[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 17 (Thursday, February 4, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H574-H593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           INCREASING THE STATUTORY LIMIT ON THE PUBLIC DEBT

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1065, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) increasing the statutory limit 
on the public debt, with a Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate 
amendment.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       Senate 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.''.
       (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

[[Page H575]]

     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 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

[[Page H576]]

     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--
       (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

[[Page H577]]

     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);
       (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

[[Page H578]]

     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).
       ``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

[[Page H579]]

     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.

                      Motion Offered by Mr. Hoyer

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Hoyer moves that the House concur in the Senate 
     amendment to House Joint Resolution 45.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1065, the 
motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by 
the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) will control 30 minutes. The 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) will control 15 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker, and I yield myself 1 minute.

[[Page H580]]

  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as we have on numerous occasions, 
we just raised the liability, or the ability, of the United States to 
pay a substantial amount. What we are doing now that we have not done 
in the last decade is to adopt a fiscal constraint at the same time, a 
fiscal constraint to get us to wherever Americans want us to be, and 
that is to fiscal balance, to a fiscally responsible government and a 
fiscally responsible country to match the fiscal responsibility of most 
of our citizens.
  The House has just voted that our country should pay the bills it 
already incurred. Those obligations, of course, come from actions 
America has already taken. Those actions cannot be changed, so it was 
necessary to pay the bill. But we can and must confront our record debt 
going forward. We can and must set a more responsible path fiscally for 
our country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 3 additional minutes.
  A New York Times analysis found that 90 percent of our deficit is due 
to the policies of the previous administration, the extension of those 
policies, and the economic downturn. However we believe America got 
into this mess, this Congress can begin getting America out of it. That 
is why Congress must pass one of the most proven deficit cutting tools 
we know, statutory pay-as-you-go legislation or, as it is 
affectionately known, PAYGO.
  Now, let me point out this chart to my right, your left. The deficits 
are when we did not have statutory PAYGO in effect. Now, when statutory 
PAYGO was put into effect in 1990, we still had deficits, but you can 
see that we started reducing those deficits almost on a straight line. 
And then in 1997 we went into surplus, fiscal year 1998, and we went 
into surplus for the next 4 years under PAYGO. Unfortunately, you will 
see that in 2001 it was decided that we would waive PAYGO, and then in 
2003 it was decided by the then majority party that we would eliminate 
statutory PAYGO. And you can see the result. We returned to deep 
deficits.
  So what we are voting on on the floor has demonstrably made a 
difference, has demonstrably helped America discipline its finances and 
bring surpluses. As I said, when George Bush took office from President 
Clinton, he, his administration, based upon the past record of the 
Clinton administration, said we had a $5.6 trillion surplus. 
Unfortunately, for the country, when President Bush left office we had 
an almost $8 trillion deficit confronting us.
  PAYGO compels Congress to find savings for the money it spends, so it 
keeps our deficit from increasing. Under PAYGO we'll be required to 
find savings to balance any new tax cuts or entitlement spending, which 
makes this law essential, essential to the wise prioritization that 
responsible budgeting demands and, indeed, that our fellow citizens 
expect. As the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal responsibility 
group, put it, and I quote, ``PAYGO requires anyone proposing tax cuts 
or entitlement expansions to answer the question, How do you pay for 
it? Going through this process will force an explicit trade-off between 
spending, taxes and debt, which is exactly the priority-setting 
exercise that the budget process should and must facilitate.'' We all 
know that such deliberate priority-setting steps stops us from passing 
our bills on to our children.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
  Under President Clinton, PAYGO helped turn record deficits into a 
$5.6 trillion projected surplus. We also know that PAYGO was 
disregarded, waived and finally allowed to expire under the last 
administration. And as I have pointed out on this chart, our deficits 
exploded and, indeed, our economy was hurt as well as those deficits 
exploded. Some argue that the PAYGO legislation on the floor today is 
too weak. But I'd point out that it brings our country more fiscal 
discipline than it has seen in nearly a decade.
  The perfect ought not to be the enemy of the good. PAYGO can't get us 
out of our fiscal hole, but it can keep us from digging it deeper. When 
my Republican colleagues raise their concerns about our growing debt, I 
absolutely agree with them. They're right. All of us understand this 
debt is not sustainable. But it's not enough to complain about the 
debt; we have to do something about it. If my colleagues are sincere in 
their concerns, I hope they'll work with us to pass PAYGO and 
contribute to the bipartisan fiscal commission announced by President 
Obama. I hope you'll participate in that commission, helping us get our 
country to fiscal balance.
  America's dangerous fiscal condition threatens our prosperity and our 
place in the world. If my colleagues will forgive a Democrat for 
paraphrasing Ronald Reagan, there are no easy answers to this mess, but 
there is a simple answer. The answer lies in recommitting ourselves to 
the principle that has served our prosperity so well in the past, the 
principle of responsibility. Ronald Reagan was right. Let us pass this 
legislation.
  In closing, let me say, Madam Speaker, that so many people are 
responsible for this day; the Blue Dogs, I want to congratulate them. 
In a minute I'm going to yield to Allen Boyd who has led this effort on 
behalf of the Blue Dogs for such a long and successful time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HOYER. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
  I also want to congratulate an extraordinary individual who worked 
for an individual who's not on this floor, Charlie Stenholm, who 
deserves a portion of the credit this day for this legislation. And he 
was assisted, as I am now assisted, as all of the House is assisted, by 
an extraordinary member of our staff, Ed Lorenzen. Ed, I want to thank 
you personally for the extraordinary efforts you have made to get us to 
this day.
  Madam Speaker, I designate Mr. Boyd of Florida to control the 
remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will be recognized.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If this so-called PAYGO legislation fails, there is no increase in 
the debt limit and you cannot separate the two concepts. If this 
legislation passes, the debt limit increases by an astounding $1.9 
trillion, the largest one-time increase in the debt limit ever. Since 
the majority came into control of Congress 3 years ago, the debt limit 
has been increased by over $5.3 trillion, or by nearly 60 percent. 
Despite this massive heap of debt thrust on the American people, 
Democrats plan to pile on even more debt next year.
  According to the President's newest budget proposal, the amount of 
debt subject to the limit will increase by nearly $1.4 trillion from 
fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011. A number that large is hard to 
put into perspective, but let me offer a few points of reference. The 
President intends to increase the debt in just 1 year by an amount 
equal to the entire GDP of Canada. This 1-year increase in the debt is 
larger than the GDP of India, Mexico, Australia, or South Korea. It is 
larger than the GDP of Ireland, Poland, and Belgium combined. We've 
heard a lot of talk recently from the President about the need to get 
America's fiscal house in order. However, according to the President's 
own budget, Congress will have to raise the debt limit again before 
2011 is over.

