Congressional Record, Volume 156 Issue 12 (Thursday, January 28, 2010)

[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 12 (Thursday, January 28, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S280-S291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.J. Res 45, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory
limit on the public debt.

Pending:

Baucus (for Reid) amendment No. 3299, in the nature of a
substitute.
Reid amendment No. 3305 (to amendment No. 3299), to
reimpose statutory pay-as-you-go.
Sessions amendment No. 3308 (to amendment No. 3299), to
reduce the deficit by establising 5-year discretionary
spending caps.
Brownback amendment No. 3309 (to amendment No. 3299), to
establish a Commission on Congressional Budgetary
Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies.

Amendment No. 3309

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

[[Page S281]]

Mr. BROWNBACK. I understand I have 2 minutes to speak on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I wish to show two other charts. This
is not new information, but I think it is pretty dramatic in its
presentation, the level of the massive addition of Federal debt at
levels we have never seen before. We are looking at $1.4 trillion in
deficits. That is the annual addition. We have not seen numbers this
size before. We haven't seen these percentages since World War II, the
massive war effort we went into in World War II.
This is a critical situation at a critical time, and it must be
addressed. The answer isn't to just extend the line of credit, which is
what this bill--the base bill extends the line of credit by $1.9
trillion. It is nice that we have the ability to say: OK, we will have
the line of credit extended by $1.9 trillion, but it doesn't address
this, it just allows this to go on.
The CARFA bill gets at this line and starts cutting that. It starts
cutting irresponsible Federal programs. It starts cutting duplicative
Federal programs and programs that have accomplished their purposes. We
have things we are funding that were started 50, 100 years ago, and
they have actually accomplished what they were supposed to do and ought
to be terminated. Yet they don't get terminated because there is no
culling process that goes on. The Federal Government hasn't cut its own
funding system for 100 years.
When I first came to Congress, we made a 1-year cut in Federal
spending of 1 percent from one year to the next year. We eliminated
some 200, 300 Federal programs. I used to give a speech asking people:
Do you remember any of those programs we cut? Can you name two? I would
pay people $10 if they could name two we eliminated. They heard about
the ice being delivered to Members' offices, so they got that one. But
they could never get a second one. Think of the number of programs that
are rated as failing that we could eliminate and nobody would notice.
They would applaud the fact that we were actually cutting Federal
spending which has been very difficult for this body to get done. Here
is a mechanism with which we can get it done.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the day before yesterday, the Senate
voted on the amendment offered by the chairman and ranking Republican
member of the Budget Committee to create a budget commission. The
Senate rejected that amendment. The proponents fell 7 votes short of
the 60 votes they needed.
I opposed that amendment because it would have forced the Senate to
consider the commission's recommendations using a fasttrack process. It
would have outsourced our job to the commission.
The Senator from Kansas proposes a commission that also would create
a fasttrack process. It would also put vital programs like Medicare,
farm programs, and veterans' programs in the crosshairs. Thus, all who
opposed the Conrad-Gregg commission on process grounds should oppose
this amendment for the same reasons.
As well, the Brownback commission would address only the spending
side of the budget. So those who wanted a broader commission should
have that reason to oppose this commission, as well.
I have been advised that the chairman of the Budget Committee,
Senator Conrad, joins me in opposing this commission.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3309.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Kyl
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Merkley
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wicker

NAYS--49

Akaka
Baucus
Begich
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kirk
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 49.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
Who yields time?
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.

Amendment No. 3308 to Amendment No. 3299

Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, I wish to take a minute to speak in
favor of this amendment. This should not be as hard as it appears. All
this amendment is doing is asking us to live up to our vote last year
on the budget bill. What we all decided to do last year on the budget
bill was set some limits on spending for the next few years. All we are
doing with this amendment is saying we are going to have to live up to
our vote. It has 2 percent increases every year.
People have said there is going to be a problem because of the 67-
vote threshold. Well, I have looked over the emergency votes we have
had in this Chamber and there has not been a time when we haven't
gotten them--on Katrina or other things. It exempts anytime Congress
authorizes force. I wish to emphasize that for my colleagues. Anytime
Congress has authorized force of our military, it exempts it.
Somebody spoke about the veterans. Do my colleagues think we can't
get 67 votes for the veterans in this Chamber?
Seriously, it is time we begin to live up to what we say, and in the
budget bill we all voted to do this. So let's put it in the law as we
had in the 1990s. Don't ask me why we let it expire in 2002. I wasn't
here. But we had both pay-go and this kind of freeze in the 1990s and
we balanced the budget and we created a surplus. Let's go back to that
time for the sake of our grandchildren.
Madam President, I yield the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, let's make it clear. This is not the
plan the President presented last evening. The President allows growth
in Homeland Security. This amendment does not. The President's proposal
doesn't put a cap on emergency spending. Yes, we have decided certain
things are an emergency. Yet it doesn't mean that all of us will agree.
He doesn't put a cap on that.
The President's plan will request more than $700 billion for Defense.
This amendment allocates $614 billion. To exceed this amount, we need
60 votes. Does the Senate want to make the Defense budget subject to 60
votes?
As chairman of the committee, I agree that everyone should tighten
their belts. The problem with this amendment is that all the tightening
will be done on a small portion of the budget, while the revenues and
mandatory spending will still be unchecked.
This is a flawed amendment. It is not the President's plan. I urge my
colleagues to vote no.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

[[Page S282]]

The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 11 Leg.]

YEAS--56

Alexander
Barrasso
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Carper
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Klobuchar
Kyl
LeMieux
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Wicker

NAYS--44

Akaka
Baucus
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Cochran
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kirk
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Udall (NM)
Whitehouse
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 56, the nays are
44. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the next
three votes be 10 minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3305

Mr. REID. Madam President, let's not kid ourselves. We are in this
financial situation and these pay-as-you-go rules are necessary because
we spent the last decade spending money we did not have. We spent
trillions on two wars, tax breaks for millionaires, corporations, and
other red ink policies. Those days should be over. We simply can no
longer afford it.
The idea behind pay-as-you-go is very simple. The rule we are
proposing for the government is the same one Americans use every day in
their individual lives, the same ones we teach our children: In order
to spend a dollar, we have to have that dollar in our wallet. This law
will enforce that commonsense approach.
Here is what it does not do. It does not block emergency spending. It
does not keep businesses from creating jobs. And it does not prevent
Congress from cutting taxes.
For all the Republican rhetoric on sensible spending, their recent
choices call their seriousness into serious question. We drafted a
health reform bill to reduce the deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion
over the next 20 years. That is a fiscally responsible plan, and zero
Republicans supported it.
Senators Conrad and Gregg proposed a commission with the explicit
responsibility of reducing our deficit even further. That is a fiscally
responsible plan. And seven Republicans--I repeat, seven Republicans--
voted no, even though they sponsored the legislation.
The legislation we voted on, the Conrad-Gregg amendment, would have
created an entitlement commission to look at what is wrong with the
financial condition of this country, and seven Republicans who
supported that amendment by offering their name as cosponsors of it
voted against it. Had we had six of those seven votes for that
legislation--I will use leader time--had six of the seven voted for
that legislation, it would have passed. We would now have a commission.
It would have been similar to what we did with the base closings. We
did some terrific things with base closings that we could never have
done but for that legislation. But I repeat, seven Republicans who
cosponsored the legislation voted against it.
The American people can see right through that doublespeak. I am
confident, as we all are, that they are tired of it.
As the President pointed out last night, pay-as-you-go in the 1990s
led to record surpluses. Its absence in the next decade led to record
deficits.
The road back to economic recovery is a long one. If we are to travel
it successfully and prudently, if we are to create jobs and government
responsibility, pay-as-you-go must be one of the rules of that road.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, first, I thank the Democratic leader, the
majority leader, for his endorsement of the Conrad-Gregg initiative,
although that is not what this amendment is about.
This amendment is about pay-go. Pay-go is one of those terms of art
around here that has a political life of its own, and its political
life is independent of its substantive action.
Yes, pay-go worked when we had it in the nineties. We had a Congress
which was willing to enforce it. Regrettably, over the last 2 years,
when pay-go has been in place as a budgetary item--not much different
than doing it statutorily--pay-go has been waived by the majority of
this Senate and specifically by the majority party on an incredible
number of occasions. It has been waived. It has been gamed. It has been
gone around. It has been stepped on. It has been ignored to the tune of
$1 trillion. Madam President, $1 trillion of spending has occurred in
the last 2\1/2\ years which should have been subject to a pay-go point
of order, which should not have survived a pay-go point of order but
against which no pay-go point of order was made because pay-go was
gamed.
The idea that pay-go is a substantive exercise around here is
politically inaccurate. It is political fraud. I mean, basically, pay-
go is used to make a statement that you are going to be fiscally
responsible, but it does not happen.
This is a nice political cover vote. I am going to vote for pay-go,
and I am going to be tough on spending when, in fact, we know that
whenever an item comes to this floor for all intents and purposes that
should be subject to a pay-go point of order, it is not. Pay-go is not
pay-go. Pay-go is Swiss-cheese-go. It is full of holes.
I have great respect for the other side of the aisle. So if they will
rename this Swiss-cheese-go, I may vote for it. Therefore, I ask
unanimous consent that we change the name of pay-go to Swiss-cheese-go,
and then I might be willing to vote for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Madam President, I will use leader time.
This is not the time for being funny. This is a time for addressing
the problems we have in this country with a debt that is going on and
on.
No one can dispute what I said, and that is, during the nineties when
we had pay-go, record deficits were gone. Because of pay-go, we created
a situation in this country where we were spending less money as a
government than we were taking in.
Think about that. As a result of that, we had unending optimism by
the business community and economic growth that has been unparalleled.
So this is not a time for jokes. This is a time for addressing a
serious problem.
My friend, who has the knowledge of the financial situation of this
country as much as anyone in the country, knows this is not a time for
jokes and trying to be funny. We have a situation in America today that
calls for action. Of course, we can waive the pay-go rules if there is
an emergency, but it is up to this body to determine if there is an
emergency.
I hope everyone understands this legislation does not block emergency
spending, it does not keep businesses from creating jobs, and it does
not prevent Congress from cutting taxes. I hope Republicans will join
with us in restoring fiscal stability to our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. REID. Time is up.
Mr. GREGG. I am not the leader, so I do not get leader time. I ask
unanimous consent for another minute so I might respond to the leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, a little humor even in serious times does
not hurt things, I do not think. The point is substantive, even if it
was humorously presented, which is that pay-go around here has become
farcical. It

