Floor Statements

Mr. President, at the end of each session of Congress, it is a tradition for the Senate to pause for a moment to acknowledge and express our appreciation for the service of each Senator who will not be returning in the next Congress. With that in mind, I would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota.

During the past 6 years, those of us who had a chance to come to know and work with Senator Heitkamp have been impressed with her dedication to the people of her home State, her involvement with tax issues, and her willingness to work with members on both sides of the aisle to find solutions to the problems and concerns of the people of North Dakota.

I share a connection with Senator Heitkamp, who is a Senator from a smaller rural State. Because of this shared background, we have had the opportunity to work on various issues. But beyond our work together, I have enjoyed knowing Senator Heitkamp. Heidi is a remarkable person. She is the first female Senator elected from North Dakota and a survivor of breast cancer. She would feel comfortable in my home State of Wyoming, the Equality State, where we know what it is like to have women trailblazers. She may be leaving us after this Congress, but she does so knowing that during her time she has made a significant difference in the lives of North Dakotans and in our country.

She joined the U.S. Senate in 2013 and has served in a Congress often divided by partisan views. She has been willing to work with President Trump and to work across the aisle on many issues, all for the good of the people of North Dakota. I have been one of those she has worked with, and I am happy to call her a friend.

The accomplishments that brought her to the Senate are substantial. Before serving in the U.S. Senate, Senator Heitkamp served as North Dakota's tax commissioner and, later, attorney general.

I have had the privilege of working with Senator Heitkamp on many issues. Notably, we worked together on an issue that has long been important to Wyoming, forging parity between brick-and-mortar stores and e-commerce. During her time as tax commissioner, North Dakota sought to make an out-of-State mail order retailer, which had no physical presence in the State, collect and pay use taxes on sales into the State. After entering Congress, Heidi cosponsored my bill, the Marketplace Fairness Act, seeking to level the playing field for brick- and-mortar retail stores and out-of-State online sellers. Later, we worked on amicus briefs with several of our colleagues, and our efforts to create this level playing fields went all the way to the Supreme Court in the case South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court sided with our position. These efforts have been such an important part of my time in the Senate, and I thank Senator Heitkamp for her work on this issue.

Heidi has consistently and tirelessly fought for the people of North Dakota. She has worked in the best interests of small businesses and contributed in a significant way to culture of the Senate and the Nation as a whole.

If her past is any indication of her future, I think it is clear that she will be closing the door on this great chapter of her life and moving on to something new. Whatever that may prove to be I am certain it will make good use of her abilities, background, and experience.

My best wishes to Heidi, her husband Darwin, and their children as they enter the next chapter in their lives. I thank her for her willingness to serve the people of North Dakota and the people of the United States. There are countless ways of saying farewell, one of my favorites is: Happy Trails. Until we meet again.

Mr. President, I wish to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for November 2018. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, BBA18. This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act,

Mr. President, I yield back all time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Brett M. Kavanaugh to be our next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Confirming Supreme Court Justices is one of the most important and sacred roles of the Senate. Supreme Court candidates represent individuals who have reached the highest level of their profession and are often the brightest legal minds of their generation. Beyond their stellar resumes, they must have a proven track record of approaching each case with care and a commitment to upholding our rule of law and the Constitution. Judge Kavanaugh easily exceeds these standards and is highly qualified for confirmation to our nation's highest court.

I met with Judge Kavanaugh in July and got the chance to talk with him about his judicial philosophy and record. During our conversation, I was struck by his professionalism, commitment to the Constitution, and vast knowledge of our legal system. We discussed the important issues facing Wyoming, and I believe he understands my State's unique challenges. As a rural, western State, we are constantly battling Federal Government overreach from Washington, DC. Judge Kavanaugh has a long history of reining in executive agencies that stretch beyond their statutory authorities, which is a welcome relief for my State. Wyoming is a State full of citizens who expect our courts to uphold the Constitution as the framers originally intended it.

I voted to confirm Judge Kavanaugh as a judge to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals over a decade ago. Since that time, Judge Kavanaugh has become widely regarded by his peers as one of the most respected circuit judges in the Nation. He is a prolific writer and has authored more than 300 opinions, demonstrating his firm commitment to the rule of law. Having reviewed his record, and based on his experience and writings, I believe Judge Kavanaugh will fairly and impartially interpret the law.

