[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

     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.
  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider has been made and 
is laid upon the table.


                           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

     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

     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

     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--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.

                          ____________________