[[Page S283]]

is not used to discipline our budget process at all. That is why over
$1 trillion of spending has resulted which should have been subject to
pay-go points of order.
I do not think you can present a pay-go statutory point of order as
being something other than what it will be, which is basically
something so full of holes it will have virtually no effect on our
capacity to discipline ourselves because we have already shown we do
not discipline ourselves under the present pay-go rules we have. From
my standpoint, this proposal does not hold water as a way to discipline
ourselves and bring our fiscal house in order.
I appreciate the courtesy of the leader in allowing me to take an
extra minute. I did not hear him object to my offer, but I will
withdraw it.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I cannot support this pay-go amendment
because it would continue the double-standard that exists between taxes
and spending. Under current law, more than a dozen mandatory programs
will expire over the next 10 years. Extending these programs will cost
nearly $1 trillion according to CBO. But, unlike tax cuts that expire
during these same years, pay-go does not apply to the cost of extending
these mandatory programs. This double standard is unacceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Madam President, pay-go, as we are attempting to legislate,
has not been in effect. That is what we are trying to do. That is why
this legislation is so vitally important. I appreciate the work of the
Budget Committee and the Finance Committee getting us to the point we
are today with the legislation we are attempting to pass.
We are going to bring about in this country something that people can
understand. They are going to understand that we are going to proceed
in this body as they do paying their car payment, their housing
payment. That is what we are trying to do. That is what this
legislation is for.
I am terribly disappointed in my Republican colleagues. Let's join
and do something good for this country as it relates to the economy.
This is a step in that direction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3305.
Mr. GREGG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 12 Leg.]

YEAS--60

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennet
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Hagan
Harkin
Inouye
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Kirk
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Shaheen
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--40

Amendment No. 3299

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 4 minutes, equally divided, prior to
a vote on amendment No. 3299 offered by the Senator from Montana.
The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the next amendment is about whether the
United States will pay its bills. It is about whether the United States
will continue to pay the interest it owes on the money it has borrowed.
The spending laws that created the debt are behind us. The only
question remaining is whether the government will honor its obligation
to pay the bill. We have gone to the restaurant, we have eaten the
meal, and now the only question is whether we will pay the check. It is
that simple.
If Congress does not enact this legislation, the Treasury will
default on its debt for the first time in American history, which means
lower Social Security payments for a portion of those beneficiaries,
and we would fail to pay full pay benefits to a portion of the
beneficiaries of all other Federal programs.
But that would pale in comparison to the cataclysmic result in the
financial markets if we don't honor our obligation. The value of
Treasuries would plummet, leaving 401(k) plans and investors holding
much less value. The value of the dollar would decline significantly.
Ultimately, the question of America's sovereignty and the degree to
which we are controlling our future would be in doubt and other
countries would be dictating the results and telling us what to do.
We must pay our bills; we must pay our debts; we must vote for this
legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. The Senator from Montana is right. We have to pay our
bills. But we also have to make it clear we are not going to continue
to run up bills we can't pay for. It is not responsible to raise the
debt ceiling in this manner if we aren't going to put in place any
responsible activity to bring under control the rising debt, and there
is no proposal here to do that--in fact, just the opposite. The
proposal from the administration, and passed by this Congress, was a
budget that will increase the debt every year for the next 10 years by
over $1 trillion, on average.
There is no proposal to bring that down. The debt will double in 5
years. It will triple in 10 years under the budget passed by the
Democratic leadership of this Congress and the President's budget. That
is not fiscal discipline.
To raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion while doing nothing to
address the debt and how it is being added to is totally irresponsible.
It is like a drunken sailor asking to have the bar open all night.
Why are we going to this number, by the way? Why $1.9 trillion? So
that the Congress does not have to face up to the debt ceiling before
the next election. We ought to have to face up to it again before the
next election because the people of this country have a right to know
whether this Congress is going to do something about controlling the
rate of growth of the debt before the next election.
Instead, we are seeing this attempt to try to take this off the table
by moving it past the next election. The American people do not believe
it should be off the table. That is what Massachusetts was all about.
They are worried about this debt. They are worried about what we are
doing to the next generation of Americans--to our children--by running
up this debt.
This is not correct. We should not vote for this massive increase in
the debt ceiling until we get some responsible action around here on
the issue of how we are going to control the debt and deficit.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). The question is on agreeing to
amendment No. 3299, as amended.
Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

[[Page S284]]

[Rollcall Vote No. 13 Leg.]

YEAS--60

NAYS--40

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are
40. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of
this amendment, the amendment is agreed to and the motion to reconsider
is considered made and laid on the table.
Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, 2 days ago, Senator Coburn offered a
series of amendments to the debt ceiling bill requiring $120 billion in
funding cuts, including $1.3 billion from the State Department. During
the debate on those cuts, Senator Coburn stated that the ``foreign ops
appropriations increased by . . . 33 percent last year.''
If that were accurate, I would share the Senator's concern. But when
the Senator purports to speak for the American people, as he often
does, he should stick to the facts.
The Senator surely knew that by suggesting the State and Foreign
Operations budget increased by 33 percent in a single year he was
distorting the actual increase, and that he was not counting the
billions in supplemental funding for these programs in fiscal year
2009, every dollar of which was added to the Federal deficit and will
have to be paid in future years because the former Republican
administration wanted to pretend to be spending less.
In its fiscal year 2010 budget, the Obama administration, responding
to pressure from Congress, stopped the budget gimmickry of funding
ongoing programs like aid for Iraq, year after year, in off budget
``emergency'' supplementals. Instead, the President requested funding
for these programs in its regular fiscal year 2010 budget. If you
compare the fiscal year 2010 budget request with the fiscal year 2009
budget request minus the fiscal year 2009 supplemental funding, as the
Senator from Oklahoma did, you obviously get a distorted result that
suggests a much bigger increase than actually occurred. It makes a
great talking point, it sparks cries of outrage, but it is not what
actually occurred.
The actual increase for State and Foreign Operations from fiscal year
2009 to fiscal year 2010, if you count regular budget and supplemental
appropriations, was 9 percent. And the bulk of that increase was for
global health programs, to combat HIV/AIDS and H1N1, for humanitarian
crises such as the funds we are using to save lives in Haiti today, and
for personnel to fill vacancies at embassies and USAID missions around
the world that have been short staffed--some by as much as 20 percent--
due to transfers of personnel to priority posts such as Iraq and
Afghanistan. These increases were supported by Republicans and
Democrats alike.
As I said during the debate on the Coburn amendments, there may be
programs that are not achieving the results they should and which can
be eliminated. No one wants to waste money that could be better spent.
But Senator Gregg, the ranking member, and I spend a good deal of time
each year making the difficult choices that Senator Coburn declined to
make when he proposed his 5-percent cut. It is easy to sit on the
sidelines and accuse others of overspending when you do not take
responsibility for determining what the actual needs are, and decide
which programs to fund and which not to fund, whether they are
requested by the President or by other Senators. If we had funded them
all, we would have spent two or three times our allocation. We always
stay within our allocation, which in fiscal year 2010 was close to $900
million below the President's budget. And we did it with no earmarks.
So let's be honest about the budget. There was nothing close to a 33-
percent increase last year, and it is important to set the record
straight.
Mr. REED. Madam President, our Nation faces unprecedented fiscal and
economic challenges. This situation did not happen overnight. It did
not happen in 2009. It is a situation created by 8 years of
mismanagement and complacency under President Bush. For a decade, the
easy replaced the difficult, and instead of seizing the chance in 2001
to wipe out our national debt, President Bush and his supporters went
in the opposite direction. They focused on the short term, they
encouraged lax regulatory oversight, particularly of financial markets,
and they adopted an economic doctrine that called for borrowing to fund
virtually every major Presidential initiative--tax cuts that were
skewed toward the rich, difficult and costly wars in Iraq and in
Afghanistan, and a prescription drug program that failed to negotiate
costs with drugmakers and still leaves many seniors without coverage.
Let's be clear: When President Bush took office, he was handed a
projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion, which was quickly frittered
away. In 8 years, the Bush administration added more debt than all the
previous administrations combined, all the while middle-income
households saw their earning power decline.
Due to these failed and irresponsible economic and fiscal policies,
the Obama administration inherited the worst recession since the 1930s
and a $1.3 trillion budget deficit. It should be no surprise to anyone
that President Obama and Congress cannot reverse this mountain of bad
decisions and deficits in a year, but we have been trying. Indeed,
according to the very same nonpartisan agency, the Congressional Budget
Office, that predicts our budget deficit for this year, the health care
reform bill the Senate passed reduced health care spending and would
have cut the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and over $1
trillion over 20 years. We also had to take action on a recovery bill
that kept States from cutting police, firemen, and teachers, gave our
Governors funds to repair and rebuild our infrastructure, and provided
$288 billion in tax cuts to help middle-class families and businesses
deal with the recession. These were not easy steps, but they were the
right steps, and it is fair to note that the other side of the aisle's
answer to these proposals has been to oppose these measures and offer
no coherent alternative.
Today, because of the shortcomings of the Bush administration and the
recession that started in December 2007, we face the question of
whether we want to default on the government's financial obligations to
Social Security recipients and those who have purchased U.S. bonds. If
we follow the course proposed by the other side of the aisle and vote
no, the outcome is an even worse economic situation. Ask any economist
of any background whether the government should default on its
obligation and the answer is a resounding no. Yet that is what is
proposed by too many here in the Senate. Although it is troubling to
have to raise the debt to pay for a series of irresponsible choices,
tax cuts, and a war in Iraq--all of which I opposed--it would be
irresponsible to reject this measure.
There is no doubt that we need to address the long-term fiscal
challenges facing our Nation. However, we should not lose sight of the
fact that producing a budget is not merely adjusting numbers on a
ledger; it is allocating resources to serve people. Today, our first
order of business has to be ensuring that economic recovery has taken
root. While some areas of the country have shown signs of recovery,
most Americans have not seen the benefits. In places such as Rhode
Island, where State governments lack the resources to help people who
are struggling to deal with crushing unemployment levels, the need for
Federal assistance remains great.