Over a decade ago, when the Senate was considering the nominations of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, I gave a floor speech where I stated that ``[W]e have shifted into an era of judges who legislate. We must return to the elementary doctrines that [recognize] the important and distinct roles of each branch.'' That sentiment is more true now than ever. Elected representatives in Congress are held accountable to the people and must demonstrate their fidelity to their constituents' concerns to remain in office. There is no such check on our judiciary. Congress's job is to write the law, and the courts are tasked with interpreting the law and determining its adherence to the Constitution, not writing it themselves. I believe Judge Kavanaugh understands this distinction thoroughly and has a proven track record of refraining from rewriting laws from the bench. His confirmation to the Supreme Court will set a new standard for our judicial system that encourages this type of philosophy, one that shies away from activism and focuses on the true role of the courts to interpret the law.

I also appreciate Judge Kavanaugh's commitment to service. Since the beginning of his career, he has spent several decades in various roles in the public sector, serving our Nation. From the Bush administration and now to the courts, he has dedicated his life to public service and served our Nation honorably. He is also a family man who volunteers his extra time at his church or helping deliver meals to other people. Of all of the shining spots on Judge Kavanaugh's resume, this may be the most impressive.

Serious accusations were recently made against Judge Kavanaugh. It is a Senator's job when giving advice and consent on nominations to give such accusations, and the people making them, careful consideration. I do not condone sexual assault in any case, and allegations must be taken seriously. All parties deserve fair treatment. I believe they got it, and the committee rendered its decision.

The situation surrounding these accusations included noise and political pandemonium the likes of which we have thankfully not had too many occasions to witness in the history of our country. That is why I was appreciative of how Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley conducted committee consideration of this nomination. He cut through the conjecture, speculation, frenzy, and focused the committee on fair consideration for accusers and accused.

I made my decision to vote for Judge Kavanaugh based on my meeting with him, his long and meritorious record of public service and as a judge, which involved multiple FBI background checks, including the most recent supplemental review, and the Judiciary Committee's work on the nomination. That work included a day of questions about the accusations made against Judge Kavanaugh. At the conclusion of this process, no new facts were revealed and no corroboration of the accusations was presented.

Like Justice Gorsuch before him, I believe Judge Kavanaugh would issue decisions adhering to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, free from outside pressure. I applaud President Trump for taking his responsibility to nominate qualified Justices so seriously.

Thank you.

Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments.

The Senate will soon consider the House amendment to H.R. 302, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. Among other things, this amendment provides emergency funding to respond to recent natural disasters. The amendment would increase budget authority by $1,680 million and outlays by $25 million in fiscal year 2019. The amendment includes language that would designate its spending as emergency pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Deficit Control Act of 1985. The inclusion of this designation makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act.

As a result, I am increasing the budgetary aggregate for fiscal year 2019 by $1,680 million in budget authority and $25 million in outlays. Further, I am revising the budget authority and outlay allocations to the Appropriations Committee by $1,680 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority and $25 million in outlays for fiscal year 2019.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments.

The Senate will soon consider the conference report to H.R. 6157, a spending measure covering programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, Labor-HHSE. The Defense portion of this legislation includes funding designated as overseas contingency operations funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. The Labor-HHSE portion includes spending designated for various program integrity efforts pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(B), section 251(b)(2)(C), and section 251(b)(2)(E) of BBEDCA. The inclusion of these designations with these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act.

On August 16, 2018, I filed an adjustment relating to S. Amdt. 3695 to H.R. 6157, which contained appropriations for the same two appropriations subcommittees. The Defense portion of the amendment contained $67,914 million in revised security budget authority designated as overseas contingency operations and $37,285 million in outlays, and the Labor-HHSE portion contained $1,897 million in revised nonsecurity budget authority for program integrity initiatives with $1,573 million in outlays. The budgetary adjustment was made to accommodate this spending.

Since the levels of budget authority for overseas contingency operations and budget authority and outlays for program integrity spending in the conference report are consistent with the previously filed levels and appropriately designated, those funds are now available for use in this conference report. However, the amount of outlays flowing from the overseas contingency operations funding in the conference report is estimated to be $214 million less than my earlier adjustment. Therefore, I am reducing the general purpose outlay allocation to the Appropriations Committee and budgetary aggregates to reflect this new estimate at this time.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments.

