition be
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The reason I am giving the speech is to clarify some
misunderstandings of other groups that were commenting on most of the
original version of the bill before amendments from both parties were
adopted in committee.
I will not detail all the reforms in this bill now, but I would like
to highlight a handful of key elements of the bill and hopefully clear
up some misunderstanding about it.
First of all, our bill tries to ensure that we have better
information on which to base budgets. Imagine this for a moment. It
would require better information on which to base budgets and more
active engagement from the tax-writing and each of the spending
committees to ensure that every corner of the Federal budget is
scrutinized and that budgets are realistic.
It would also require the Congressional Budget Office and the
Government Accountability Office conduct portfolio reviews of Federal
spending and tax expenditures to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of Federal programs.
Here is what that means: It means grouping projects regardless of
which Cabinet Department has jurisdiction so we can see all that we are
doing.
Use housing, for instance. We have 160 programs under 20 agencies. I
can only see 5 reasons--not 160--and they should all be under one
jurisdiction, not several Cabinet jurisdictions. So, currently, nobody
is in charge of setting goals or seeing if they are effective. We are
paying multiple administrators to argue over jurisdiction rather than
results--160 of them.
Secondly, our bill would reorient the budget process from a yearly to
a biannual cycle. Right now, under the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, Congress is supposed to approve a budget resolution each year
that sets discretionary spending levels and provides fiscal parameters
for a legislation brought to the Senate floor.
The budget resolution can also provide special instructions through a
process called reconciliation. What that means is that instructions are
given to authorizing and tax-writing committees to develop legislation
to achieve hopeful and specific budgetary targets. For a variety of
reasons, this process has not worked very well in recent years.
Instead, Congress resorts to passing a series of 2-year deals that set
discretionary spending limits rather than approving the budget.
I need to explain that word ``discretionary.'' Out of all the Federal
dollars spent, Congress only votes on about 30 percent of the money
spent each year. Seventy percent of the spending is on autopilot. That
is mandated to be spent. Discretionary spending is the little amount
that Congress actually votes on.
Under our bill, Congress would approve a budget resolution in the
first year of a biennium that would, among other things, provide
appropriators 2 years of discretionary spending totals, similar to a
practice in recent years. Leadership, not the Budget Committee, has
been negotiating these 2-year spending deals.
Thirdly, the bill would make significant reforms to the content of
the budget resolution. Discretionary spending totals would be included
in the resolution text, where individual Members could amend them.
Mandatory spending totals would be broken up by budget function so we
could see trends in portfolios of Federal spending.
Here is something really new. The budget resolution would also be
required to include a target ratio of debt-to-gross domestic product,
or GDP, which is generally viewed as the best measure of the country's
ability to repay its debt. The hope is that by focusing on our debt-to-
GDP target, we could put our country on a glide slope toward a more
sustainable fiscal future. Under the reform bill, that glide slope can
be cutting spending, raising revenue, or both.
Fourth, the bill would provide a mechanism to conform our country's
statutory debt limit to the levels in the resolution. This will help
incorporate the debt limit into our fiscal planning and provide a
powerful incentive to ensure that the targets set in the resolution are
attainable.
Neither side relishes voting to increase the debt limit, as it is
easy fodder for political opponents. Yet there is nearly universal
agreement that default would be unacceptable. Our bill tackles this
issue in a way that it maintains the debt limit as a tool to ensure
fiscal responsibility, while removing the brinksmanship surrounding the
potential default.
Fifth, our bill would provide a means to initiate reconciliation in
the second year of the biennium if Congress isn't living by its fiscal
plan. There has been a lot of confusion about this process, so let me
take a moment to explain it.
As I just mentioned, under our bill, each budget resolution would
include 2 years' worth of discretionary spending levels and a debt-to-
GDP target for the final year of the budget. That means each new
Congress would set its own spending levels and debt targets in its
budget agreement, and it would not be bound by the targets established
by its predecessors.
If, in the second year of the biennium, the Congressional Budget
Office finds that Congress is not on track to meet its debt-to-GDP
target, then a special reconciliation process is made available. This
is akin to what can already be done under current law if you pass a
budget resolution in the second year of Congress, but because we are
giving appropriators 2 years of discretionary spending levels upfront,
we created a new process in the second year if Congress misses its
fiscal goals. Contrary to a misconception that has been circulated,
however, there is nothing automatic about this process.