[[Page S285]]

To balance the budget, we will have to make very difficult decisions,
but many of us here have made them before. In 1993, without any support
from congressional Republicans, Democrats made the tough decisions and
took politically difficult votes that brought the budget surpluses that
were handed off to President Bush 8 years later and then quickly
squandered. Through the tough decisions we made, we were able to not
only turn the economy around but eliminate deficit spending and cut the
debt. Indeed, I remember that in 2001 some on the other side used the
argument that we were paying off the government's debt too quickly as
one reason they supported President Bush's reckless tax cuts for the
wealthiest. And I stand ready to work with those who want to do the
hard work of making the compromises that are necessary when it comes to
spending and revenues. I am ready to support a pay-go rule that says
you cannot pass a new bill without offsetting its costs, and I would
urge my colleagues to reconsider the largess of the last farm bill, the
multibillion dollar giveaway to ethanol makers, and the host of tax
cuts for oil companies and companies that shift American jobs overseas.
It is instructive to remember that in 1993 the challenge was met, as
it should have been, through the normal legislative process, not by
handing off the tough choices to a deficit commission. Congress can do
better than give its responsibilities to a commission whose
recommendations would very likely tilt toward cuts in programs that are
crucial to our seniors and our young people. At the same time, the
record shows that similar commissions have been unsuccessful in the
past. It is only when elected representatives tackle the tough issues
that we see positive results. Conversely, when these issues are
ignored, as they were during the last administration, we see how
quickly fiscal responsibility can unravel.
President Obama and this Democratic-led Congress have already begun
to take the hard and decisive steps to get our fiscal house in order.
In response to skyrocketing health care costs, the Senate passed a
health care bill that would meet President Obama's goal of reducing
health care spending below projected levels, reining in the deficit by
$132 billion over the next 10 years and by up to $1.6 trillion over the
next 20 years.
We have a difficult series of choices before us. Yet we can respond
to the crisis of the moment and get our Nation on a path of fiscal
soundness.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I came to the floor a little more than a
month ago to discuss perhaps one of the most critical issues facing our
great country: the skyrocketing national debt. I had hoped that once
Democrats went home and heard the concerns of their constituents, they
would return to Washington with a new perspective. Believe me, I heard
from Nevadans in the townhall meetings I held this month that increased
spending and more debt is simply not acceptable.
Voters in Massachusetts echoed those same feelings last week when
they voted to put a stop to a bloated health care bill and protest out-
of-control spending. I don't see how the message can be any clearer.
The debt we are accumulating is unsustainable; it will bankrupt this
Nation and force future generations to suffer for our fiscal
irresponsibility.
Based on the votes today on the Senate floor, it appears that
Democrats have decided to turn a deaf ear to the concerns of American
voters. We have voted to raise the debt limit once again to make room
for more spending. Ironically, the debt limit was put into place to
provide Congress with constitutional control of the American purse
strings. The debt limit was designed as a form of fiscal accountability
to be used by the President and Congress to ensure that the Federal
Government does not spend or borrow more than it collects in revenue.
I, along with many Americans, have tried to impose this simple yet
vital rule to our children. Don't spend more than you can afford. Don't
go into debt. But Congress is teaching them the exact opposite lesson:
spend what you want and someone else will take care of it.
Although the debt limit has increased regularly over the years in
order to accommodate annual Federal deficits, it has absolutely
skyrocketed in the last several years. For example, from 1996 to 2002,
the debt limit increased by 16 percent. But from 2003 to 2009 the debt
limit increased 84 percent. And if we pass this legislation before us,
the total increase from 2002 to January of 2010 will be over 120
percent.
I would like to recap the last month and a half with regard to the
debt limit. It was raised by $290 billion in December of last year.
Today, the Senate Democrats voted to raise the debt limit by another
$1.9 trillion. After just 1 year in office, the Obama administration's
spending has left American families in quite the financial hole. Since
his inauguration, the national debt has increased by $1.7 trillion.
And when you look at the burden on hard-working American families,
the news is just as bad. The Federal debt per household in 2009 was
$68,000, and that is projected to increase to $137,000 in 2019 under
the Obama administration's budget. Nevadans are hurting enough right
now--they don't need this added burden. Under the Democrats'
leadership, debt limit increases will become a regular occurrence. The
debt subject to limit is projected to grow to $24.5 trillion by 2019.
This vote accomplishes only one thing: passing the responsibility for
paying for the massive spending to future generations. We need to do
better than that--we need to think of our grandchildren's future when
deciding how to vote.
Democrats claim the massive spending this year was necessary because
of the ``Republican recession,'' but the Democrats' wasteful spending
this year does too little to create jobs. In fact, since President
Obama's inauguration the private sector has lost 3.4 million jobs.
And Nevada right now is going through an unprecedented economic
downturn. Our unemployment rate just went up again to 13 percent, and
that number doesn't account for those who have stopped looking for
work. We have to stop this spending and start focusing on the real
solution to the slow economy--jobs.
Witin 5 years, Democratic policies will more than double the amount
of debt held by the public at the end of fiscal year 2008 and will more
than triple it by 2019, according to both OMB and CBO estimates. A
single Obama term will add about as much new debt held by the public as
all other Presidents in U.S. history combined. That statistic should be
shocking to everyone, even to the current White House.
And we should all remember that this debt is only one part of the
crisis. The Federal Government has promised more than $70 trillion in
entitlements that it cannot pay for. That is a staggering number.
Between Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and other liabilities,
each American household shoulders roughly $600,000 in IOUs. That is
separate and apart from each household's share of the national debt.
Keep in mind that this does not include health care reform.
And where is all this borrowed money coming from? Well, almost half
of it comes from foreign countries. China is our country's largest
foreign creditor, holding roughly 10 percent of our Nation's debt. And
like any loan that you or I would get at the local bank, the Chinese
don't lend money for free. Federal interest payment on foreign-owned
debt has nearly doubled since 2000. We are sending a whole lot of
taxpayer money abroad.
Today, I introduced a bill, the Commission for Fiscal Sustainability
Act of 2010, to take an effective step toward a solution. This
legislation would establish a commission with the goal of fiscal
sustainability to guarantee the long-term fiscal strength and economic
security of the United States. The legislation would require that the
commission focus solely on recommendations to decrease Federal spending
without the need for tax increases.
Now we hear of a new proposal from the White House to freeze
discretionary spending. I am hopeful that President Obama is sincere in
his desire to freeze spending, but I find it very hard to believe that
he will be able to contain the fiscally irresponsible Democratic
majority which has yet to show restraint in this area.
I don't like to sound pessimistic because this is the greatest
country in the history of the world. And I truly

[[Page S286]]

believe that. And I believe that these challenges can be solved. But we
must act. We must show leadership--fiscally conservative leadership and
stop this out of control spending. American families have had to make
tough choices to balance their budget. They understand that they cannot
have it all. But we in Congress want to have it all--even when we can't
pay for it. That is simply unsustainable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 4 minutes of debate on passage.
The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I think we all know where we are. I do
not think anything else needs to be said. I yield back the remainder of
my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back? All time is yielded
back.
The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading
of the joint resolution.
The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the joint resolution to
be read a third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. INOUYE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 39, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 14 Leg.]

YEAS--60

NAYS--39

Alexander
Barrasso
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johanns
Kyl
LeMieux
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Risch
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Snowe
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Wicker

NOT VOTING--1

Enzi

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are
39. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the passage of this
joint resolution, the joint resolution, as amended, is passed.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45), as amended, was passed, as
follows:

H.J. Res. 45

Resolved, That the resolution from the House of
Representatives (H.J. Res. 45) entitled ``Joint resolution
increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.'', do pass
with the following amendment:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

That subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation
contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof
$14,294,000,000,000.

TITLE I--STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this title is to reestablish a statutory
procedure to enforce a rule of budget neutrality on new
revenue and direct spending legislation.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS.