The Senate will soon consider the conference report to H.R. 5895, a spending measure covering programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water, military construction and Veterans Affairs, and the Legislative Branch. The military construction portion of this legislation includes funding for military construction designated as overseas contingency operations funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. These provisions provide $921 million in budget authority for fiscal year 2019. The inclusion of the overseas contingency operations designations with these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act.

On June 18, 2018, I filed an adjustment relating to S. Amdt. 2910 to H.R. 5895, which contained appropriations for the same three appropriations subcommittees. The military construction portion of the amendment contained $921 million in revised security budget authority designated as overseas contingency operations, and the budgetary adjustment was made to accommodate this spending.

Since the level of overseas contingency operations spending in the conference report is consistent with the previously filed levels and appropriately designated, those funds are now available for use in this conference report, and no further budgetary adjustment is warranted at this time.

Mr. President, today I would like to honor the late Senator John McCain. I appreciate having this opportunity to celebrate the life and accomplishments of John McCain and to mourn him as he has lost his battle with cancer. His loss will be deeply felt by all of us here in the Senate, not only by those of us who served with him, but also by the many staff and individuals he has worked with over time.

Senator McCain was a true patriot who dedicated his life to serving others. His dedication to his country and its defense was unmatched. After graduating from the Naval Academy, he served for two decades in the Navy. He was tested as only few men ever are after his plane crashed in Vietnam. He showed incredible resilience and moral fortitude during his time as a prisoner of war. After leaving the Navy, he represented the great State of Arizona in Congress for 35 years, first in the House and later in the Senate. His sense of duty, loyalty, honor, and compassion were bedrock strong and served to guide him in his long career of public service.

He rightfully earned his Maverick moniker during his long public career with his iron strength of will to stand up and fight for what he believed was right, no matter the political consequences. He was renowned for his support of the military. John showed unwavering support to freedom, democracy, and the country he loved. He found it in himself to push to reopen ties to Vietnam, believing that was how we could begin to heal the wounds of war. He was a lively speaker, a straight talker, and a prodigious leader, but more than that, he was a good man. 1 had the opportunity to work with John on several pieces of legislation over time, and every time, I was impressed with his ability to cut right to the heart of an issue. He always put what he thought would be best for his constituents and America above any political concerns or niceties. He was passionate throughout his long years of service to the people of Arizona.

John was a man of faith. He had a quiet faith, one that was beyond simple expression. It meant, when he did speak of his faith, it made it that much more impactful. He once recounted how it was his faith in God, faith in his fellow prisoners, and faith in his country that helped him make it through his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. In an interview John gave in 2008, he shared what it meant to him to be a Christian, ``It means I'm saved and forgiven.'' During that same interview, he mentioned a guard at that prisoner of war camp in Vietnam who shared his faith one Christmas. ``He stood there for a minute, and with his sandal on the dirt in the courtyard, he drew a cross and he stood there, and a minute later, he rubbed it out, and walked away. For a minute there, there were just two Christians worshipping together.'' His moral compass was guided strongly by his faith in God, and it meant that he always did what he thought was right, rather than doing what was easy. I know that his quiet devotion and many of his other qualities earned him respect from Members on both sides of the aisle.

While America is remembering a war hero, veteran, Senator, and Presidential candidate, his family is remembering a husband, a father, a brother and experiencing a world that seems incomplete without him in it. My wife Diana and I send our thoughts and deepest prayers to his wife Cindy and the entire McCain family, as we mourn the passing of an American hero.

How can I adequately praise the life of a man who has had such a long and storied career, one with so many accomplishments? In an interview, John talked about how he would want to be remembered. He wanted people to remember him as a guy who ``served his

country.'' I intend to do just that. John McCain served his country. He served it well. America will never forget that service.

Thank you. God bless you. May you find peace.

Mr. President, immediately following some comments I will

be raising a budget point of order. I find this circumstance to be unfortunate, given that I have filed an amendment that would have cured the budget violation.

The substitute increases the maximum discretionary Pell grant award. Under the Pell Grant Program's complicated funding structure, this increase triggers a point of order for a change in mandatory spending, or CHIMP, which results in a net increase in spending and would increase mandatory spending by a total of $390 million.

