[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.

                          ____________________