As used in this title--
(1) The term ``BBEDCA'' means the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(2) The definitions set forth in section 3 of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and
in section 250 of BBEDCA shall apply to this title, except to
the extent that they are specifically modified as follows:
(A) The term ``outyear'' means a fiscal year one or more
years after the budget year.
(B) In section 250(c)(8)(C), the reference to the food
stamp program shall be deemed to be a reference to the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
(3) The term ``AMT'' means the Alternative Minimum Tax for
individuals under sections 55-59 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, the term ``EGTRRA'' means the Economic Growth and
Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-16),
and the term ``JGTRRA'' means the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
and Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-27).
(4)(A) The term ``budgetary effects'' means the amount by
which PAYGO legislation changes outlays flowing from direct
spending or revenues relative to the baseline and shall be
determined on the basis of estimates prepared under section
4. Budgetary effects that increase outlays flowing from
direct spending or decrease revenues are termed ``costs'' and
budgetary effects that increase revenues or decrease outlays
flowing from direct spending are termed ``savings''.
Budgetary effects shall not include any costs associated with
debt service.
(B) For purposes of these definitions, off-budget effects
shall not be counted as budgetary effects.
(C) Solely for purposes of recording entries on a PAYGO
scorecard, provisions in appropriation Acts are also
considered to be budgetary effects for purposes of this title
if such provisions make outyear modifications to substantive
law, except that provisions for which the outlay effects net
to zero over a period consisting of the current year, the
budget year, and the 4 subsequent years shall not be
considered budgetary effects. For purposes of this paragraph,
the term, ``modifications to substantive law'' refers to
changes to or restrictions on entitlement law or other
mandatory spending contained in appropriations Acts,
notwithstanding section 250(c)(8) of BBEDCA. Provisions in
appropriations Acts that are neither outyear modifications to
substantive law nor changes in revenues have no budgetary
effects for purposes of this title.
(5) The term ``debit'' refers to the net total amount, when
positive, by which costs recorded on the PAYGO scorecards for
a fiscal year exceed savings recorded on those scorecards for
that year.
(6) The term ``entitlement law'' refers to a section of law
which provides entitlement authority.
(7) The term ``PAYGO legislation'' or a ``PAYGO Act''
refers to a bill or joint resolution that affects direct
spending or revenue relative to the baseline. The budgetary
effects of changes in revenues and outyear modifications to
substantive law included in appropriation Acts as defined in
paragraph (4) shall be treated as if they were contained in
PAYGO legislation or a PAYGO Act.
(8) The term ``timing shift'' refers to a delay of the date
on which outlays flowing from direct spending would otherwise
occur from the ninth outyear to the tenth outyear or an
acceleration of the date on which revenues would otherwise
occur from the tenth outyear to the ninth outyear.

SEC. 4. PAYGO ESTIMATES AND PAYGO SCORECARDS.

(a) PAYGO Estimates.--
(1) Required designation in paygo acts.--
(A) House of representatives.--To establish the budgetary
effects of a PAYGO Act consistent with the determination made
by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, a PAYGO Act
originated in or amended by the House of Representatives may
include the following statement: ``The budgetary effects of
this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory
Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference
to the latest statement titled `Budgetary Effects of PAYGO
Legislation' for this Act, submitted for printing in the
Congressional Record by the Chairman of the House Budget
Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted
prior to the vote on passage.''.
(B) Senate.--To establish the budgetary effects of a PAYGO
Act consistent with the determination made by the Chairman of
the Senate Budget Committee, a PAYGO Act originated in or
amended by the Senate shall include the following statement:
``The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
`Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.''.
(C) Conference reports and amendments between the houses.--
To establish the budgetary effects of the conference report
on a PAYGO Act, or an amendment to an amendment between
Houses on a PAYGO Act, which if estimated shall be estimated
jointly by the Chairmen of the House and Senate Budget
Committees, the conference report or amendment between the
Houses shall include the following statement: ``The budgetary
effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined by
reference to the latest statement titled `Budgetary Effects
of PAYGO Legislation' for this Act, jointly submitted for
printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairmen of the
House and Senate Budget Committees, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage in
the House acting first on this conference report or amendment
between the Houses.''.

[[Page S287]]

(2) Determination of budgetary effects of paygo acts.--
(A) Original legislation.--
(i) Statement and estimate.--Prior to a vote on passage of
a PAYGO Act originated or amended by one House, the Chairman
of the Budget Committee of that House may submit for printing
in the Congressional Record a statement titled ``Budgetary
Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' which shall include an
estimate of the budgetary effects of that Act, if available
prior to passage of the Act by that House and shall submit,
if applicable, an identification of any current policy
adjustments made pursuant to section 7 of this Act. The
timely submission of such a statement, in conjunction with
the appropriate designation made pursuant to paragraph (1)(A)
or (1)(B), as applicable, shall establish the budgetary
effects of the PAYGO Act for the purposes of this Act.
(ii) Effect.--The latest statement submitted by the
Chairman of the Budget Committee of that House prior to
passage shall supersede any prior statements submitted in the
Congressional Record and shall be valid only if the PAYGO Act
is not further amended by either House.
(iii) Failure to submit estimate.--If--

(I) the estimate required by clause (i) has not been
submitted prior to passage by that House;
(II) such estimate has been submitted but is no longer
valid due to a subsequent amendment to the PAYGO Act; or
(III) the designation required pursuant to this subsection
has not been made;

the budgetary effects of the PAYGO Act shall be determined
under subsection (d)(3), provided that this clause shall not
apply if a valid designation is subsequently included in that
PAYGO Act pursuant to paragraph (1)(C) and a statement is
submitted pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(B) Conference reports and amendments between houses.--
(i) In general.--Prior to the adoption of a report of a
committee of conference on a PAYGO Act in either House, or
disposition of an amendment to an amendment between Houses on
a PAYGO Act, the Chairmen of the Budget Committees of the
House and Senate may jointly submit for printing in the
Congressional Record a statement titled ``Budgetary Effects
of PAYGO Legislation'' which shall include an estimate of the
budgetary effects of that Act if available prior to passage
of the Act by the House acting first on the legislation and
shall submit, if applicable, an identification of any current
policy adjustments made pursuant to section 7 of this title.
The timely submission of such a statement, in conjunction
with the appropriate designation made pursuant to paragraph
(1)(C), shall establish the budgetary effects of the PAYGO
Act for the purposes of this Act.
(ii) Failure to submit estimate.--If such estimate has not
been submitted prior to the adoption of a report of a
committee of conference by either House, or if the
designation required pursuant to this subsection has not been
made, the budgetary effects of the PAYGO Act shall be
determined under subsection (d)(3).
(3) Procedure in the senate.--In the Senate, upon
submission of a statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO
Legislation'' by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
for printing in the Congressional Record, the Legislative
Clerk shall read the statement.
(4) Jurisdiction of the budget committees.--For the
purposes of enforcing section 306 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, a designation made pursuant to paragraph (1)(A),
(1)(B), or (1)(C), that includes only the language
specifically prescribed therein, shall not be considered a
matter within the jurisdiction of either the Senate or House
Committees on the Budget.
(b) CBO PAYGO Estimates.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Estimates.--Section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(3) CBO paygo estimates.--
``(A) The Chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the
House and Senate, as applicable, shall request from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office an estimate of
the budgetary effects of PAYGO legislation.
``(B) Estimates shall be prepared using baseline estimates
supplied by the Congressional Budget Office, consistent with
section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
``(C) The Director shall not count timing shifts, as that
term is defined at section 3(8) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-
Go Act of 2010, in estimates of the budgetary effects of
PAYGO Legislation.''.
(B) Sideheading.--The side heading of section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking
``Reports on''.
(2) Guidelines.--Section 308 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Scorekeeping Guidelines.--Estimates under this
section shall be provided in accordance with the scorekeeping
guidelines determined under section 252(d)(5) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.
(c) Current Policy Adjustments for Certain Legislation.--
(1) In general.--For any provision of legislation that
meets the criteria in subsection (c), (d), (e) or (f) of
section 7, the Chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the
House and Senate, as applicable, shall request that CBO
adjust the estimate of budgetary effects of that legislation
pursuant to paragraph (2) for the purposes of this title. A
single piece of legislation may contain provisions that meet
criteria in more than one of the subsections referred to in
the preceding sentence. CBO shall adjust estimates for
legislation designated under subsection (a) and estimated
under subsection (b). OMB shall adjust estimates for
legislation estimated under subsection (d)(3).
(2) Adjustments.--
(A) Estimates.--CBO or OMB, as applicable, shall exclude
from the estimate of budgetary effects any budgetary effects
of a provision that meets the criteria in subsection (c),
(d), (e) or (f) of section 7, to the extent that those
budgetary effects, when combined with all other excluded
budgetary effects of any other previously designated
provisions of enacted legislation under the same subsection
of section 7, do not exceed the maximum applicable current
policy adjustment defined under the applicable subsection of
section 7 for the applicable 10-year period.
(B) Baseline.--Any estimate made pursuant to subparagraph
(A) shall be prepared using baseline estimates supplied by
the Congressional Budget Office, consistent with section 257
of the BBEDCA. CBO estimates of legislation adjusted for
current policy shall include a separate presentation of costs
excluded from the calculation of budgetary effects for the
legislation, as well as an updated total of all excluded
costs of provisions within subsection (c), (d), or (e) of
section 7, as applicable, and in the case of paragraph (1) of
section 7(f), within any of the subparagraphs (A) through (L)
of such paragraph, as applicable.
(3) Limitation on availability of excess savings.--
(A) Prohibition on use of excess saving for ineligible
policies.--To the extent the adjustment for current policy of
any provision estimated under this subsection exceeds the
estimated budgetary effects of that provision, these excess
savings shall not be available to offset the costs of any
provisions not otherwise eligible for a current policy
adjustment under section 7, and shall not be counted on the
PAYGO scorecards established pursuant to subsections (d)(4)
and (d)(5).
(B) Prohibition on use of excess savings across budget
areas.--For provisions eligible for a current policy
adjustment under subsections (c) through (f) of section 7, to
the extent the adjustment for current policy of any provision
exceeds the estimated budgetary effects of that same
provision, the excess savings shall be available only to
offset the costs of other provisions that qualify for a
current policy adjustment in that same subsection. Each
paragraph in section 7(f)(1) shall be considered a separate
subsection for purposes of this section.
(4) Further guidance on estimating budgetary effects.--
Estimates of budgetary effects under this subsection shall be
consistent with the guidance provided at section 7(h).
(5) Inclusion of statement.--For PAYGO legislation adjusted
pursuant to section 7, the Chairman of the House or Senate
Budget Committee, as applicable, shall include in any
statement titled ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'',
submitted for that legislation pursuant to section 4, an
explanation of the current policy designation and
adjustments.
(d) OMB PAYGO Scorecards.--
(1) In general.--OMB shall maintain and make publicly
available a continuously updated document containing two
PAYGO scorecards displaying the budgetary effects of PAYGO
legislation as determined under section 308 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, applying the look-back
requirement in subsection (e) and the averaging requirement
in subsection (f), and a separate addendum displaying the
estimates of the costs of provisions designated in statute as
emergency requirements.
(2) Estimates in legislation.--Except as provided in
paragraph (3), in making the calculations for the PAYGO
scorecards, OMB shall use the budgetary effects included by
reference in the applicable legislation pursuant to
subsection (a).
(3) OMB paygo estimates.--If a PAYGO Act does not contain a
valid reference to its budgetary effects consistent with
subsection (a), OMB shall estimate the budgetary effects of
that legislation upon its enactment. The OMB estimate shall
be based on the approaches to scorekeeping set forth in
section 308 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended by this title, and subsection (g)(4), and shall use
the same economic and technical assumptions as used in the
most recent budget submitted by the President under section
1105(a) of title 31 of the United States Code.
(4) 5-year scorecard.--The first scorecard shall display
the budgetary effects of PAYGO legislation in each year over
the 5-year period beginning in the budget year.
(5) 10-year scorecard.--The second scorecard shall display
the budgetary effects of PAYGO legislation in each year over
the 10-year period beginning in the budget year.
(6) Community living assistance services and supports
act.--Neither scorecard maintained by OMB pursuant to this
subsection shall include net savings from any provisions of
legislation titled ``Community Living Assistance Services and
Supports Act'', which establishes a Federal insurance program
for long-term care, if such legislation is enacted into law,
or amended, subsequent to the date of enactment of this
title.
(e) Look-back To Capture Current-year Effects.--For
purposes of this section, OMB shall treat the budgetary
effects of PAYGO legislation enacted during a session of
Congress that occur during the current year as though they
occurred in the budget year.
(f) Averaging Used To Measure Compliance Over 5-year and
10-year Periods.--OMB shall cumulate the budgetary effects of
a PAYGO Act over the budget year (which includes any look-
back effects under subsection (e)) and--
(1) for purposes of the 5-year scorecard referred to in
subsection (d)(4), the four subsequent outyears, divide that
cumulative total by five, and enter the quotient in the
budget-year column and in each subsequent column of the 5-
year PAYGO scorecard; and
(2) for purposes of the 10-year scorecard referred to in
subsection (d)(5), the nine subsequent outyears, divide that
cumulative total by