While we are unable to consider my solution--one supported by the National Taxpayers Union and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget--I believe the only alternative I have as Budget chairman is to enforce the budget rules we have agreed to. In this case, the budget rule being violated is bipartisan. It was first created by the Senate Democrats in 2008.

If this point of order is sustained, the bill can still move forward, but together we will have prevented $350 million in increased direct mandatory spending from being rolled into the baseline where it will evade budget enforcement. Now is the time to enforce our budget rules. I urge my colleagues to support fiscal discipline and not to waive this point of order.

The provision on page 270 of the pending substitute amendment in division B, title III, lines 7 and 8 under ``Student Financial Assistance'' would result in a net increase in the cost of mandatory programs affected by the bill.

Therefore, I raise a point of order against that provision pursuant to section 314(a) of S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2009.

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

Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment aimed at helping to ensure the integrity of the budget enforcement process in future years. Before I do so, I would like to again acknowledge the hard work the Appropriations Committee has put into the fiscal year 2019 spending bills.

We have made significant progress so far this year, particularly considering that this is the first Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill to be brought to the Senate floor for amendment in nearly 11 years. I commend the committee and its leaders for their efforts and the spirit of cooperation that has made this feat possible.

As it stands now, this appropriations bill is subject to a point of order under section 314 of S. Con. Res. 70, the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution authored by former Democratic Senator and Budget Committee chairman Kent Conrad. That point of order aims to prevent mandatory spending increases on appropriations bills. My amendment remedies this violation while maintaining the proposed increase to the maximum award.

The amendment I am offering relates to the budgetary effects of the substitute amendment's proposed increase to the maximum discretionary Pell Grant award for the award year 2019-2020.

If anybody has been able to follow that so far, you ought to be on the Budget Committee. Now I am going to give a lot more detail that will be equally as difficult, because it needs to be a part of the record to show why we need the amendment that I am talking about in order to avoid a point of order and to get the increase for this year that is being requested.

As former chairman of the HELP Committee, I understand how important Pell Grants are in making college more affordable and accessible, especially for students from my home State of Wyoming. That is why I want to be very clear that my amendment would not cut Pell Grant funding for the 2019-2020 award year or prevent future increases in the maximum annual award. My amendment simply deals with how we account for such increases in the Federal ledger.

First, a little background may be helpful on the Pell Grant program, which has one of the most complicated funding profiles in the entire Federal budget. The Pell Grant program is funded by a mix of annual discretionary appropriations, a so-called mandatory add-on award, and a permanent mandatory funding stream. My

amendment deals with the interaction between the discretionary and the mandatory add-on funding streams.

Each year, the Appropriations Committee includes a provision in the Department of Education spending bill specifying the maximum discretionary Pell Grant award for the upcoming award year. The substitute amendment would increase that maximum award for the award year 2019-2020 by $100 to $5,135. CBO estimates that this change, which follows a $175 increase to the maximum award provided in fiscal year 2018, will increase mandatory spending on the add-on by $39 million in fiscal year 2019. It is pretty complicated. There are a lot of dollars, a lot of different places.

Even though the substitute specifies the maximum discretionary award is $5,135 for award year 2019-2020, under scoring rules--that is how we keep track of how much money we are going to owe--the CBO has to assume this maximum award extends through 2028. That means the $39 million annual mandatory cost of this provision also extends through 2028, giving it a 10-year score of $390 million. The substitute amendment includes an offset for the $39 million cost in the first year but leaves the remaining $351 million in mandatory spending scored to the fiscal year 2019 bill unpaid for. Again, under scoring rules, once that $350 million in estimated future spending is incorporated into the baseline, it will not be subject to budget enforcement in future years and will never need to be paid for. That is a problem we face regularly around here, and this is the problem my amendment aims to address.

My amendment would maintain the maximum discretionary award for 2019- 2020 to $5,135, preserving the $100 increase proposed by the Appropriations Committee, while it would prevent the estimated $351 million increase in estimated future year spending from being rolled into the baseline where it could escape enforcement or even notice in future years. It would require Congress to offset future mandatory spending increases just as the substitute amendment would do for the first year. If we can do it now, we should be able to do it in the future.

Let me repeat. My amendment would not reduce the maximum Pell grant for the 2019-2020 award year or prevent future increases to the maximum award. In fact, it would maintain the proposed increase to the maximum Pell grant for the 2019-2020 award year.