Before reconciliation can proceed, the Senate Budget Committee, which
will be renamed the Committee on Fiscal Control and the Budget, would
need to approve a resolution providing deficit-reducing reconciliation
instructions to one or more committees.
That resolution, which would be amendable, would then be considered
by the full Senate. We have added protections to ensure that Senators
have the ability to offer amendments and have built in flexibility for
unforeseen realities, including economic downturns. We also applied the
existing burden rule to this process, which means it cannot be used to
make changes to Social Security.
[[Page S7081]]
Senators could offer amendments to reduce the amount of the deficit
reduction called for or they can decide they don't want to proceed with
this process at all. If they do decide to move forward with this
special reconciliation, each committee that received an instruction
would then report legislation within its jurisdiction to reduce the
deficit. The instructions themselves could not dictate what particular
programs are to be included in the reconciliation legislation. That is
left up to the authorizing and the tax-writing committees that have
specific policy expertise. One thing the instructions could not do is
increase the deficit.
After each committee approves its instructions, all the
recommendations would then be sent to the Committee on Fiscal Control
and Budget, where, again, they would need to be approved and reported
to the full Senate. After that step, the legislation would come to the
floor, where it could be subject to unlimited amendments, giving every
Senator another opportunity to support, amend, or oppose the
legislation.
Each of these steps affords the Members the opportunity to have their
ideas incorporated into the special reconciliation or to try to stop it
altogether.
In addition, a similar process would have to play out in the House of
Representatives, and the final bill would have to be signed by the
President before any policy changes could be enacted.
In general, our legislation does not attempt to prescribe House
procedures. That is in deference to the House and the constitutional
prerogative of each Chamber of Congress to develop its own rules.
I have heard some concerns that this sets up a one-sided bet that
could dictate spending cuts over revenue increases because only the
House of Representatives can initiate revenue measures. That was never
my intention, and during the Budget Committee markup to our
legislation, a substitute amendment that Senator Whitehouse and I
drafted was adopted that would allow the Senate to deem a revenue
measure approved by the House as a special reconciliation vehicle. I
look forward to working with the House on addressing the procedural
issues.
The intent of our special reconciliation process is to force a
conversation about our growing debt and deficits, not to dictate what
the outcome of that conversation will be.
As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, the
criticisms that this bill is somehow a threat to low-income programs
``is largely misplaced.'' As the group said, ``The tool would not
automate any changes to spending or revenue, but would instead
establish a process to consider deficit reduction measures. These
measures would have to pass the Senate and the House and be signed by
the President (a veto override system is also possible). Unlike current
reconciliation rules, which have been used to pass deficit-finance tax
cuts, this process is limited to deficit reduction and could help
policymakers agree to new revenue and to reforms to improve healthcare
programs. And long-term deficit reduction can easily co-exist with
near-term measures to counter a recession.''
Finally, our bill would prioritize budget transparency. It would give
the Senate new budget enforcement tools, and it would remove one of the
disincentives to bringing the budget to the floor by fixing the process
known as vote-arama.
In developing our legislation, I specifically set out to establish a
process that would allow us to be thoughtful and deliberate in our
fiscal decision making, while avoiding the automatic spending cuts over
the last decade, known as sequestration.
Under this bill, sequestration is gone. Our bill would not tilt the
scales toward one party, ideology, or policy. Rather, it aims to create
a neutral process to guide Congress in making reasoned budget
decisions. Each Congress will decide what fiscal policy changes may be
necessary, whether that means less spending, more revenue, or a
combination of the two.
We cannot be content to bury our heads in the sand as our more than
$23 trillion debt grows unchecked, swallowing the opportunities of
future generations. If you, like me, want to see Congress get back to
actual budgeting and tackling the difficult fiscal issues that we all
need to be addressed, then, please join me in supporting the bill. If
you have suggestions on how to make it better, I want to hear them. We
are always open to new ideas, and I think we have demonstrated it.
With that, I recognize my colleague, who helped to work on this bill.
In addition to working on this bill, he was on the special committee
for the Budget. It was a joint effort between the House and the Senate,
and many of the ideas he brought to this bill from that committee.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Enzi-Whitehouse Budget Process Bill Includes Important Reforms
Nov. 21 2019--Budget Process
The Senate Budget Committee recently marked up and reported
bipartisan legislation to reform the budget process. The
Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act, introduced by
Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-
RI), would improve transparency and accountability in the
budget process. It would make the budget resolution into a
more effective governing tool by making it easier for
policymakers to choose fiscal targets and stick with them.