[[Page S288]]

ten, and enter the quotient in the budget-year column and in
each subsequent column of the 10-year PAYGO scorecard.
(g) Emergency Legislation.--
(1) Designation in statute.--If a provision of direct
spending or revenue legislation in a PAYGO Act is enacted as
an emergency requirement that the Congress so designates in
statute pursuant to this section, the amounts of new budget
authority, outlays, and revenue in all fiscal years resulting
from that provision shall be treated as an emergency
requirement for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Designation in the house of representatives.--If a
PAYGO Act includes a provision expressly designated as an
emergency for the purposes of this title, the Chair shall put
the question of consideration with respect thereto.
(3) Point of order in the senate.--
(A) In general.--When the Senate is considering a PAYGO
Act, if a point of order is made by a Senator against an
emergency designation in that measure, that provision making
such a designation shall be stricken from the measure and may
not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
(B) Supermajority waiver and appeals.--
(i) Waiver.--Subparagraph (A) may be waived or suspended in
the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(ii) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this subsection shall
be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or
joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of
three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and
sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling
of the Chair on a point of order raised under this
subsection.
(C) Definition of an emergency designation.--For purposes
of subparagraph (A), a provision shall be considered an
emergency designation if it designates any item as an
emergency requirement pursuant to this subsection.
(D) Form of the point of order.--A point of order under
subparagraph (A) may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313 (e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(E) Conference reports.--When the Senate is considering a
conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in
relation to, a PAYGO Act, upon a point of order being made by
any Senator pursuant to this section, and such point of order
being sustained, such material contained in such conference
report shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed
to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede
from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or
concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as
the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of
only that portion of the conference report or House
amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such
motion in the Senate shall be debatable. In any case in which
such point of order is sustained against a conference report
(or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by
operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be
in order.
(4) Effect of designation on scoring.--If a provision is
designated as an emergency requirement under this Act, CBO or
OMB, as applicable, shall not include the budgetary effects
of such a provision in its estimate of the budgetary effects
of that PAYGO legislation.

SEC. 5. ANNUAL REPORT AND SEQUESTRATION ORDER.

(a) Annual Report.--Not later than 14 days (excluding
weekends and holidays) after Congress adjourns to end a
session, OMB shall make publicly available and cause to be
printed in the Federal Register an annual PAYGO report. The
report shall include an up-to-date document containing the
PAYGO scorecards, a description of any current policy
adjustments made under section 4(c), information about
emergency legislation (if any) designated under section 4(g),
information about any sequestration if required by subsection
(b), and other data and explanations that enhance public
understanding of this title and actions taken under it.
(b) Sequestration Order.--If the annual report issued at
the end of a session of Congress under subsection (a) shows a
debit on either PAYGO scorecard for the budget year, OMB
shall prepare and the President shall issue and include in
that report a sequestration order that, upon issuance, shall
reduce budgetary resources of direct spending programs by
enough to offset that debit as prescribed in section 6. If
there is a debit on both scorecards, the order shall fully
offset the larger of the two debits. OMB shall transmit the
order and the report to the House of Representatives and the
Senate. If the President issues a sequestration order, the
annual report shall contain, for each budget account to be
sequestered, estimates of the baseline level of budgetary
resources subject to sequestration, the amount of budgetary
resources to be sequestered, and the outlay reductions that
will occur in the budget year and the subsequent fiscal year
because of that sequestration.

SEC. 6. CALCULATING A SEQUESTRATION.

(a) Reducing Nonexempt Budgetary Resources by a Uniform
Percentage.--
(1) In general.--OMB shall calculate the uniform percentage
by which the budgetary resources of nonexempt direct spending
programs are to be sequestered such that the outlay savings
resulting from that sequestration, as calculated under
subsection (b), shall offset the budget-year debit, if any,
on the applicable PAYGO scorecard. If the uniform percentage
calculated under the prior sentence exceeds 4 percent, the
Medicare programs described in section 256(d) of BBEDCA shall
be reduced by 4 percent and the uniform percentage by which
the budgetary resources of all other nonexempt direct
spending programs are to be sequestered shall be increased,
as necessary, so that the sequestration of Medicare and of
all other nonexempt direct spending programs together produce
the required outlay savings.
(2) Programs and activities in unified budget only.--
Subject to the exemptions set forth in section 11, OMB shall
determine the uniform percentage required under paragraph (1)
with respect to programs and activities contained in the
unified budget only.
(b) Outlay Savings.--In determining the amount by which a
sequestration offsets a budget-year debit, OMB shall count--
(1) the amount by which the sequestration in a crop year of
crop support payments, pursuant to section 256(j) of BBEDCA,
reduces outlays in the budget year and the subsequent fiscal
year;
(2) the amount by which the sequestration of Medicare
payments in the 12-month period following the sequestration
order, pursuant to section 256(d) of BBEDCA, reduces outlays
in the budget year and the subsequent fiscal year; and
(3) the amount by which the sequestration in the budget
year of the budgetary resources of other nonexempt mandatory
programs reduces outlays in the budget year and in the
subsequent fiscal year.

SEC. 7. ADJUSTMENT FOR CURRENT POLICIES.