                              {time}  1415

  Even more disturbing is the fact that under the President's proposed 
budget, debts subject to this limit will exceed the size of the entire 
U.S. economy by 2013 and remain more than U.S. GDP through the next 
decade and presumably for years to come.
  Experts on both sides of the political spectrum agree that this kind 
of runaway debt threatens the very foundation of America's economy. 
Yesterday, the market provided a stark warning as credit rating agency 
Moody's stated the U.S. AAA bond rating is threatened by deficits 
driving up this debt.
  I hear a lot from the President, from my colleagues in the majority, 
about inherited deficits and debt, but let's be clear. According to the 
President's own budget, the largest deficit in U.S. history will be 
under a Democratic administration and a Democratic majority in

[[Page H581]]

Congress. A Democratic President and a Democratic Congress plan a 1-
year increase in the debt larger than the size of major economies 
around the world.
  This isn't about what anyone inherited. It is about what this 
President and the Democrats in Congress planned for America: too much 
spending, too much taxing, and too much debt.
  My friends on the other side are fond of the analogy that raising the 
debt limit is necessary in the same way that someone who has eaten in a 
restaurant must now pay the bill. That analogy is misleading. It is 
more accurate to say that having sat down at a restaurant with enough 
money for a decent meal, Democrats decided to go on an eating binge. 
It's simply irresponsible for Democrats to spend the American people's 
money in this fashion.
  Rather than letting this massive debt increase pass, I urge Congress 
to examine its out-of-control spending habit this year rather than 
after the election, as the President suggests with his so-called 
deficit commission.
  I urge this House to restore responsible spending. Vote ``no'' on the 
largest one-time increase in the debt limit ever.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I rise in favor of this PAYGO legislation. This has been a priority 
of mine and my Blue Dog colleagues for many, many years, and I am proud 
to stand here today where we're on the brink of final passage of this 
very important legislation.
  Madam Speaker, PAYGO was the very first bill that President Obama 
sent to Congress last year, and the progress we made in the last year 
would not be possible without his support. And I want to thank the 
President for weighing in and supporting fiscal responsibility.
  I also want to take a moment to thank the leaders of the House who 
have been so important, particularly Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has a 
commitment to fiscal responsibility, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who 
you've already heard from, and also chairman of the Budget Committee, 
the gentleman from South Carolina, John Spratt.
  My Blue Dog colleagues and I will continue to advocate for tools to 
bring our fiscal house in order because this is only the very first 
step. It is a small step, and it will not solve all of our problems 
that have been created over the last decade, but we will continue to 
advocate for tools that will pave the way for long-term economic 
stability.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Brady), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. These congressional Democrats just aren't 
listening. After Massachusetts, voters sent a signal on behalf of this 
country of no more spending, we are too deep in debt, a here-we-go-
again. And when they sent the signal that government should be open and 
the people ought to have a say today, they snuck into this bill an 
increase in the debt limit to make sure there wouldn't be an 
embarrassing up-or-down vote on this bill the way the public demands it 
to be.
  When they were in charge, it was a different story. As the majority 
leader, highly respected Steny Hoyer, said, Democrats, raising the debt 
limit is immoral. This policy of borrow and spend is not only 
irresponsible, it's immoral and it must stop. He was exactly right.
  When our Speaker--again, highly respected Speaker--took that gavel 3 
years ago, the debt limit in America was $29,000 for every man, woman, 
and child. Today, just 3 years later, it's $45,000 for each one of you, 
and it's going up and up and up each year.
  And I will tell you, when they say, No, no, the Republicans, 
Democrats share the blame, Democrats have incurred twice as much of 
that debt to date, and it's going to skyrocket under their control. And 
what's even more frustrating is, with the new President's budget, that 
deficit is going to triple over future years.
  And I will finish with this. PAYGO. PAYGO is to fiscal responsibility 
what ethics is to the former Governor of Illinois, Mr. Blagojevich. 
PAYGO, since it's been put in place 3 years ago, our deficits have 
increased tenfold.
  I urge defeat of this bill.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure and privilege to yield 
2\1/2\ minutes to the Budget Committee chairman, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, to supplement my remarks about statutory 
PAYGO, I would like to include in the Record the attached section of 
the bill.
  Madam Speaker, at the outset of the 1990s, the Congress passed the 
Budget Enforcement Act for a simple purpose: to ensure that the Budget 
Summit Agreement we just passed was actually carried out. Among its 
provisions was a new rule called PAYGO, pay-as-you-go.
  I can remember how our critics disdained our resort to budget process 
instead of making hard substantive decisions. They said we were dodging 
the hard choices, choices we had to make if we were going to wipe out 
the deficit. But by the end of the 1990s, the budget was in surplus for 
the first time in 30 years, and it was clear that for the budget 
process, rules we would put in place like PAYGO played a big part in 
our fiscal success.
  Republicans were in the majority in 2002 when the Budget Enforcement 
Act expired, and they chose not to reinstate PAYGO because they knew it 
would impede passage of their tax-cutting agenda. Without these process 
rules in place, the budget plunged from a surplus of $236 billion to a 
deficit of $413 billion in the year 2004. When Democrats took back the 
House, we made PAYGO a rule of the House the first day we convened the 
110th Congress.
  The Obama administration, the current Congress have inherited an 
economy in crisis and a colossal deficit, swollen by recession and 
recovery measures both. As these measures pull us out of recession, we 
should turn our attention on our longer-term fiscal fate.
  Statutory PAYGO works. It's proven to work. It reins in new 
entitlement spending. It reins in tax cuts as well. Both tend to be 
long lasting, easy to pass, hard to repeal. By insisting on offsets and 
insisting on deficit neutrality, PAYGO buffers the bottom line, and 
Lord knows it needs it now. Its terms are complex, but at its core is a 
commonsense rule that everyone can understand: When you are in a hole, 
stop digging.
  Statutory PAYGO was first put in place with bipartisan support, 
renewed on a bipartisan basis in 1997. When the House passed it in 
July, the rule PAYGO, two dozen Republicans joined 241 Democrats in 
voting for it.
  We recall and invite you to cast another vote today for statutory for 
fiscal responsibility. Vote for statutory PAYGO. It will help us reduce 
the deficit, both short-term and long-term. And while it can't solve 
all of our problems--it's no panacea--it does represent one solid step 
forward towards getting things back on the path of fiscal 
sustainability and fiscal responsibility.
  Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Budget Committee I am submitting 
for the Record a section-by-section analysis of the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2010 that the House is considering today as part of the 
Senate amendments to H.J. Res. 45. The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 
2010 establishes points of order in the House of Representatives only 
to the extent that it does so explicitly.