That, we hope, would mean putting the debt on a more
sustainable path. The Senate Budget Committee approved the
legislation by a vote of 15 to 6, and it currently has 19
bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate.
While there may be room to make improvements and
adjustments to the bill and some amendments were adopted in
committee, the legislation is a thoughtful, realistic, and
helpful approach to improve the budget process on a
bipartisan basis. Congress should build on and enact some
version of this proposal.
What's in the Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act?
The Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act is the
result of years of effort, building on several past proposals
including those from Chairman Enzi, Senator Whitehouse, the
recent Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations
Process Reform (JSC), and even our own Better Budget Process
Initiative recommendations.
The proposal would incorporate debt-to-Gross-Domestic-
Product (GDP) targets into the budget resolution and the
budget process, adopt biennial budgeting while keeping annual
appropriations, link debt limit increases and discretionary
spending caps to passage of a budget resolution, and add
transparency requirements such as including interest costs in
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scores.
A brief summary of the bill is available from the Senate
Budget Committee.
How Might the Fiscal Targets in the Bipartisan
Congressional Budget Reform Act Improve Fiscal Outcomes?
A key aspect is expanding the fiscal goals included in the
budget process. Specifically, budget resolutions would set
targets for the ratio of debt held by the public to Gross
Domestic Product (GDP). Congress would set these targets in a
joint budget resolution every odd-numbered year, and the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would evaluate adherence to
the target in even-numbered years. Adopting a budget
resolution would automatically spin off debt-limit-increase
legislation to be signed by the President as well as a
special reconciliation process in some cases. Setting fiscal
goals is an incredibly important first step toward achieving
long-term sustainability, and integrating them into the
budget resolution could give current members more ownership
of those objectives and hopefully strengthen their ongoing
commitment to meeting fiscal targets.
The proposal goes further than simply setting goals. It
would establish a new, deficit-reduction-only reconciliation
process if needed to achieve the debt-to-GDP levels agreed to
in the earlier budget resolution. Under this process, the
Senate Budget Committee, renamed the Committee on Fiscal
Control and the Budget, would report a simple resolution with
reconciliation instructions to the full Senate, where it
would be open for amendments. If approved by the Senate, it
would instruct applicable committees to produce deficit-
reducing legislation to achieve compliance with debt targets.
Senate procedures for regular reconciliation legislation
would apply to the new reconciliation process, including the
Byrd Rule that, among other provisions, prohibits changes to
Social Security. When marking up the legislation, however,
many members expressed a desire to understand this process
more completely before floor consideration.
While some have criticized this new tool as a threat to
low-income programs, we believe this concern is largely
misplaced. The tool would not automate any changes to
spending or revenue, but would instead establish a process to
consider deficit reduction measures. These measures would
have to pass the Senate and the House and be signed by the
President (a veto override is also possible). Unlike current
reconciliation rules, which have been used to pass deficit-
financed tax cuts, this process is limited to deficit
reduction and could help policymakers agree to new revenue
and to reforms to improve
[[Page S7082]]
health care programs. And long-term deficit reduction can
easily co-exist with near-term measures to counter a
recession.
What other provisions might improve fiscal outcomes?
In addition to improving outcomes through this special
reconciliation, the bill would establish a new pathway for a
bipartisan budget resolution, previously championed by Sen.
Whitehouse during the JSC last year and introduced separately
as S. 63, the Bipartisan Budget and Appropriations Reform Act
of 2019. A majority of both parties in the Senate Budget
Committee and at least 15 members of the minority party on
the Senate floor would be needed for a budget resolution to
qualify for this new pathway. Under it, subsequent
appropriations legislation would be easier to consider on the
Senate floor, and the budget resolution would automatically
spin off legislation with enforceable caps on discretionary
spending in addition to increasing the debt limit. This
process could help the parties to work together
toward reasonable deficit reduction measures. Folding the
debt limit and spending caps into the bipartisan pathway
for the budget resolution would also reduce opportunities
for isolated brinkmanship.
Other aspects of the bill--like asking CBO to estimate
interest costs associated with legislation and restricting
phony spending cuts known as changes in mandatory spending
programs (CHIMPs)--could also improve budget outcomes.