Let me repeat. As it now stands, this appropriations bill is subject to a point of order under section 314 of S. Con. Res. 70 of the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, which was authored by former Democratic Senator and Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad and passed. That point of order aims to prevent mandatory spending increases on appropriations bills. My amendment remedies this violation while maintaining the proposed increase to the maximum award.

This is just a good-government amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Let's not be spending into the future until we know where the money is coming from. Let's go ahead and make the award for this year, and let's find a way to pay for it next year.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, BBEDCA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary spending and allows for various adjustments to those limits. In addition, sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to establish and make revisions to allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments.

The Senate is considering S. Amdt. 3695, a ``minibus'' spending measure covering programs within the jurisdiction of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. The defense portion of this amendment includes provisions designated as overseas contingency operations funding pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of BBEDCA. These provisions provide $67,914 million in revised security budget authority and $37,285 million in outlays for fiscal year 2019. The inclusion of the overseas contingency operations designations with these provisions makes this spending eligible for an adjustment under the Congressional Budget Act.

The amendment also includes provisions designated as program integrity spending pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(B), section 251(b)(2)(C), and section 251(b)(2)(E) of BBEDCA. CBO estimates these provisions will increase budget authority by $1,897 million and outlays by $1,573 million in fiscal year 2019. The budget authority from these provisions is categorized as nonsecurity spending.

Accordingly, I am increasing the fiscal year 2019 budgetary aggregate by $69,464 million in budget authority and $38,556 million in outlays. Further, I am revising the budget authority allocations to the Committee on Appropriations by increasing revised security budget authority by $67,914 million, revised nonsecurity budget authority by $1,897 million, and outlays by $38,858 million in fiscal year 2019.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of Hight Proffit, who is being inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Every year since 1992, Wyoming has recognized individuals who have made substantial contributions to agriculture in our State. During his life, Hight displayed a special talent for agriculture and was a dedicated public servant for his neighbors and friends. Hight is a well-deserved recipient of this great honor.

Hight moved to Wyoming at a young age during the middle of the Great Depression when it wasn't easy to make a living, let alone to be a rancher. Much like he would show throughout his life, he showed what you can accomplish through hard work and resolve and learned to make the best out of everything.

He is remembered as a handyman, as well as an innovator. Hight excelled in improving agriculture and left his mark on the long, proud history of Wyoming agriculture. He worked hard to improve not only his ranch, but also the community around him, from fairly distributing water to expanding electric power.

Among his many accomplishments, perhaps the greatest was the dedication he showed to his family. By his side for over 60 years, was his loving wife, Dorothy. As his son Don puts it, Hight and Dorothy ``established a ranch with the help of the Federal Land Bank on the Bear River, where they raised cattle, sheep and horses, as well as four children.'' Hight and Dorothy were then blessed with numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Not only did he serve as a role model for his family, but his community as well as a dedicated public servant. Hight served on numerous boards and committees, as a Unita County commissioner, a State representative, and as a State senator. He also served as a mentor to countless young people through 4-H, Boy Scouts of America, Farm Bureau, and his church.

Although it has now been 16 years since Hight has passed, his memory lives on and his example continue to inspire others. I want to extend my congratulations to the family of Hight and Dorothy. Hight truly lived the code of the West, and I am proud to have the opportunity to recognize his achievements and his memory as an inductee into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. Wyoming is well served by his lasting and continuing contributions to our State.

Mr. President, I wish to speak on recent legislation extending the National Flood Insurance Program on a short-term basis.

The National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, was created in 1968 in response to the lack of flood insurance available at the time. The program's intent was to encourage folks to protect their homes and communities to adopt sound floodplain management standards.

I would like to reiterate the findings of the 1966 Presidential Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy: ``A flood insurance program is a tool that should be used expertly or not at all. Correctly applied it could promote wise use of flood plains. Incorrectly applied, it could exacerbate the whole problem of flood losses. For the Federal Government to subsidize low premium disaster insurance or provide insurance in which premiums are not proportionate to risk would be to invite economic waste of great magnitude''

In less than a year, we have extended the program seven times, most attached to must-pass bills, without any needed reforms. The program is over $20 billion in debt, even though we forgave $16 billion of that debt just last year. With our Federal debt now above $21 trillion, we need to address the solvency of the NFIP as soon as possible.