 Section-by-Section Analysis of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010

       Section 1--Short Title: The title of this Act is the 
     ``Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.''
       Section 2--Purpose: The purpose of the Statutory Pay-As-
     You-Go Act (PAYGO) of 2010 is to reestablish a statutory 
     procedure to enforce a rule of budget neutrality on new 
     revenue and direct spending legislation.
       Section 3--Definitions and Applications: Section 3 sets 
     forth definitions of terms used in the PAYGO statute. Many 
     terms are defined by cross-references to the standard 
     definitions used in other budget laws, including the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA) of 1985. Terms that 
     are of particular importance include:
       Budgetary effects. Budgetary effects are defined as the 
     amount by which PAYGO legislation changes mandatory outlays 
     or revenues relative to the baseline. The budgetary

[[Page H582]]

     effects of changes in tax or mandatory spending law are 
     measured relative to what revenues or mandatory spending 
     would otherwise have been if not for the legislation, as 
     measured by the baseline (as defined in section 257 of 
     BBEDCA). Off-budget effects (i.e., Social Security trust 
     funds and the Postal Service fund) and debt service are not 
     counted as budgetary effects. ``Mandatory spending'' and 
     ``direct spending'' (the term used in the statutory language) 
     are synonymous.
       PAYGO legislation/PAYGO Act. Legislation, or provisions 
     thereof, that increases or reduces revenues, or increases or 
     reduces the cost of mandatory programs, is called PAYGO 
     legislation or a PAYGO Act. In this Act, the terms are used 
     interchangeably. PAYGO legislation is subject to statutory 
     PAYGO.
       Legislation subject to PAYGO also includes provisions in 
     annual appropriations bills that change revenue or mandatory 
     spending law in appropriations bills. Changes in mandatory 
     spending law are considered discretionary in the current and 
     budget years because the Appropriations Committees can offset 
     the costs or use the savings by adjusting funding levels for 
     discretionary programs in those years. But mandatory spending 
     provisions in appropriations bills having outyear budget 
     authority effects--that is, effects in those years after the 
     budget year--are considered PAYGO legislation. This is 
     generally consistent with the existing point of order in the 
     Senate against ChIMPs (Changes in Mandatory Programs). 
     However, such provisions for which the mandatory outlay 
     effects net to zero over the period consisting of the current 
     year, the budget year, and the four subsequent years shall 
     not be counted as having budgetary effects.
       Timing shift. A timing shift involves a shift of costs from 
     within the PAYGO window, i.e., the ten-year period covered by 
     the PAYGO scorecard, to outside the window (or savings from 
     outside the window to within the window). More technically, 
     the term is defined to refer to a delay of the date on which 
     mandatory outlays would otherwise occur from the ninth 
     outyear (the last year taken into account in the PAYGO 
     calculation) to the tenth outyear (not taken into account in 
     the PAYGO calculation) or an acceleration of the date on 
     which revenues or offsetting receipts or collections would 
     otherwise occur from the tenth outyear to the ninth outyear. 
     Timing shifts are not counted for purposes of statutory PAYGO 
     to prevent gaming the PAYGO scorecard.
       Section 4--PAYGO Estimates and PAYGO Scorecards: Section 4 
     establishes procedures for determining the budgetary effects 
     of legislation subject to PAYGO. These budgetary effects are 
     entered by OMB on the PAYGO scorecards, as defined in section 
     4(d), and are used to determine whether a sequestration order 
     must be issued.
       Estimates of budgetary effects are made either by Congress 
     or OMB. Subsection (a) establishes the procedures Congress 
     must follow in order for its estimate of budgetary effects of 
     legislation to be used for PAYGO enforcement. If Congress 
     follows these procedures, the Congressional estimate of 
     budgetary effects shall be used by OMB. If Congress does not 
     follow these procedures, the budgetary effects of legislation 
     subject to PAYGO shall be estimated by OMB. Subsection (b) 
     establishes the procedures by which the House and Senate 
     Budget Committees obtain estimates from CBO, and the 
     procedures to be used by CBO for making estimates. Subsection 
     (c) outlines the additional procedures to be followed by CBO 
     or OMB, as applicable, when adjusting the estimates of 
     budgetary effects for legislation that qualifies for a 
     ``current policy'' adjustment under section 7 of this Act. 
     Subsections (d)-(f) relate to procedures used by OMB for 
     PAYGO estimates and enforcement. Subsection (g) addresses 
     procedures for legislation designated as an emergency for the 
     purpose of statutory PAYGO.
       The Chairmen of the Budget Committees in each House are 
     authorized to submit estimates of budgetary effects for 
     printing in the Congressional Record. If such estimates are 
     submitted, they shall establish the budgetary effects of the 
     legislation as described below. Printing the statement in the 
     Congressional Record ensures that the estimate of budgetary 
     effects is, at the time of the vote on the bill that is 
     enacted into law, unambiguous, fixed, and knowable, for 
     Members, for OMB, and for the public.
       (a) PAYGO Estimates. Congress can establish the budgetary 
     effects of PAYGO legislation by following a two-step process. 
     First, the text of PAYGO legislation must include one of the 
     statements prescribed in paragraphs (1)(A), (B), or (C). 
     Second, the Chairman of the relevant Budget Committee must 
     submit for printing in the Congressional Record a statement 
     of the budgetary effects of the legislation, also referred to 
     as the ``cost estimate'' or ``score.'' A Congressional 
     estimate must satisfy both of these requirements to be valid. 
     If Congress fails to follow this procedure for legislation 
     that is subsequently enrolled and signed by the President, or 