Adopting portfolio budgeting is another positive step, as it
would provide a more holistic review of major program areas
regardless of the committees of jurisdiction and thus help
lawmakers coordinate related authorities.
To be sure, the Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act
would not fix the debt directly, nor does it include actual
deficit reduction. Through improvements in the overall budget
process, it would give lawmakers more opportunities to think
seriously about the consequences of high and rising debt as
well as more ability to budget comprehensively and mindfully.
What amendments have been proposed?
The Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act was
introduced on Oct. 31 and was ordered reported by the Senate
Budget Committee on November 6. During the markup, the
committee made the following changes:
A manager's amendment by Chairman Enzi to enhance the
consensus-oriented aspects for special reconciliation.
An amendment by Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) to create a new
point of order intended to deter the use of the Crime Victims
Fund to increase unrelated spending through CHIMPs.
An amendment by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) to add tax
expenditures to the scope of portfolio budgeting.
An amendment by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) to restrict
the ability of the President to use rescission authority near
the end of fiscal years and to increase related reporting
requirements.
In addition, the following amendments were considered but
not adopted:
An amendment by Senator David Perdue (R-GA) to align the
fiscal year with the calendar year. An amendment by Senator
Ron Wyden (D-OR) to remove the new reconciliation process to
enforce debt-to-GDP targets.
An amendment by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) to require CBO
to provide information on the distributional impacts of
legislation. Nonetheless, Chairman Enzi pledged to work with
Senator Merkley and other members to obtain the information
they seek.
Lawmakers must continue to improve the budget process,
which has contributed to many years of inaction on a budget
resolution and even more missed deadlines. Process reforms
alone cannot create the political will to have a functioning
budget, but they may allow latent political will to
accomplish more. This bill offers thoughtful ideas to make
the process more effective and to improve the framework for
lawmakers to consider budget matters more comprehensively.
____
[From the Concord Coalition, Nov. 6, 2019]
The Concord Coalition Praises Bipartisan Senate Budget Reform Plan
Washington.--The Concord Coalition said today that a new
budget process reform bill co-sponsored by Senate Budget
Committee Chair Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Budget Committee member
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) proposes reforms that would
address some of the most vexing problems plaguing the current
budget process.
The Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act is also co-
sponsored by Senators Grassley (R-IA), Kaine (D-VA), Crapo
(R-ID), King (I-ME), Graham (R-SC), Coons (D-DE), Barrasso
(R-WY), Blunt (R-MO), Johnson (R-WI), Perdue (R-GA), Kennedy
(R-LA), Cramer (R-ND), and Braun (R-IN).
``This legislation comes at a time when the budget process
is clearly broken and partisan tensions run high. Senators
Enzi, Whitehouse and their fellow co-sponsors are bucking
both of these trends and demonstrating a timely and exemplary
standard of leadership,'' said Robert L. Bixby, executive
director of The Concord Coalition.
Among the proposed reforms are moving the budget to a two-
year cycle, setting debt-to-GDP targets in the budget
resolution and establishing a special enforcement process for
these targets, creating a mechanism for conforming the debt
limit to the budget resolution levels, and enhancing
reporting requirements to promote transparency. It would also
establish a new procedural option to encourage budget
resolutions with substantial bipartisan support.
``The co-sponsors understand that budget process reform is
not a panacea for the monumental fiscal challenges we face as
a nation, nor is it a substitute for making real choices on
taxes and spending,'' Bixby cautioned. ``But creating a
process that minimizes short-term brinkmanship and refocuses
attention on long-term planning would help facilitate a
discussion about how best to address these challenges. This
legislation would move the budget process in a very positive
direction.''
Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Enzi. I am delighted
to join Senator Enzi on the floor today to talk about our bill. An
enormous amount of work has gone into preparing for it, including, I
want to say, more than a dozen hearings that Chairman Enzi led in the
Budget Committee to build the factual predicate for the work we were
doing.
I will, as the Chairman has mentioned, also drop a word of
appreciation to Chairman Womack and Chairman Lowey, who ran the Select
Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform, which gave us a
chance to work through some more of these issues.
The fundamental problem we are trying to address is that, in the
Senate, no committee actually looks at the deficit, the debt, and the
borrowing in any kind of a comprehensive way. In theory, the Budget
Committee is supposed to, but in practice, the Budget Committee has
become two things: one, a vehicle for the majority to drive a political
budget limited to appropriated spending through, with no bipartisan
compromise. We have seen over and over how that has ended up. It has
never been of any use. Even if you get it done, you break through the
budget by getting to 60 votes, and we do most things around here by
getting to 60 votes. It is a fence that is basically a line painted on
the ground. It is a fence with no fence to it.