We can begin doing that by bringing some meaningful reform to the program, including moving towards more risk-based premiums. More importantly, interest from the private flood insurance market is growing. Their involvement means more flexible flood policies, integrated coverage with other insurance policies, and lower-cost coverage for some customers. Increasing private insurance's participation in flood insurance markets would reduce the financial risk obligations of this program for the Federal Government. I hope Congress will further clarify private insurers' role in the flood insurance market. As it stands, the NFIP cannot stand on its own feet, and it requires significant reforms to put it on sound financial footing. I urge my colleagues to find bipartisan, sustainable reforms to this program. We must stop kicking the can down the road on the necessary reforms needed to make this an effective program.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague and his committee for their efforts to address these concerns. I am hopeful reform is just around the corner, and I encourage my colleagues to continue to support reform of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Madam President, I want to begin by thanking my friend from Pennsylvania, Senator Casey, for his commitment to the students who will benefit from the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and for the bipartisanship that helped us to reach this point. I also want to thank Chairman Alexander and Ranking Member Murray for prioritizing the effort to reauthorize Perkins CTE. Their recognition of the importance of this work was key to getting past an impasse that only a few months ago looked unlikely to break.

Senator Casey and I have had a lot of hours of working together to come up with a bill that would make a difference for people who want to work with their hands. I have a favorite book that talks about this, and part of the title is ``From Coal Miners to Cowboys,'' referring to the people who get their hands dirty every day to provide what we need. This is a segment of the economy we really need. I know that if you need an electrician or a plumber, you want them right away, and you want them trained. That is what this bill emphasizes and provides for.

I do need to thank the administration, and Ivanka Trump Kushner, in particular, for putting the spotlight on the reauthorization of Perkins CTE and workforce development generally. With a laser-like focus on strengthening the economy, the President and his administration have rightly recognized that a strong and prosperous economy requires a skilled and ready workforce. This combined, bipartisan effort resulted in the Senate unanimously passing its amendment to the House's own bipartisan bill. We did it by voice vote, and that is as bipartisan as it gets around here.

Now the House has taken that bill and approved of the changes that were made, which we coordinated with them during the time that we were negotiating, and they have taken the same action. So that bill is now on the way to the President, who emphasized that we need to do it.

Passing this reauthorization is particularly important to Wyoming, where one-sixth of school districts have chosen not to participate in Perkins CTE because the compliance and reporting burdens were too heavy to justify the funds they would receive. That changes with this bill.

For years, States have been leading the effort to tackle the national workforce skills gap and ensure that they, and our country at large, have a workforce that is capable of meeting the challenges of an increasingly dynamic, competitive, and global economy. Unfortunately, States have been meeting these challenges under a program that was last authorized in 2006.

By modernizing Perkins CTE, we are taking the important step of better aligning the primary Federal career and technical education program with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act. We like these all to work together--and these are all achievements that have been done in recent years--because, far from working independently, these programs are all pieces of the larger workforce development puzzle.

Because it can be hard to know what programs to provide when you don't know which ones are needed, this legislation also promotes collaboration between the stakeholders so that local businesses are brought to the table to communicate their needs to States and local educators as strategies and programs are developed. We want people hired after they get training. So the training needs to be for the jobs that are going to be available.

Crucially, by enabling the limited funds provided by this program to be more effectively spent on education and less on complying with Federal reporting requirements, this legislation will better reflect that the investment made by the Federal Government in career and technical education represents pennies on the dollar when compared to the investment of money and effort made at the State and local levels. This bill takes the important step of providing States with greater authority to determine the levels at which they will be held accountable under this program.

However, as States continue to compete for investment, accountability will ultimately come in the form of employers who will vote with their feet and their capital, hiring people. Ask any businessperson what their biggest challenge is, and they will likely tell you it is finding workers with the right skills and knowledge to fill their open jobs. States and communities that recognize this need and rise to the challenge of preparing their residents for

those jobs are the ones that will succeed in this economy.

These improvements, along with many others included in this bill, underscore why passage of this legislation has long been a priority for so many people, and it is only appropriate that one of the clearest displays of bipartisanship in the 115th Congress would be in support of our workforce and the students preparing to join it.