     chooses not to provide an estimate of budgetary effects, the 
     OMB estimate of a PAYGO Act's budgetary effects is used for 
     PAYGO enforcement.
       The statements prescribed in paragraphs (1)(A), (B), or (C) 
     establish a reference in the legislative text of PAYGO 
     legislation to an estimate of budgetary effects to be 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Report before a 
     vote on passage. The statement may be included in the 
     original text of the legislation, or by amendment as may be 
     allowed under the regular procedures in either House. The 
     estimate need only be submitted for printing in the 
     Congressional Record before a vote on passage. The actual 
     estimate of budgetary effects is never inserted into the 
     legislative text of PAYGO legislation. This process avoids 
     the need to amend PAYGO legislation to include an updated 
     estimate of budgetary effects if amendments are adopted.
       This two-step process avoids the Constitutional concerns 
     identified in Bowsher v. Synar, 479 U.S. 714 (1986) and 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 
     919 (1983) because Congress will establish the budgetary 
     effects of the PAYGO Act through the legislative process, not 
     after enactment. An unambiguous and fixed estimate available 
     prior to a vote is incorporated by reference in the PAYGO 
     legislation. Matters incorporated by reference are binding on 
     the executive branch. See Hershey Foods v. USDA, 158 F. Supp. 
     2d 37, 41 (D.D.C. 2001), aff'd on other grounds, 293 F.3d 520 
     (D.C. Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Sharpnack, 355 
     U.S. 286, 293 (1958).
       1. Required Designation in PAYGO Acts: One of three 
     statements must be included in legislation subject to PAYGO 
     for the Congressional estimate to be entered by OMB on the 
     PAYGO scorecard. The statements provide the basis in the 
     legislative text for incorporating the Congressional estimate 
     by reference into the PAYGO Act.
       The three statements address three possible scenarios under 
     which a PAYGO Act may be signed by the President: (1) 
     legislation is originated by the House and passed without 
     amendment by the Senate; (2) legislation is originated by the 
     Senate and passed without amendment by the House; and (3) 
     legislation is agreed upon by both Houses after differences 
     are resolved by a conference committee or by amendments 
     between the Houses.
       Statement (1)(A) refers to an estimate provided by the 
     House Budget Committee Chairman. This statement would be 
     included in legislation originated in the House of 
     Representatives. If the House Budget Committee Chairman 
     submits a statement of budgetary effects for printing in the 
     Congressional Record before the vote on passage in the House, 
     the budgetary effects of that legislation will have been set 
     by the House. If the Senate then passes the House bill 
     without amendment, the House PAYGO estimate will be placed on 
     the PAYGO scorecard by OMB. Similarly, if the Senate 
     originates and passes PAYGO legislation with the statement 
     prescribed 3 in (1)(B), and the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
     Committee submits a statement of budgetary effects for 
     printing in the Congressional Record before the Senate votes, 
     the House of Representatives will have accepted the Senate 
     estimate as controlling if it passes the Senate bill without 
     amendment.
       One House may strike the statement inserted in the 
     legislative text by the other House and replace it with the 
     statement referring to the estimate submitted by the Chairman 
     of its Budget Committee. In doing so, the second House has 
     rejected the first House's estimate. A disagreement between 
     the Houses on the estimate of budgetary effects becomes a 
     matter in dispute between the Houses to be resolved by the 
     House and Senate Budget Committees.
       The statement in (1)(C) refers to an estimate of budgetary 
     effects jointly submitted to the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House and Senate Budget Committees. This 
     statement must be included in a conference report, or 
     amendments between the Houses, when the Houses resolve the 
     differences in their budgetary estimates. Where differences 
     between the Houses are to be resolved in a process of 
     amendments between the Houses, the requirement of a joint 
     statement prevents the House acting first from having an 
     advantage in negotiations. The joint statement also 
     underscores that different estimates of the budgetary effects 
     of legislation must be resolved to the satisfaction of the 
     Chairmen of both Budget Committees if Congress wants a 
     Congressional estimate to be placed on the PAYGO scorecard.
       Presumably not all PAYGO legislation will contain a 
     Congressional estimate of budgetary effects. For example, the 
     budgetary effects of a particular PAYGO Act may be so small 
     that Congress chooses not to complete an estimate. It is also 
     possible that the Houses cannot come to an agreement on an 
     estimate of budgetary effects. Absent a designation pursuant 
     to section 4(a)(1) and estimate submitted pursuant to section 
     4(a)(2), the estimate made by OMB post-enactment will be 
     entered on the PAYGO scorecards.
       In some cases, one piece of PAYGO legislation could have 
     multiple designations and estimates throughout the 
     legislative process--the first by the originating House, the 
     second by the second House acting upon the legislation, and a 
     third by the conference committee. For the purpose of 
     directing OMB as to what amounts are to be entered on the 
     PAYGO scorecards, the only estimate that matters is the one 
     contained in the version of the legislation passed by both 
     Houses and presented to the President for signature. 
     Conversely, the omission by one or both Houses of a 
     designation and estimate earlier in the legislative process, 
     for whatever reason, has no bearing on the validity of an 
     otherwise valid estimate appropriately referenced in a PAYGO 
     Act signed by the President.
       2. Determination of Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Acts: In 
     order for Congress's estimate of budgetary effects to bind 
     OMB, a