(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for
adjustments of estimates of budgetary effects of PAYGO
legislation for legislation affecting 4 areas of the budget--
(1) payments made under section 1848 of the Social Security
Act (referred to in this section as ``Payment for Physicians'
Services'');
(2) the Estate and Gift Tax under subtitle B of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(3) the AMT; and
(4) provisions of EGTRRA or JGTRRA that amended the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (or provisions in later
statutes further amending the amendments made by EGTRRA or
JGTRRA), other than--
(A) the provisions of those 2 Acts that were made permanent
by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-280);
(B) amendments to the Estate and Gift Tax referred to in
paragraph (2);
(C) the AMT referred to in paragraph (3); and
(D) the income tax rates on ordinary income that apply to
individuals with adjusted gross incomes greater than $200,000
for a single filer and $250,000 for joint filers.
(b) Duration.--This section shall remain in effect through
December 31, 2011.
(c) Medicare Payments to Physicians.--
(1) Criteria.--Legislation that includes provisions
amending or superseding the system for updating payments
under subsections (d) and (f) of section 1848 of the Social
Security Act shall trigger the current policy adjustment
required by this title.
(2) Adjustment.--The amount of the maximum current policy
adjustment shall be the difference between--
(A) estimated net outlays attributable to the payment rates
and related parameters in accordance with subsections (d) and
(f) of section 1848 of the Social Security Act (as scheduled
on December 31, 2009, to be in effect); and
(B) what those net outlays would have been if--
(i) the nominal payment rates and related parameters in
effect for 2009 had been in effect through December 31, 2014,
without change; and
(ii) thereafter, the nominal payment rates and related
parameters described in subparagraph (A) had applied and the
assumption described in clause (i) had never applied.
(3) Limitation.--If the provisions in the legislation that
cause it to meet the criteria in paragraph (1) cover a time
period that ends before December 31, 2014, subject to the
maximum adjustment provided for under paragraph (2), the
amount of each current policy adjustment made pursuant to
this section shall be limited to the difference between--
(A) estimated net outlays attributable to the payment rates
and related parameters specified in that section of the
Social Security Act (as scheduled on December 31, 2009, to be
in effect for the period of time covered by the relevant
provisions of the eligible legislation); and
(B) what those net outlays would have been if the nominal
payment rates and related parameters in effect for 2009 had
been in effect, without change, for the same period of time
covered by the relevant provisions of the eligible
legislation as under subparagraph (A).
(d) Estate and Gift Tax.--
(1) Criteria.--Legislation that includes provisions
amending the Estate and Gift Tax under subtitle B of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall trigger the current
policy adjustment required by this title.
(2) Adjustment.--The amount of the maximum current policy
adjustment shall be the difference between--
(A) total revenues projected to be collected under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as scheduled on December 31,
2009, to be in effect); and
(B) what those revenue collections would have been if, on
the date of enactment of the legislation meeting the criteria
in paragraph (1), estate and gift tax law had instead been
amended so that the tax rates, nominal exemption amounts, and
related parameters in effect for tax year 2009 had remained
in effect through December 31, 2011, with nominal exemption
amounts indexed for inflation after 2009 consistent with
subsection (g).
(3) Limitation.--If the provisions in the legislation that
cause it to meet the criteria in paragraph (1) cover a time
period that ends before December 31, 2011, subject to the
maximum adjustment provided for under paragraph (2), the
amount of each current policy adjustment made pursuant to
this section shall be limited to the difference between--

[[Page S289]]

(A) total revenues projected to be collected under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as scheduled on December 31,
2009, to be in effect for the period of time covered by the
relevant provisions of the eligible legislation); and
(B) what those revenues would have been if the estate and
gift tax law rates, nominal exemption amounts, and related
parameters in effect for 2009, with nominal exemption amounts
indexed for inflation after 2009 consistent with subsection
(g), had been in effect for the same period of time covered
by the relevant provisions of the eligible legislation as
under subparagraph (A).
(4) Duration of policy adjustment.--Adjustments made
pursuant to this subsection are available for policies
affecting the estate and gift tax through only December 31,
2011. Any adjustments shall include budgetary effects in all
years from these policy changes.
(e) AMT Relief.--
(1) Criteria.--Legislation that includes provisions
extending AMT relief shall trigger the current policy
adjustment required by this title.
(2) Adjustment.--The amount of the maximum current policy
adjustment shall be the difference between--
(A) total revenues projected to be collected under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as scheduled on December 31,
2009, to be in effect); and
(B) what those revenue collections would have been if, on
the date of enactment of legislation meeting the criteria in
paragraph (1), AMT law had instead been amended by making
commensurate adjustments in the exemption amounts for joint
and single filers in such a manner that the number of
taxpayers with AMT liability or lost credits that occur as a
result of the AMT would not be estimated to exceed the number
of taxpayers affected by the AMT in tax year 2008 in any year
for which relief is provided, through December 31, 2011.
(3) Limitation.--If the provisions in the legislation that
cause it to meet the criteria in paragraph (1) cover a time
period that ends before December 31, 2011, subject to the
maximum adjustment provided for under paragraph (2), the
amount of each current policy adjustment made pursuant to
this section shall be limited to the difference between--
(A) total revenues projected to be collected under the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as scheduled on December 31,
2009, to be in effect for the period of time covered by the
relevant provisions of the eligible legislation); and
(B) what those revenues would have been if, on the date of
enactment of legislation meeting the criteria in paragraph
(1), AMT law had instead been amended by making commensurate
adjustments in the exemption amounts for joint and single
filers in such a manner that the number of taxpayers with AMT
liability or lost credits that occur as a result of the AMT
would not be estimated to exceed the number of AMT taxpayers
in tax year 2008 for the same period of time covered by the
relevant provisions of the eligible legislation as under
subparagraph (A).
(4) Duration of policy adjustment.--Adjustments made
pursuant to this subsection are available for policies
affecting the AMT through only December 31, 2011. Any
adjustments shall include budgetary effects in all years from
these policy changes.
(f) Permanent Extension of Middle-class Tax Cuts.--
(1) Criteria.--Legislation that includes provisions
extending middle-class tax cuts shall trigger the current
policy adjustment required by this title if those provisions
extend 1 or more of the following provisions:
(A) The 10 percent bracket as in effect for tax year 2010,
as provided for under section 101(a) of EGTRRA and any later
amendments through December 31, 2009.
(B) The child tax credit as in effect for tax year 2010, as
provided for under section 201 of EGTRRA and any later
amendments through December 31, 2009.
(C) Tax benefits for married couples as in effect for tax
year 2010, as provided for under title III of EGTRRA and any
later amendments through December 31, 2009.
(D) The adoption credit as in effect in tax year 2010, as
provided for under section 202 of EGTRRA and any later
amendments through December 31, 2009.
(E) The dependent care credit as in effect in tax year
2010, as provided for under section 204 of EGTRRA and any
later amendments through December 31, 2009.
(F) The employer-provided child care credit as in effect in
tax year 2010, as provided for under section 205 of EGTRRA
and any later amendments through December 31, 2009.
(G) The education tax benefits as in effect in tax year
2010, as provided for under title IV of EGTRRA and any later
amendments through December 31, 2009.
(H) The 25 and 28 percent brackets as in effect for tax
year 2010, as provided for under section 101(a) of EGTRRA and
any later amendments through December 31, 2009.
(I) The 33 percent bracket as in effect for tax year 2010,
as provided for under section 101(a) of EGTRRA and any later
amendment through December 31, 2009, affecting taxpayers with
adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less for single filers
and $250,000 or less for joint filers in tax year 2010, with
these income levels indexed for inflation in each subsequent
year consistent with subsection (g).
(J) The rates on income derived from capital gains and
qualified dividends as in effect for tax year 2010, as
provided for under sections 301 and 302 of JGTRRA and any
later amendment through December 31, 2009, affecting
taxpayers with adjusted gross income of $200,000 or less for
single filers and $250,000 for joint filers with these income
levels indexed for inflation in each subsequent year
consistent with subsection (g).
(K) The phaseout of personal exemptions and the overall
limitation on itemized deductions as in effect for tax year
2010, as provided for under sections 102 and 103 of EGTRRA of
2001, respectively, and any later amendment through December
31, 2009, affecting taxpayer with adjusted gross income of
$200,000 or less for single filers and $250,000 for joint
filers, with these income levels indexed for inflation in
each subsequent year consistent with subsection (g).
(L) The increase in the limitations on expensing
depreciable business assets for small businesses under
section 179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in
effect in tax year 2010, as provided under section 202 of
JGTRRA and any later amendment through December 31, 2009.
(2) Adjustment.--The amount of the maximum current policy
adjustment shall be the difference between--
(A) total revenues projected to be collected and outlays to
be paid under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as scheduled
on December 31, 2009, to be in effect); and
(B) what those revenue collections and outlay payments
would have been if, on the date of enactment of legislation
meeting the criteria in paragraph (1), the provisions
identified in paragraph (1) were made permanent.
(3) Limitation.--If the provisions in the legislation that
cause it to meet the criteria in paragraph (1) are not
permanent, subject to the maximum adjustment provided for
under paragraph (2), the amount of each current policy
adjustment made pursuant to this section shall be limited to
the difference between--
(A) total revenues projected to be collected and outlays to
be paid under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as scheduled
on December 31, 2009, to be in effect for the period of time
covered by the relevant provisions of the eligible
legislation); and
(B) what those revenue collections and outlay payments
would have been if, on the date of enactment of legislation
meeting the criteria in paragraph (1), the provisions
identified in paragraph (1) had been in effect, without
change, for the same period of time covered by the relevant
provisions of the eligible legislation as under subparagraph
(A).
(g) Indexing for Inflation.--Indexed amounts are assumed to
increase in each year by an amount equal to the cost-of-
living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for the calendar year in which
the taxable year begins, determined by substituting
``calendar year 2008'' for ``calendar year 1992'' in
subparagraph (B) of such section.
(h) Guidance on Estimates and Current Policy Adjustments.--
(1) Middle class tax cuts.--For purposes of estimates made
pursuant to subsection (f)--
(A) each of the income tax provisions shall be estimated as
though the AMT had remained at current law as scheduled on
December 31, 2009 to be in effect; and
(B) if more than 1 of the income tax provisions is included
in a single piece of legislation, those provisions shall be
estimated in the order in which they appear.
(2) AMT.--For purposes of estimates made pursuant to
subsection (e), changes to the AMT shall be estimated as if,
on the date of enactment of legislation meeting the criteria
in subsection (e)(1), all of the income tax provisions
identified in subsection (f)(1) were made permanent.