Moreover, we do reconciliation. That is usually a way to bust around
the budget. Both parties have used it. The Republicans have used it for
the so-called tax reform. We used it for one segment of the Affordable
Care Act. That is what the Budget Committee is boiled down to--a
partisan proposal on appropriations that means nothing and a vehicle
for getting around the 60-vote filibuster on a regular basis through
reconciliation. That is it. There is no serious look that is taken at
the debt or at the deficit.
What does this bill do? It does some things for which there is very
broad agreement. First of all, it was pretty much unanimous that the
way you look at debt is in terms of a debt-to-GDP ratio, and this takes
us down that path. Second, you have to do the arithmetic correct. You
don't get to a proper debt-to-GDP ratio unless you look at the things
that add up to the deficit, which are appropriated spending, healthcare
spending, revenues, and tax spending.
For one quick word on tax spending, for 2018 the latest report I saw
was that we spent $1.4 trillion going out the back door of the Tax
Code. That is more than we spend on Social Security. That is more than
we spend on Medicare and Medicaid combined. That is more than defense
and nondefense discretionary spending combined. You can't not look at
tax spending and still have your math right. We address those.
We provide a reasonable timeframe to get to a debt-to-GDP target and
some warnings about whether or not you are on that glide slope. There
was pretty much unanimous consent agreement among all of our witnesses
in the committee and in the select committee that that was the logical
way to address debt and deficit.
There are also some sidebar things that are important that we get rid
of here, such as, we move to biennial budgeting, which I think has
broad bipartisan support. We deal with what I call ``the bear trap in
the bedroom''--the debt ceiling--which is a very dangerous thing if you
should ever step on it and trigger it. To disarm that bear trap is very
valuable to our efforts, and we do that.
Vote-arama is one of the most undistinguished, useless, humiliating,
and embarrassing spectacles that the Senate presents. We solved, I
believe, vote-arama.
[[Page S7083]]
So that is a pretty good package of good, useful reforms to get going
in the right direction.
There is a very significant concern, mostly on my side of the aisle,
about the special reconciliation process. In this bill you alternate
between regular reconciliation and a special reconciliation process,
and then, in the next biennial cycle, back to regular reconciliation
and then special reconciliation. There is concern that the special
reconciliation process might be used to jam things we don't like
through--things like cuts to Medicare, things like very one-sided
spending cuts that don't address the problem of tax spending.
We need to work to solve that. I pledge to Chairman Enzi that I will
put my best efforts to try to come up with a way where we can get
through that problem and move on to passing this bill, which I think
will be very significant and very valuable once we iron out what I
think is probably, actually, the last real gasp that we have in terms
of objection to it.
I will also add that the bipartisan pathway that we have been working
on for when the two parties can come together and agree to those things
is in there. If we really want to do this in a bipartisan pathway, that
is in this bill. I appreciate very much that Chairman Enzi included
that in the bill. That provision passed the bicameral select committee
unanimously--Republicans, Democrats, House Members, Senators,
unanimously. That is a pretty good base to work off of.
I will close by quoting a phrase that I have heard usually from
business folks from time to time. That is that in business, ``debt
doesn't matter, until it does.'' But then it is the only thing that
matters. At the moment, with interest rates where they are and with the
world situation the way it is, one can make the case that debt doesn't
matter. But when the day comes that it does matter, when interest rates
pop up and the cost of servicing our debt begins to squeeze out other
priorities, it gets very hard to go back and try to solve that problem
then.
This is the kind of problem you have to head off in advance. So to
the extent we can solve in a sensible way dealing with our debt and
deficit during the calm period when debt doesn't matter, we will
position ourselves to avoid the calamity that can come when it is the
only thing that matters.
I pledge to use my best efforts to try to bring my side into
agreement on this bill and to try to find a measure that solves our
concern about what I think is really the only point of significant
disagreement in this bill, which is what is behind the special
reconciliation process, what mischief that might be got up to. I think
if we can defang this, we can move forward.
Again, much appreciation to Chairman Enzi for his extraordinary
leadership in the budget committee on this subject. I am determined to
try to get this done in this Congress while he is with us to see it
through.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
____________________