[[Page H583]]

     valid statement must be submitted for printing in the 
     Congressional Record by a Chairman of the Budget Committee, 
     or by the Chairmen jointly, as applicable. However, the 
     Chairmen are not obligated to submit a statement. The 
     statement, if submitted, must be titled ``Budgetary Effects 
     of PAYGO Legislation.''
       The Chairmen of the Budget Committees retain full 
     discretion over the Congressional estimate of budgetary 
     effects for the purposes of enforcing this Act, consistent 
     with Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act. The 
     Congressional Budget Office will continue to provide 
     estimates to the Budget Committees.
       It is the responsibility of the Budget Committee Chairmen 
     to ensure that statements of budgetary effects are submitted 
     for the Congressional Record in a timely manner, and that 
     they identify with specificity any previously submitted 
     statement for the same legislation that it supersedes. A 
     previous statement is no longer valid and is superseded when 
     that House adopts an amendment to a PAYGO Act after the 
     statement has been submitted. Any subsequent amendment, 
     regardless of its budgetary effects, will invalidate a 
     previously submitted estimate.
       In the case of a conference report, a statement of 
     budgetary effects is not valid if it is first submitted for 
     printing in the Congressional Record after one House passes 
     the report. It is incumbent on both Houses to ensure that 
     prior to a vote in either House on PAYGO legislation leading 
     to enrollment and presentation to the President, there is an 
     unambiguous, fixed, and knowable statement of budgetary 
     effects.
       3. Procedure in the Senate: It is in order in the Senate 
     for the Legislative Clerk to read the statement of budgetary 
     effects into the record of proceedings once it has been 
     submitted by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. 
     This reading provides an added assurance that all Senators 
     have been given notice of the Congressional estimate of the 
     budgetary effects prior to a vote on passage of legislation. 
     Notice to Senators will also be provided by printing the 
     estimate in the Congressional Record. As a practical matter, 
     votes on some legislation subject to PAYGO may be taken after 
     the statement has been submitted for the Congressional 
     Record, but before it has been printed. If the vote will be 
     taken after the statement has been printed, the Senate may 
     waive the reading of the estimate by unanimous consent.
       4. Jurisdiction of the Budget Committees: When Congress 
     follows the procedure set forth in this section, the 
     designated legislation is not subject to a point of order 
     under section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. (Section 
     306 generally bars the consideration of legislation dealing 
     with matters within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee 
     unless it has been reported by the committee, or the 
     committee has been discharged from further consideration.) 
     The inclusion of the statements specified in (1)(A), (B), and 
     (C)--without modification--in legislation subject to PAYGO 
     avoids a point of order under section 306. If different 
     language is used, for example, or if an authorizing committee 
     includes some other budgetary provision, a point of order 
     under section 306 would be in order. This is consistent with 
     Senate precedent that ``directed scoring'' language in 
     legislation is within the jurisdiction of the Budget 
     Committees.
       (b) CBO PAYGO Estimates. Subsection (b) amends Section 308 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to establish a 
     procedure by which Congress may request that CBO estimate the 
     budgetary effects of PAYGO legislation. Consistent with 
     section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act, and existing 
     Congressional practice and procedure, the Chairmen of the 
     Budget Committees are responsible for requesting estimates 
     from the Congressional Budget Office. CBO shall prepare its 
     estimates consistent with section 257 of BBEDCA, but shall 
     not count timing shifts as those are defined in section 3(8) 
     of this Act. CBO estimates shall also be scored in accordance 
     with the scorekeeping guidelines determined under section 
     252(d)(5) of BBEDCA.
       (c) Current Policy Adjustments for Certain Legislation. 
     Section 4(c) establishes procedures for making adjustments to 
     the estimates of budgetary effects for legislation in four 
     policy areas: (1) physician payments under section 1848 of 
     the Social Security Act; (2) the Estate and Gift Tax; (3) the 
     Alternative Minimum Tax; and (4) certain middle class tax 
     cuts provided in EGTRRA and JGTRRA. The criteria for 
     determining whether legislation, or provisions of 
     legislation, qualify for current policy adjustments are set 
     forth in section 7.
       1. In General: If the Chairman of either Budget Committee 
     determines that legislation meets the criteria set forth in 
     section 7 of this Act, that Chairman shall request that CBO 
     adjust its estimate of budgetary effects. If OMB estimates 
     the budgetary effects of legislation that meets the criteria 
     of section 7 because Congress has not provided a valid 
     estimate, then OMB shall adjust its estimate of budgetary 
     effects.
       2. Adjustments: For qualifying legislation or provisions of 
     legislation, CBO or OMB, as applicable, shall exclude from 
     the estimate of budgetary effects no more than the amount of 
     the budgetary effects of that legislation or provision as 
     allowed in the applicable part of section 7. The amount that 
     may be excluded is determined with reference to the amounts 
     previously excluded pursuant to the same subsection of 
     section 7. In other words, if the cost of a particular 
     provision, when added to the costs or savings of all other 
     provisions that previously qualified for an adjustment under 
     that subsection of section 7 exceeds the maximum amount 
     allowable for the subsection, the excess costs shall not be 
     excluded from the estimate of budgetary effects. In 
     implementing these adjustments, CBO shall use CBO's baseline 
     estimates; this requirement is not intended to apply to 
     estimates prepared by OMB. If CBO makes an adjustment, its 
     estimate shall state the unadjusted and adjusted costs, and 
     an updated total of all costs previously excluded under the 
     same provisions of section 7.
       3. Limitation on Availability of Excess Savings: The intent 
     of the current policy adjustment is to give Congress 
     flexibility to extend certain current policies with budgetary 
     effects over specified periods of time. Savings from the 
     extension of current policies with budgetary effects less 
     than allowed under section 7--in other words extensions that 
     generate savings in comparison with the extension of current 
     policy--cannot be used to offset costs of other legislation. 
     This paragraph establishes two rules that reinforce the 
     prohibition on the fungibility of savings relative to the 
     current policy extensions.
       A. Excess savings cannot be used to offset the budgetary 
     effects of PAYGO legislation that would not otherwise qualify 
     for a current policy exemption under section 7. For example, 
     if Congress were to enact only a one-year fix for the 
     Alternative Minimum Tax, the difference in revenue generated 
     by a two-year and one-year fix of the AMT cannot be used to 
     offset the cost of a new entitlement program.
       B. Excess savings in one of the policy areas specified in 
     section 7 cannot be used to offset the budgetary effects of a 
     more expensive policy extension in another policy area. For 
     example, if Congress were to enact only a one-year fix for 
     the Alternative Minimum Tax, the difference in revenue 
     generated by a two-year and one-year fix of the AMT cannot be 
     used to offset a reduction in the estate and gift tax that 
     costs more than is otherwise provided in section 7. In other 
     words, savings among the policies in sections 7(c), (d), (e), 
     and (f), and among the subparagraphs of section 7(f)(1), are 
     not fungible.
       4. Further Guidance on Estimating Budgetary Effects: To 
     determine adjustments for the budgetary effects for 
     qualifying legislation, CBO or OMB, as applicable, shall use 
     the conventions concerning the stacking order of estimates of 
     the interactive effects of AMT relief and extension of the 
     middle class tax cuts set forth section 7(h).
       5. Inclusion of Statement: Any adjustments for current 
     policy legislation shall be explained by the appropriate 
     Chairman of the Budget Committee in the statement ``Budgetary 
     Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' submitted for printing in the 
     Congressional Record.
       (d) OMB PAYGO Scorecards. The subsection outlines OMB's 
     responsibilities under statutory PAYGO. OMB will maintain two 
     ``PAYGO scorecards,'' available to the public, that maintain 
     a running tally of the budgetary effects of enacted 
     legislation subject to PAYGO. In making entries onto the 
     scorecards, OMB will use the ``look-back'' and ``averaging'' 
     rules discussed below.
       OMB will use the Congressional estimate of the budgetary 
     effects of a PAYGO Act if one was incorporated pursuant to 
     section (4)(a). If not, OMB will enter its own estimates on 
     the scorecards.
       The scorekeeping and baseline rules for current policy 
     adjustments are the same as those that apply to CBO and OMB 
     for estimating all legislation subject to PAYGO. OMB 
     estimates must be consistent with the scorekeeping approaches 
     described in section 308 of the Congressional Budget Act, as 
     amended by section 4(b) of this Act, and the current policy 
     adjustments in section 7. In other words, OMB and CBO 
     estimates should be made using the same rules and 
     scorekeeping conventions. However, CBO will use the baseline 
     as defined by section 257 of the Congressional Budget Act, 
     while OMB will use the economic and technical assumptions 
     included in the latest budget submitted by the President.
       OMB will maintain two PAYGO scorecards, one covering a 
     five-year period and the other covering a ten-year period 
     beginning in the budget year.
       OMB shall not include on either PAYGO scorecard any net 
     savings generated by subsequently enacted legislation titled 
     ``Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act'' 
     (CLASS Act). The CLASS Act was included in the Senate- and 
     House-passed health care reform bills and would establish a 
     federal insurance program for long-term care. OMB shall also 
     not include any net savings generated by subsequent 
     amendments to that Act, if enacted.
       (e) Look-Back to Capture Current Year Effects. To take into 
     account any budgetary effects of PAYGO legislation in the 
     current year (i.e., the year of enactment if before October 
     1st), a ``look-back'' rule is included. The rule provides 
     that budgetary effects in the current year are to be treated 
     as if they were budgetary effects in the budget year (which 
     is the year subsequent to the current year). This is why the 
     averaging provision described below actually sums eleven 
     years of costs (the current year, the budget year, and the 
     nine outyears) and divides the sum by ten. This look-back 
     provision similarly applies to the five-year scorecard.
       (f) Averaging Used to Measure Compliance Over 5-Year and 
     10-Year Periods. For the

