[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3956-S3957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GREGG (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 2465. A bill to extend and strengthen procedures to maintain 
fiscal accountability and responsibility; to the Committee on the 
Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to 
the order of August 4, 1977, with instructions that if one Committee 
reports, the other Committee have thirty days to report or be 
discharged.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, to introduce a common-sense budget 
process bill, the Budget Enforcement Act of 2002.
  In the 1990s, we took fiscally responsible actions that led to 
balancing the budget in 1999 and 2000 without using Social Security. 
But last year, the government returned to the bad habit of using the 
Social Security surplus to fund other government activities. We need to 
put an end to that practice.
  The Government will not have these Social Security surpluses to use 
forever. In the next decade, the Baby Boom generation will begin to 
retire in large numbers. Starting in 2016, Social Security will start 
redeeming the bonds that it holds, and the non-Social Security 
government will have to start paying for those bonds from non-Social 
Security surpluses. The bottom line is that starting in 2016, the 
government will have to show restraint in the non-Social Security 
budget so that we can pay the Social Security benefits that Americans 
have earned.
  That's why we cannot continue to enact either tax cuts or spending 
measures that push the government further into deficit. Before we enter 
into new obligations, we need to make sure that we have the resources 
to meet our Nation's commitment to our seniors under Social Security.
  We need to return to the priority of protecting the Social Security 
Trust Funds. We should, as President Bush said in a March 2001 radio 
address, ``keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government 
from raiding the Social Security surplus.''
  And to get the Government out of the business of using Social 
Security surpluses to fund other government spending, we need to 
strengthen our budget process. That is what the bill that Senator Gregg 
and I are proposing would do.
  The history of budget process changes teaches that realistic budget 
enforcement mechanisms work. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, 
enacted with bipartisan support, with a Democratic Congress and a 
Republican President, deserves much credit for helping to keep the 
Government on that path to reduce and eventually eliminate the deficit.
  A central feature of the 1990 act was the creation of caps on 
appropriated spending. In recent years, Congress has blown through 
those caps, when those caps were at unrealistic levels, and when the 
Government was running surpluses. But in most years of their history, 
appropriations caps helped to constrain the politically understandable 
appetite to spend without limit.
  Congress has repeatedly endorsed the idea of spending caps. Congress 
renewed and extended the caps in the budget process laws of 1993 and 
1997. And 6 of the last 8 budget resolutions have set enforceable 
spending caps. If budget numbers are to have any meaning, if they are 
not to be just wishes and prayers, then we need to have enforcement.
  Our bill would reinstate and extend the caps on discretionary 
spending, and would do so at a realistic baseline. It would simply set 
those levels at those in the budget resolution reported by the Budget 
Committee on March 22.

[[Page S3957]]

And our bill maintains, without change, the separate subcaps created in 
the Violent Crime Act of 1994 and the Transportation Equity Act of 
1998.
  Like the 1990 budget law that it extends, our bill would apply budget 
enforcement to entitlements and taxes. It would extend the pay-as-you-
go enforcement mechanism. All parts of the budget would thus be treated 
fairly.
  Our bill would also improve the points of order that enforce the caps 
and pay-as-you-go enforcement. It would allow Senators to raise a point 
of order against specific provisions that cause the caps or pay-as-you-
go discipline to be violated. This part of the bill will work very much 
like the important Byrd Rule that governs the reconciliation process, 
which is of course named after the distinguished senior Senator from 
West Virginia.
  Under our bill, if a piece of legislation violates the caps or pay-
as-you-go discipline, any Senator could raise a point of order and 
force a vote on any individual provision that contributes to the budget 
violation. If the point of order is not waived, then the provision 
would be stricken from the legislation.
  The bill would also shut back-door ways around the caps and pay-as-
you-go enforcement, by requiring 60 votes to change the caps, alter the 
balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct scorekeeping.
  Our bill would limit the exceptions to the point of order against 
emergency designations in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, so 
that all emergencies would be treated alike. Our bill would thus treat 
emergencies as they were treated in the text of that budget resolution 
when the Senate passed it on April 7, 2000, rather than in the watered-
down form it had when it came back from conference with the House of 
Representatives.
  And finally, our bill would extend for 5 years the requirement for 60 
votes to waive existing points of order that enforce the Congressional 
Budget Act. The 60-vote requirement that gives these points of order 
teeth expires on September 30 this year under current law.
  This is sensible budget process reform, in keeping with the best, 
most effective budget process enforcement that we have enacted in the 
past. It would make a significant contribution toward ending the 
practice of using the Social Security surplus to fund other government 
activities. And that is something that we simply must do, for our 
seniors, and for those in coming generations who will otherwise be 
stuck with the bill. I urge my colleagues to join us to cosponsor our 
legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             Gregg-Feingold Budget Enforcement Act of 2002

       Appropriations Caps--The bill would reinstate and extend 
     for 5 years the caps on discretionary spending, keyed to the 
     levels in the budget resolution reported by the Budget 
     Committee. Points of order and the threat of across-the-board 
     cuts would continue to provide enforcement.
       Pay-as-You-Go for Entitlements and Taxes--The bill would 
     reinstate and extend the pay-as-you-go discipline that 
     controls entitlement spending and tax law changes. Points of 
     order and the threat of across-the-board cuts would continue 
     to provide enforcement.
       Point of Order Against Specific Provisions that Violate the 
     Caps or Pay-as-You Go--If legislation violated the caps or 
     pay-as-you-go enforcement, the bill would allow any Senator 
     to raise a point of order against (and thus force a vote on) 
     any individual provision that contributed to the budget 
     violation. If the Senate did not waive the point of order, 
     then the provision would be stricken from the legislation. 
     This point of order would work just like the Byrd Rule 
     against extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation.
       Guarding Against Budget Evasions--The bill would shut back-
     door ways around the caps and pay-as-you-go enforcement, by 
     requiring 60 votes to change the discretionary caps, alter 
     the balances of the pay-as-you-go scorecard, or direct 
     scorekeeping.
       Limit Emergency Exceptions--The bill would limit the 
     exceptions to the point of order against emergency 
     designations in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution, so 
     that all emergencies would be treated alike.
       Extending Existing Points of Order--The bill would extend 
     for 5 years the requirement for 60 votes to waive existing 
     points of order that enforce the Congressional Budget Act. 
     The 60-vote requirement that gives these points of order 
     teeth expires on September 30 this year under current law.
                                 ______