SEC. 8. APPLICATION OF BBEDCA.

For purposes of this title--
(1) notwithstanding section 275 of BBEDCA, the provisions
of sections 255, 256, 257, and 274 of BBEDCA, as amended by
this title, shall apply to the provisions of this title;
(2) references in sections 255, 256, 257, and 274 to ``this
part'' or ``this title'' shall be interpreted as applying to
this title;
(3) references in sections 255, 256, 257, and 274 of BBEDCA
to ``section 254'' shall be interpreted as referencing
section 5 of this title;
(4) the reference in section 256(b) of BBEDCA to ``section
252 or 253'' shall be interpreted as referencing section 5 of
this title;
(5) the reference in section 256(d)(1) of BBEDCA to
``section 252 or 253'' shall be interpreted as referencing
section 6 of this title;
(6) the reference in section 256(d)(4) of BBEDCA to
``section 252 or 253'' shall be interpreted as referencing
section 5 of this title;
(7) section 256(k) of BBEDCA shall apply to a
sequestration, if any, under this title; and
(8) references in section 257(e) of BBEDCA to ``section
251, 252, or 253'' shall be interpreted as referencing
section 4 of this title.

SEC. 9. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.

(a) Section 250(c)(18) of BBEDCA is amended by striking
``the expenses the Federal deposit insurance agencies'' and
inserting ``the expenses of the Federal deposit insurance
agencies''.
(b) Section 256(k)(1) of BBEDCA is amended by striking ``in
paragraph (5)'' and inserting ``in paragraph (6)''.

SEC. 10. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Section 256(a) of BBEDCA is repealed.
(b) Section 256(b) of BBEDCA is amended by striking
``origination fees under sections 438(c)(2) and 455(c) of
that Act shall each be increased by 0.50 percentage point.''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``origination fees under
sections 438(c)(2) and (6) and 455(c) and loan processing and
issuance fees under section 428(f)(1)(A)(ii) of that Act
shall each be increased by the uniform percentage specified
in that sequestration order, and, for student loans
originated during the period of the sequestration, special
allowance payments under section 438(b) of that Act accruing
during the period of the sequestration shall be reduced by
the uniform percentage specified in that sequestration
order.''.
(c) Section 256(c) of BBEDCA is repealed.
(d) Section 256(d) of BBEDCA is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) as
paragraphs (3), (5), and (6);

[[Page S290]]

(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) Calculation of reduction in payment amounts.--To
achieve the total percentage reduction in those programs
required by section 252 or 253, subject to paragraph (2), and
notwithstanding section 710 of the Social Security Act, OMB
shall determine, and the applicable Presidential order under
section 254 shall implement, the percentage reduction that
shall apply, with respect to the health insurance programs
under title XVIII of the Social Security Act--
``(A) in the case of parts A and B of such title, to
individual payments for services furnished during the one-
year period beginning on the first day of the first month
beginning after the date the order is issued (or, if later,
the date specified in paragraph (4)); and
``(B) in the case of parts C and D, to monthly payments
under contracts under such parts for the same one-year
period;

such that the reduction made in payments under that order
shall achieve the required total percentage reduction in
those payments for that period.''.
(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
``(2) Uniform reduction rate; maximum permissible
reduction.--Reductions in payments for programs and
activities under such title XVIII pursuant to a sequestration
order under section 254 shall be at a uniform rate, which
shall not exceed 4 percent, across all such programs and
activities subject to such order.'';
(4) by inserting after paragraph (3), as redesignated, the
following:
``(4) Timing of subsequent sequestration order.--A
sequestration order required by section 252 or 253 with
respect to programs under such title XVIII shall not take
effect until the first month beginning after the end of the
effective period of any prior sequestration order with
respect to such programs, as determined in accordance with
paragraph (1).'';
(5) in paragraph (6), as redesignated, to read as follows:
``(6) Sequestration disregarded in computing payment
amounts.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
not take into account any reductions in payment amounts which
have been or may be effected under this part, for purposes of
computing any adjustments to payment rates under such title
XVIII, specifically including--
``(A) the part C growth percentage under section
1853(c)(6);
``(B) the part D annual growth rate under section 1860D-
2(b)(6); and
``(C) application of risk corridors to part D payment rates
under section 1860D-15(e).''; and
(6) by adding after paragraph (6), as redesignated, the
following:
``(7) Exemptions from sequestration.--In addition to the
programs and activities specified in section 255, the
following shall be exempt from sequestration under this part:
``(A) Part d low-income subsidies.--Premium and cost-
sharing subsidies under section 1860D-14 of the Social
Security Act.
``(B) Part d catastrophic subsidy.--Payments under section
1860D-15(b) and (e)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act.
``(C) Qualified individual (qi) premiums.--Payments to
States for coverage of Medicare cost-sharing for certain low-
income Medicare beneficiaries under section 1933 of the
Social Security Act.''.

SEC. 11. EXEMPT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES.

(a) Designations.--Section 255 of BBEDCA is amended by
redesignating subsection (i) as (j) and striking ``1998'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``2010''.
(b) Social Security, Veterans Programs, Net Interest, and
Tax Credits.--Subsections (a) through (d) of section 255 of
BBEDCA are amended to read as follows:
``(a) Social Security Benefits and Tier I Railroad
Retirement Benefits.--Benefits payable under the old-age,
survivors, and disability insurance program established under
title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.),
and benefits payable under section 231b(a), 231b(f)(2),
231c(a), and 231c(f) of title 45 United States Code, shall be
exempt from reduction under any order issued under this part.
``(b) Veterans Programs.--The following programs shall be
exempt from reduction under any order issued under this part:
``All programs administered by the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
``Special Benefits for Certain World War II Veterans (28-
0401-0-1-701).
``(c) Net Interest.--No reduction of payments for net
interest (all of major functional category 900) shall be made
under any order issued under this part.
``(d) Refundable Income Tax Credits.--Payments to
individuals made pursuant to provisions of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 establishing refundable tax credits
shall be exempt from reduction under any order issued under
this part.''.
(c) Other Programs and Activities, Low-income Programs, and
Economic Recovery Programs.--Subsections (g) and (h) of
section 255 of BBEDCA are amended to read as follows:
``(g) Other Programs and Activities.--
``(1)(A) The following budget accounts and activities shall
be exempt from reduction under any order issued under this
part:
``Activities resulting from private donations, bequests, or
voluntary contributions to the Government.
``Activities financed by voluntary payments to the
Government for goods or services to be provided for such
payments.
``Administration of Territories, Northern Mariana Islands
Covenant grants (14-0412-0-1-808).
``Advances to the Unemployment Trust Fund and Other Funds
(16-0327-0-1-600).
``Black Lung Disability Trust Fund Refinancing (16-0329-0-
1-601).
``Bonneville Power Administration Fund and borrowing
authority established pursuant to section 13 of Public Law
93-454 (1974), as amended (89-4045-0-3-271).
``Claims, Judgments, and Relief Acts (20-1895-0-1-808).
``Compact of Free Association (14-0415-0-1-808).
``Compensation of the President (11-0209-01-1-802).
``Comptroller of the Currency, Assessment Funds (20-8413-0-
8-373).
``Continuing Fund, Southeastern Power Administration (89-
5653-0-2-271).
``Continuing Fund, Southwestern Power Administration (89-
5649-0-2-271).
``Dual Benefits Payments Account (60-0111-0-1-601).
``Emergency Fund, Western Area Power Administration (89-
5069-0-2-271).
``Exchange Stabilization Fund (20-4444-0-3-155).
``Farm Credit Administration Operating Expenses Fund (78-
4131-0-3-351).
``Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, Farm Credit
Insurance Fund (78-4171-0-3-351).
``Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Deposit Insurance
Fund (51-4596-0-4-373).
``Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FSLIC Resolution
Fund (51-4065-0-3-373).
``Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Noninterest
Bearing Transaction Account Guarantee (51-4458-0-3-373).
``Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Senior Unsecured
Debt Guarantee (51-4457-0-3-373).
``Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).
``Federal Housing Finance Agency, Administrative Expenses
(95-5532-0-2-371).
``Federal National Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae).
``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Judicial
Retirement and Survivors Annuity Fund (20-1713-0-1-752).
``Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Pension Fund
(20-1714-0-1-601).
``Federal Payments to the Railroad Retirement Accounts (60-
0113-0-1-601).
``Federal Reserve Bank Reimbursement Fund (20-1884-0-1-
803).
``Financial Agent Services (20-1802-0-1-803).
``Foreign Military Sales Trust Fund (11-8242-0-7-155).
``Hazardous Waste Management, Conservation Reserve Program
(12-4336-0-3-999).
``Host Nation Support Fund for Relocation (97-8337-0-7-
051).
``Internal Revenue Collections for Puerto Rico (20-5737-0-
2-806).
``Intragovernmental funds, including those from which the
outlays are derived primarily from resources paid in from
other government accounts, except to the extent such funds
are augmented by direct appropriations for the fiscal year
during which an order is in effect.
``Medical Facilities Guarantee and Loan Fund (75-9931-0-3-
551).
``National Credit Union Administration, Central Liquidity
Facility (25-4470-0-3-373).
``National Credit Union Administration, Corporate Credit
Union Share Guarantee Program (25-4476-0-3-376).
``National Credit Union Administration, Credit Union
Homeowners Affordability Relief Program (25-4473-0-3-371).
``National Credit Union Administration, Credit Union Share
Insurance Fund (25-4468-0-3-373).
``National Credit Union Administration, Credit Union System
Investment Program (25-4474-0-3-376).
``National Credit Union Administration, Operating fund (25-
4056-0-3-373).
``National Credit Union Administration, Share Insurance
Fund Corporate Debt Guarantee Program (25-4469-0-3-376).
``National Credit Union Administration, U.S. Central
Federal Credit Union Capital Program (25-4475-0-3-376).
``Office of Thrift Supervision (20-4108-0-3-373).
``Panama Canal Commission Compensation Fund (16-5155-0-2-
602).
``Payment of Vietnam and USS Pueblo prisoner-of-war claims
within the Salaries and Expenses, Foreign Claims Settlement
account (15-0100-0-1-153).
``Payment to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
(24-0200-0-1-805).
``Payment to Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible
Retiree Health Care Fund (97-0850-0-1-054).
``Payment to Judiciary Trust Funds (10-0941-0-1-752).
``Payment to Military Retirement Fund (97-0040-0-1-054).
``Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability
Fund (19-0540-0-1-153).
``Payments to Copyright Owners (03-5175-0-2-376).
``Payments to Health Care Trust Funds (75-0580-0-1-571).
``Payment to Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund
(15-0333-0-1-054).
``Payments to Social Security Trust Funds (28-0404-0-1-
651).
``Payments to the United States Territories, Fiscal
Assistance (14-0418-0-1-806).
``Payments to trust funds from excise taxes or other
receipts properly creditable to such trust funds.
``Payments to widows and heirs of deceased Members of
Congress (00-0215-0-1-801).
``Postal Service Fund (18-4020-0-3-372).
``Radiation Exposure Compensation Trust Fund (15-8116-0-1-
054).
``Reimbursement to Federal Reserve Banks (20-0562-0-1-803).
``Salaries of Article III judges.
``Soldiers and Airmen's Home, payment of claims (84-8930-0-
7-705).
``Tennessee Valley Authority Fund, except nonpower programs
and activities (64-4110-0-3-999).