[[Page H584]]

     budget year and the applicable four or nine outyears, OMB is 
     to enter the annual average budgetary effect associated with 
     PAYGO legislation. For instance, a bill that pays for itself 
     over ten years will have a total, and thus average, score of 
     zero, so zero would be entered in each column of the ten-year 
     PAYGO scorecard. If a bill enacted in FY10 costs a net of $10 
     billion over FY2010-FY2020, OMB would insert +$1 billion in 
     each of the ten columns on the PAYGO ledger (FY11 through 
     FY20). The same PAYGO legislation could well have different 
     averages over five years and over ten. For example, if a bill 
     enacted this session costs $2 billion through 2015 and $10 
     billion through 2020, the five-year scorecard would record 
     entries of $0.4 billion for each of 2011 through 2015, while 
     the ten-year scorecard would record entries of $1 billion for 
     each of 2011 through 2020.
       (g) Emergency Legislation. If legislation subject to PAYGO 
     contains an emergency designation, the budgetary effects of 
     provisions that are designated as emergencies shall not be 
     placed on the PAYGO scorecards by OMB. The designation should 
     refer to subsection (g)(1) of this Act. The procedure for 
     challenging a statutory emergency designation for PAYGO 
     enforcement reflects the current practices for challenging 
     emergency designations under Congressional budget rules. In 
     the Senate, an emergency designation is subject to a point of 
     order that may be waived upon a vote of 3/5 of the members 
     duly chosen and sworn. If the Senate does not waive this 
     point of order, the emergency designation is struck from the 
     legislation. Both this section of this Act and clause 10 of 
     rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives require 
     the Chair to put the question of consideration with respect 
     to a measure containing a provision expressly designated as 
     an emergency for the purposes of pay-as-you-go requirements. 
     As a result of this duplication of nearly identical 
     requirements, the two should be interpreted to merge and 
     thereby require the Chair to put just one question of 
     consideration in satisfaction of both requirements.
       Section 5--Annual Report and Sequestration Order: Section 5 
     defines the timing of the annual PAYGO report and, if one is 
     needed, the sequestration order. OMB is to produce an annual 
     PAYGO report, which shall include up-to-date PAYGO scorecards 
     and a description of any sequestration if required. The 
     report is to be released no more than 14 days (excluding 
     weekends and legal holidays) after Congress adjourns to end a 
     session.
       If the annual report shows a debit (i.e., net budgetary 
     cost) on either PAYGO scorecard for the budget year, the 
     President is required to issue an order sequestering 
     budgetary resources from non-exempt mandatory programs 
     sufficient to fully pay off that debit. If it shows a debit 
     on both the five-year and ten-year scorecards, the 
     sequestration must pay off the larger debit. If the President 
     issues this order, then the PAYGO annual report must contain 
     its details, including such information as the outlay 
     reductions that would occur in the budget year and the 
     subsequent fiscal year for each affected account.
       Because the PAYGO statute creates a permanent law, the two 
     scorecards are permanent. In effect, they will record all 
     PAYGO legislation enacted from the date the bill becomes law. 
     The cost estimates of individual PAYGO bills, however, will 
     eventually slide off the scorecards since only the five-year 
     or ten-year costs are recorded on those scorecards. For 
     example, a PAYGO bill enacted later this year will show cost 
     or savings entries of the same size (the average amount 
     through 2015) for each fiscal year 2011 through 2015 on the 
     five-year scorecard. Next year, new PAYGO legislation will 
     add entries to the five-year scorecard covering years 2012-
     2016. The entries made this year in the 2012-2015 columns of 
     that scorecard will remain on that scorecard, however. If 
     those entries are net savings, the savings will be available 
     to cover costs in new legislation, but if they are net 
     debits, avoiding a sequestration at the end of each of the 
     next four sessions of Congress will require that the net 
     debits be worked off by the enactment of new offsetting 
     savings. The same approach applies to the ten-year scorecard.
       Section 6--Calculating a Sequestration: Section 6 describes 
     how sequestration is to be implemented if triggered. Many 
     mandatory programs, such as Social Security, veterans' 
     disability and other benefits, and major low-income 
     entitlements, such as Supplemental Security Income and 
     Medicaid, are totally exempt from sequestration. Only 
     programs in the unified budget are subject to sequestration.
       With the exception of Medicare, non-exempt mandatory 
     programs would be cut by a uniform percent, such that the 
     outlay savings produced in the budget year and the subsequent 
     fiscal year would be sufficient to fully offset the budget-
     year debit on the PAYGO ledger. Medicare can be cut by no 
     more than four percent. If a larger cut is needed to offset 
     the debit on the PAYGO ledger, the uniform percentage cut to 
     the other non-exempt mandatory programs would be increased so 
     that the sequester of Medicare and the other non-exempt 
     programs would together produce sufficient savings to offset 
     the budget-year debit. Sequestrations are temporary, not 
     permanent, and with a few exceptions occur only in the budget 
     year.
       For most non-exempt mandatory programs, the uniform 
     sequestration percentage reduces budgetary resources by a 
     specified percent over the course of the entire fiscal year. 
     If a sequestration starts a month or more into the fiscal 
     year because Congress adjourns in November or December, then 
     the reduction during the remaining 9, 10, or 11 months of the 
     fiscal year will be larger than the uniform percentage so 
     that the average sequestration over the year equals the 
     required uniform percentage.
       In the case of Medicare, the sequestration lasts for a full 
     12 months even if it takes effect after the beginning of the 
     fiscal year, in which case it will run into the start of the 
     next fiscal year. This means the uniform percentage cut in 
     payments to providers or insurance plans will not be higher 
     at any time than the four-percent limit (or the calculated 
     uniform percentage, if lower).
       In the case of price support payments for crops, the 
     sequestration for any given crop will start at the beginning 
     of the next crop year. As a consequence, sequestrations for 
     crops will not all be running concurrently, and some 
     sequestrations may occur partly in the following fiscal year.
       Section 7--Adjustments for Certain Current Policies:
       (a) Purpose. Section 7 establishes a temporary rule to 
     adjust the estimates of the budgetary effects of PAYGO 
     legislation in four policy areas: Medicare physician 
     payments, the estate tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax, and 
     the 2001 and 2003 income tax cuts for the middle class. In 
     each of these areas, current policies have either expired at 
     the end of 2009 or will expire by the end of 2010. This 
     section allows for an adjustment so that the cost of 
     extending specified individual policies for a defined period 
     (two years for estate tax and AMT, five years for Medicare 
     physician payments, and permanently for the middle-class tax 
     cuts) is not counted for statutory PAYGO purposes.
       This scoring rule applies only for the purposes of 
     statutory PAYGO. For other purposes, including the 
     Congressional Budget Act and the congressional PAYGO rules, 
     existing scoring rules and points of order apply.
       General approach. The statute authorizes a maximum 
     adjustment to the estimate of budgetary effects of PAYGO 
     legislation in the four specified policy areas equal to the 
     difference between:
       The cost of continuing a specified policy under current law 
     as of December 31, 2009, consistent with baseline 
     calculations under section 257 of BBEDCA, which, for each of 
     the four policy areas, would assume that the specified policy 
     has expired (AMT and estate tax), or will expire by the end 
     of 2010 (all other policies); and
       The projected cost of the specified policy assuming the 
     policy continues beyond its scheduled expiration date.
       The cost of continuing these policies over the specified 
     period is larger than the cost of letting them expire, as 
     would happen under current law. The adjustment allows 
     Congress to address these policies without having the cost 
     added to the PAYGO scorecard. The difference between these 
     two estimated costs is the maximum adjustment that may be 
     used to offset the cost of legislation addressing each 
     specified policy for the purposes of PAYGO enforcement. If 
     the estimate of the legislation has a greater budgetary 
     effect than the maximum amount of the adjustment, then the 
     adjustment can be used to offset a portion of its cost. The 
     additional cost would be counted for statutory PAYGO 
     purposes. If a less costly policy is enacted, any remaining 
     amount in the adjustment cannot be used to offset the cost of 
     policies in other areas (as specified in Section 4(c)(3) of 
     the PAYGO statute).
       In addition, the adjustments in each policy area are 
     further limited to prevent using the full amount of the 
     available adjustment to offset the cost of a more generous 
     policy for a shorter period. Under this limitation, the 
     amount of the adjustment is estimated consistent with the 
     time period covered by the eligible policy action.
       Duration. This section expires on December 31, 2011, so any 
     policies eligible for an adjustment must be enacted by that 
     time in order to receive the adjustment.
       (c)-(f) Policy areas eligible for adjustment. For statutory 
     PAYGO purposes, legislation addressing four policy areas 
     qualifies for a current policy adjustment to the estimate of 
     that legislation's budgetary effects.
       (c) Medicare Physician Payments. Under current law, the 
     Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula requires physician 
     payments under Medicare part B to be cut automatically by 
     over 21 percent after February 28, 2010. Section 7(c) 
     provides a maximum adjustment equal to the difference between 
     the cost of freezing through December 31, 2014, the Medicare 
     Part B payment rates to physicians at the 2009 rate, and the 
     cost of allowing the automatic cuts to occur after February 
     28, 2010. Legislation providing relief from the scheduled SGR 
     cut--including legislation that reforms or supersedes the SGR 
     formula--would only be scored for PAYGO purposes to the 
     extent that it costs more than this five-year freeze at 2009 
     levels. If legislation to reform or supersede the SGR formula 
     through or beyond 2014 is enacted that costs less than a 
     five-year freeze in the years through 2014, any remaining 
     amount in the adjustment could be used to offset costs of 
     that policy after 2014, but the total adjustment cannot 
     exceed the maximum adjustment amount of a five-year SGR 
     freeze.
       Estate and gift tax. Under EGTRRA, the estate tax exemption 
     was gradually increased and the tax rate gradually lowered so 
     that by 2009, the exemption level was $3.5 million for an 
     individual, with amounts