I once again thank my friend Senator Casey for his support in this effort, and I will also express my disappointment in how little publicity there has been. If there is a controversy, if people are cursing each other or making unusual comments, that makes the paper. But to actually do something--to actually get something done and to get it done in a bipartisan way with people working together virtually unanimously--well, that must have been too easy. If it were easy, we wouldn't have been working on it for three years, but we got it done. It is on its way to the President, and I am proud of it. Again, I thank Senator Casey for his superb effort in reaching agreement on this.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for July 2018. The report compares current-law levels of spending and revenues with the amounts the Senate agreed to in the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71, and the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA18). This information is necessary for the Senate Budget Committee to determine whether budgetary points of order lie against pending legislation. The Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, prepared this report pursuant to section 308(b) of the Congressional Budget Act (CBA).

This is the fifth scorekeeping report this year and the second since I filed new enforceable levels on May 7, pursuant to BBA18 requirements. My last filing can be found in the Congressional Record for June 6, 2018. The information included in this report is current through July 16, 2018.

Republican Budget Committee staff prepared Tables 1-6.

Table 1 gives the amount by which each Senate authorizing committee exceeds or is below its allocation for budget authority and outlays under the most recently adopted budget resolution and the fiscal year 2019 enforceable levels filing. This information is used for enforcing committee allocations pursuant to section 302 of the CBA. For this reporting period, 10 of the 16 authorizing committees are in compliance with their allocations.

During this reporting period, Congress cleared two pieces of legislation with significant budgetary effects scored to authorizing committees. The first bill was H.R. 770, the American Innovation $1 Coin Act. This measure requires the Secretary of the Treasury to mint, beginning in 2019, new $1 coins ``in recognition of American innovation and significant innovation and pioneering efforts of individuals or groups from each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the United States territories.'' CBO estimates that H.R. 770 would increase direct spending in the near term by $3 million but would be deficit- neutral over the entire budget window. This bill was charged to the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. The second bill was H.R. 5956, the Northern Mariana Islands U.S. Workforce Act of 2018. This bill modifies U.S. immigration policy regarding the Northern Mariana Islands, thereby reducing the number of people able to claim asylum and receive means-tested benefits. CBO estimates that this bill would save $3 million over the budget window. H.R. 5956 was charged to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Tables 2-6 remain unchanged from my last filing.

In addition to the tables provided by Budget Committee Republican staff, I am submitting CBO tables, which I will use to enforce budget totals approved by Congress.

Because legislation can still be enacted that would have an effect on fiscal year 2018, CBO has provided a report both for fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019. This information is used to enforce aggregate spending and revenue levels in the budget resolution under section 311 of the CBA. CBO's estimates show that current-law levels of spending for fiscal year 2018 exceed the amounts in H. Con. Res. 71 by $157.4 billion in budget authority and $106.3 billion in outlays. Revenues are $3.2 billion above the revenue floor for fiscal year 2018 set by the budget resolution. Social Security outlays are at the levels assumed by the resolution, while Social Security revenues are $446 million below the levels in the budget.

For fiscal year 2019, CBO estimates that current-law levels are below the fiscal year 2019 enforceable aggregates by $1,142.2 billion in budget authority and $646.1 billion in outlays. The allowable spending room will be reduced as appropriations bills are enacted. Revenues are $5 million below the level assumed for fiscal year 2019. Finally, Social Security outlays and revenues are at the levels assumed in the fiscal year 2019 enforcement filing.

CBO's report also provides information needed to enforce the Senate pay-as-you-go, PAYGO, rule. After accounting for enacted legislation during this reporting period, the PAYGO scorecard shows deficit increases in fiscal year 2019 of $25 million--$5 million revenue loss, $20 million outlay increase--over the fiscal year 2019-2023 period of $332 million--$47 million revenue loss, $285 million outlay increase-- and over the fiscal year 2019-2028 period of $487 million--$108 million revenue loss, $379 million outlay increase. The Senate's PAYGO rule is enforced by section 4106 of H. Con. Res. 71.

Included in this submission is a table tracking the Senate's budget enforcement activity on the floor since the May 7 enforcement filing. On June 18, 2018, Senator Bernard Sanders raised a Senate PAYGO point of order against H.R. 5515, the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. That point of order was waived by a vote of 81-14. H.R. 5515 has yet to be enacted and is currently in conference.

All years in the accompanying tables are fiscal years.

I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying tables be printed in the Record.