[[Page S291]]

``Tribal and Indian trust accounts within the Department of
the Interior which fund prior legal obligations of the
Government or which are established pursuant to Acts of
Congress regarding Federal management of tribal real property
or other fiduciary responsibilities, including but not
limited to Tribal Special Fund (14-5265-0-2-452), Tribal
Trust Fund (14-8030-0-7-452), White Earth Settlement (14-
2204-0-1-452), and Indian Water Rights and Habitat
Acquisition (14-5505-0-2-303).
``United Mine Workers of America 1992 Benefit Plan (95-
8260-0-7-551).
``United Mine Workers of America 1993 Benefit Plan (95-
8535-0-7-551).
``United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund (95-
8295-0-7-551).
``United States Enrichment Corporation Fund (95-4054-0-3-
271).
``Universal Service Fund (27-5183-0-2-376).
``Vaccine Injury Compensation (75-0320-0-1-551).
``Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Trust Fund (20-8175-
0-7-551).
``(B) The following Federal retirement and disability
accounts and activities shall be exempt from reduction under
any order issued under this part:
``Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (20-8144-0-7-601).
``Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability
System Fund (56-3400-0-1-054).
``Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (24-8135-0-
7-602).
``Comptrollers general retirement system (05-0107-0-1-801).
``Contributions to U.S. Park Police annuity benefits, Other
Permanent Appropriations (14-9924-0-2-303).
``Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Retirement Fund (95-
8290-0-7-705).
``Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health
Care Fund (97-5472-0-2-551).
``District of Columbia Federal Pension Fund (20-5511-0-2-
601).
``District of Columbia Judicial Retirement and Survivors
Annuity Fund (20-8212-0-7-602).
``Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Fund
(16-1523-0-1-053).
``Foreign National Employees Separation Pay (97-8165-0-7-
051).
``Foreign Service National Defined Contributions Retirement
Fund (19-5497-0-2-602).
``Foreign Service National Separation Liability Trust Fund
(19-8340-0-7-602).
``Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund (19-8186-
0-7-602).
``Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health
Benefits (24-0206-0-1-551).
``Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life
Insurance (24-0500-0-1-602).
``Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund (10-8122-0-7-602).
``Judicial Survivors' Annuities Fund (10-8110-0-7-602).
``Military Retirement Fund (97-8097-0-7-602).
``National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust (60-8118-0-
7-601).
``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
retirement (13-1450-0-1-306).
``Pensions for former Presidents (47-0105-0-1-802).
``Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (24-5391-0-2-
551).
``Public Safety Officer Benefits (15-0403-0-1-754).
``Rail Industry Pension Fund (60-8011-0-7-601).
``Retired Pay, Coast Guard (70-0602-0-1-403).
``Retirement Pay and Medical Benefits for Commissioned
Officers, Public Health Service (75-0379-0-1-551).
``Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners (16-0169-0-1-
601).
``Special Benefits, Federal Employees' Compensation Act
(16-1521-0-1-600).
``Special Workers Compensation Expenses (16-9971-0-7-601).
``Tax Court Judges Survivors Annuity Fund (23-8115-0-7-
602).
``United States Court of Federal Claims Judges' Retirement
Fund (10-8124-0-7-602).
``United States Secret Service, DC Annuity (70-0400-0-1-
751).
``Voluntary Separation Incentive Fund (97-8335-0-7-051).
``(2) Prior legal obligations of the Government in the
following budget accounts and activities shall be exempt from
any order issued under this part:
``Biomass Energy Development (20-0114-0-1-271).
``Check Forgery Insurance Fund (20-4109-0-3-803).
``Credit liquidating accounts.
``Credit reestimates.
``Employees Life Insurance Fund (24-8424-0-8-602).
``Federal Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund (69-4120-0-3-
402).
``Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund (12-4085-0-3-
351).
``Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Flood
Insurance Fund (58-4236-0-3-453).
``Geothermal resources development fund (89-0206-0-1-271).
``Low-Rent Public Housing--Loans and Other Expenses (86-
4098-0-3-604).
``Maritime Administration, War Risk Insurance Revolving
Fund (69-4302-0-3-403).
``Natural Resource Damage Assessment Fund (14-1618-0-1-
302).
``Overseas Private Investment Corporation, Noncredit
Account (71-4184-0-3-151).
``Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Fund (16-4204-0-3-
601).
``San Joaquin Restoration Fund (14-5537-0-2-301).
``Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Fund (36-4009-0-3-
701).
``Terrorism Insurance Program (20-0123-0-1-376).
``(h) Low-income Programs.--The following programs shall be
exempt from reduction under any order issued under this part:
``Academic Competitiveness/Smart Grant Program (91-0205-0-
1-502).
``Child Care Entitlement to States (75-1550-0-1-609).
``Child Enrollment Contingency Fund (75-5551-0-2-551).
``Child Nutrition Programs (with the exception of special
milk programs) (12-3539-0-1-605).
``Children's Health Insurance Fund (75-0515-0-1-551).
``Commodity Supplemental Food Program (12-3507-0-1-605).
``Contingency Fund (75-1522-0-1-609).
``Family Support Programs (75-1501-0-1-609).
``Federal Pell Grants under section 401 Title IV of the
Higher Education Act.
``Grants to States for Medicaid (75-0512-0-1-551).
``Payments for Foster Care and Permanency (75-1545-0-1-
609).
``Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (12-3505-0-1-
605).
``Supplemental Security Income Program (28-0406-0-1-609).
``Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (75-1552-0-1-
609).''.
(d) Additional Excluded Programs.--Section 255 of BBEDCA is
amended by adding the following after subsection (h):
``(i) Economic Recovery Programs.--The following programs
shall be exempt from reduction under any order issued under
this part:
``GSE Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements (20-0125-0-1-
371).
``Office of Financial Stability (20-0128-0-1-376).
``Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief
Program (20-0133-0-1-376).
``(j) Split Treatment Programs.--Each of the following
programs shall be exempt from any order under this part to
the extent that the budgetary resources of such programs are
subject to obligation limitations in appropriations bills:
``Federal-Aid Highways (69-8083-0-7-401).
``Highway Traffic Safety Grants (69-8020-0-7-401).
``Operations and Research NHTSA and National Driver
Register (69-8016-0-7-401).
``Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs (69-8159-0-
7-401).
``Motor Carrier Safety Grants (69-8158-0-7-401).
``Formula and Bus Grants (69-8350-0-7-401).
``Grants-In-Aid for Airports (69-8106-0-7-402).''.

SEC. 12. DETERMINATIONS AND POINTS OF ORDER.

Nothing in this title shall be construed as limiting the
authority of the chairmen of the Committees on the Budget of
the House and Senate under section 312 of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. CBO may consult with the Chairmen of the
House and Senate Budget Committees to resolve any ambiguities
in this title.

SEC. 13. LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT.

(a) Limitation on Changes to the Social Security Act.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it shall not be
in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to
consider any bill or resolution pursuant to any expedited
procedure to consider the recommendations of a Task Force for
Responsible Fiscal Action or other commission that contains
recommendations with respect to the old-age, survivors, and
disability insurance program established under title II of
the Social Security Act, or the taxes received under
subchapter A of chapter 9; the taxes imposed by subchapter E
of chapter 1; and the taxes collected under section 86 of
part II of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue
Code.
(b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(c) Appeals.--An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be
required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of
the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

TITLE II--ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATIVE AND WASTEFUL SPENDING

SEC. 21. IDENTIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, AND ELIMINATION OF
DUPLICATIVE GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS.

The Comptroller General of the Government Accountability
Office shall conduct routine investigations to identify
programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative
goals and activities within Departments and governmentwide
and report annually to Congress on the findings, including
the cost of such duplication and with recommendations for
consolidation and elimination to reduce duplication
identifying specific rescissions.

Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

____________________