[[Page H585]]

     above the exemption level taxed at a 45 percent rate. In 
     2010, the estate tax is repealed, replaced with a new tax on 
     inherited assets with unrealized capital gains. In 2011, with 
     the expiration of EGTRRA, the estate tax will return, with 
     the pre-2001 law parameters of a $1 million exemption for an 
     individual and a top rate of 55 percent.
       The maximum adjustment in section 7(d) is equal to the 
     difference between the revenues expected from continuing the 
     2009 estate tax policy, with the nominal exemption level 
     indexed for inflation, through December 31, 2011, and the 
     revenues expected under the 2010 repeal and 2011 return to 
     pre-2001 law. In other words, legislation restoring the 
     estate tax would be scored for PAYGO purposes only to the 
     extent that it costs more than implementing the 2009 policy 
     (indexed) in 2010 and 2011. Because the cost of estate tax 
     policy through 2011 will have budgetary effects beyond 2011, 
     this section clarifies that the adjustment is intended to 
     capture the full budgetary effects in all years resulting 
     from the two-year policy change.
       Alternative Minimum Tax. A ``patch'' for the AMT was 
     provided in the Recovery Act, increasing the 2009 AMT 
     exemption to $70,950 for couples and $46,700 for singles in 
     order to prevent the number of taxpayers affected by the AMT 
     from exploding from about four million to about 30 million. 
     This patch expired at the end of 2009.
       Section 7(e) provides a maximum adjustment equal to the 
     difference between the revenues expected from adjusting the 
     the AMT exemption levels through 2011 in order to hold the 
     number of taxpayers affected by the AMT at 2008 levels (about 
     4.2 million), and the revenues expected assuming the 
     expiration of the 2009 AMT patch. Because the cost of AMT 
     relief through 2011 will have budgetary effects beyond 2011, 
     this section clarifies that the adjustment is intended to 
     capture the full budgetary effects in all years resulting 
     from the two-year policy change.
       (f) 2001 and 2003 middle-class tax cuts. The 2001 and 2003 
     income tax reductions enacted under EGTRRA and JGTRRA, as 
     subsequently amended through December 31, 2009, are scheduled 
     to expire at the end of 2010. Section 7(f) provides 12 
     adjustments for policies benefiting the middle class as they 
     are in effect in 2010. The specific middle-class policies 
     are:
       10 percent bracket;
       Child Tax Credit, including the expansion in the Recovery 
     Act;
       Marriage penalty relief, including the relevant EITC 
     expansion in the Recovery Act;
       Adoption credit;
       Dependent care credit;
       Employer-provided child care credit;
       Education tax benefits;
       25 percent and 28 percent brackets;
       33 percent bracket, but only for individuals with incomes 
     of $200,000 or less, and couples with incomes of $250,000 or 
     less;
       Reduced rates on capital gains and dividends, but only for 
     individuals with incomes of $200,000 or less, and couples 
     with incomes of $250,000 or less;
       Repeal of the personal exemption phase-out and the 
     limitation on itemized deductions, but only for individuals 
     with incomes of $200,000 or less, and couples with incomes of 
     $250,000 or less; and
       Section 179 expensing for small businesses, allowing up to 
     $125,000 of qualified property to be expensed, phasing out 
     for property over $500,000.
       The maximum adjustment for the policies in section 7(f) is 
     equal to the difference between the revenues expected if the 
     specified policy were in place after 2010 and the revenues 
     expected if the related provisions expired as scheduled.
       (g) Indexing for Inflation. Amounts indexed for inflation 
     are done in accordance with the cost-of-living adjustment 
     rules in section 1(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986. That provision in the Code designates the Department of 
     Labor's Consumer Price Index for all-urban consumers (usually 
     expressed as CPI-U) as the measuring standard. Amounts 
     indexed for inflation in this Act are the nominal exemption 
     amount under the estate tax, as well as the income thresholds 
     for income tax brackets, the rates for capital gains and 
     dividends, the personal exemption phase-out, and the 
     limitation on itemized deductions.
       (h) Guidance on Estimates and Current Policy Adjustments. 
     Estimates of budgetary effects of certain tax policies can 
     vary depending on the order in which those policies are 
     enacted into law. The PAYGO statute lays out three rules for 
     addressing costs associated with the interaction of these 
     various provisions.
       I. For the interaction between AMT relief and the middle-
     class tax cuts, all interaction costs are scored as part of 
     AMT relief. Specifically, estimates for determining the AMT 
     adjustment must assume that all of the middle-class tax cuts 
     eligible for a PAYGO adjustment have been enacted, even if 
     these tax cuts have not yet been enacted.
       II. Estimates for determining the adjustment for the 
     middle-class tax cuts must assume that AMT relief follows 
     current law as of the end of 2009--that is, they must assume 
     that the 2009 AMT patch expired at the end of 2009, even if 
     AMT relief beyond 2009 has already been enacted.
       III. To address the interaction between individual middle-
     class tax provisions included in the same piece of 
     legislation, provisions must be scored in the order in which 
     they appear in the legislation.
       Section 8--Application of BBEDCA: Section 8 specifies how 
     various provisions of BBEDCA, including the special 
     sequestration rules in section 256 of BBEDCA and the baseline 
     rules in section 257 of BBEDCA, apply to this new PAYGO 
     statute.
       Section 9--Technical Corrections: Section 9 corrects 
     typographical errors in the text of BBEDCA.
       Section 10--Conforming Amendments: Section 10 makes 
     conforming amendments to section 256 of BBEDCA. This section 
     establishes special rules for sequestration for certain 
     mandatory programs or updates the special rules to reflect 
     programs as they now exist.
       Section 11--Exempt Programs and Activities: Section 11 
     lists mandatory programs and activities that are exempt from 
     sequestration. Exemptions under this Act are consistent with 
     the exemption list that was first created in 1990.
       That said, the exemption list has been updated to address 
     accounts that have had their account names or numbers changed 
     since 1990, or have been merged or divided. Further, new 
     accounts (since 1990) have been treated the same way that 
     analogous accounts were treated. For example, in the 1990 law 
     the major low-income programs such as Medicaid were exempted 
     from sequestration. The Children's Health Insurance Program 
     (CHIP), new since 1990, is in the same category as Medicaid 
     and also exempt.
       The list has been expanded to clarify the treatment of 
     certain transportation programs, notably federal-aid highways 
     and grants-in-aid for airports. The budgetary treatment of 
     these programs is split. They receive mandatory contract 
     authority through authorization bills, but are treated as 
     discretionary programs because their annual spending is 
     controlled by obligation limitations in appropriations bills. 
     These programs are exempt from sequestration to the extent 
     they are controlled by obligation limitations. Remaining 
     mandatory resources in these programs are subject to 
     sequestration.
       Finally, as noted in Section 6, non-exempt accounts are 
     subject to a single, uniform percentage cut if a 
     sequestration is required (except Medicare, where the cut is 
     limited to four percent). Under the 1990 law, if a small 
     sequestration was needed, four programs would have been the 
     first ones sequestered: special milk, vocational 
     rehabilitation state grants, student loans, and foster care/
     adoption assistance. Because this PAYGO statute eliminated 
     this rule, the first three of those programs are treated as 
     any non-exempt account would be treated. But the foster care 
     account is included in the exempt list on the grounds that it 
     is like other low-income programs that were exempted from 
     sequestration in the 1990 law.
       Section 12--Determinations and Points of Order: Section 12 
     affirms that nothing in this Act is intended to limit the 
     authority of the Budget Committee Chairmen to make 
     determinations and estimates of the costs or savings of 
     legislation. In addition, the section authorizes CBO to 
     consult with the Budget Committees to resolve any ambiguities 
     in the interpretation of the Act.

  Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, as Yogi Berra once 
said, It's deja vu all over again. No way. It is deja vu all over 
again.
  Just a few months ago, the Democrats marched us down here to the 
House floor to raise the debt ceiling by over a quarter of a trillion 
dollars. But that wasn't enough. Here we are again, 90 days later, this 
time for a whopping $1.9 trillion debt limit increase.
  For the uninitiated, a century ago Congress very wisely instituted a 
statutory cap on the amount that the Federal Government could borrow. 
Unfortunately, Congress being Congress, this body raised that cap 
dozens of times during the 20th century and has apparently carried that 
tradition into this new decade with spectacular new fashion.
  As my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are no doubt 
clamoring over themselves to point out, both parties have done it in 
times of war and times of crisis, and more recently, this Democrat 
majority has made spending more of a priority than saving. In short, 
Madam Speaker, excuses don't make it right.
  I wanted to mention PAYGO. I actually voted for PAYGO. I was one of 
18 Republicans who, when the Democrats took over, I voted for PAYGO. 
Unfortunately, this Democrat leadership has waived it so often it has 
become very ineffective. They waive it more than they implement it.
  So I ask my colleagues, don't be misled by so-called PAYGO language, 
because it simply isn't real.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.

[[Page H586]]

  We're all entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts, and 
it is a fact that the day President Obama put his hand on the Bible to 
be sworn in as President of the United States, he inherited a $1.3 
trillion deficit, a record deficit in this country.
  This is an opportunity for all of us to stop just talking about the 
deficit and debts and actually do something about it. For the first 
time since 2002, Congress will bring, as a matter of law, the 
commonsense proposition that the Federal Government should pay for what 
it buys. And the history of success on this is clear. When the Congress 
lived under the PAYGO rules in the 1990s, we did turn deficits into 
record surpluses. After PAYGO was abandoned, deficits skyrocketed, our 
national debt clearly doubled.
  Much has been made by the other side of the aisle about the deficit 
in the first year of the Obama administration. The Congressional Budget 
Office analysis is pretty clear that the contributors to that were two 
wars, unpaid for; a record mandatory prescription drug bill, unpaid 
for; and, of course, two tax cuts that disproportionately benefited the 
wealthiest Americans, all on our national credit card, all running us 
deeper into the red.
  This legislation says enough is enough, and it says that virtually 
any new policy that reduces revenue or increases mandatory spending 
will have to be offset elsewhere in the budget. That is just common 
sense to every American family. And it says that if for some reason we 
don't abide by that discipline, you're going to have an across-the-
board enforcement mechanism that will sequester the funds.
  It's time to do what every family has to do and pay as we go.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Coble) for purposes of a unanimous consent request.
  (Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, and I rise in 
opposition to this reckless spending proposal.
  We simply cannot afford to continue on the same course.
  Our current debt is $12.36 trillion. I have opposed past efforts to 
increase the debt limit, and again today I will vote against raising 
the limit.
  The amount is staggering, $1.9 trillion.
  It will raise the limit to $14.294 trillion--an incomprehensible 
figure.
  Our economy is out of sync--currently we have no comprehensive plan 
for energy, the federal budget or making our manufacturing base 
competitive in the global market.
  In addition Madame Speaker, I am mystified by the attempt today to 
force members to simultaneously vote on the debt limit increase and the 
proposed pay-go rules.
  These types of shenanigans--particularly on something as significant 
as a $1.9 trillion debt ceiling increase--are exactly why Americans 
have lost faith in their government.
  Now is not the time to increase our debt ceiling--vote ``no'' on H.J. 
Res. 45. It will force the government to focus on the economy and it 
will start restoring some faith in the Congress.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Ways and Means 
Committee from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. In this time of record debt, high 
unemployment, and uncertain economic conditions, a focus on fiscal 
responsibility is critical--real fiscal responsibility, not words like 
``commonsense'' but applying it in a real policy.
  For months, President Obama and the majority have talked about the 
importance of this responsibility, responsibility by tripling Federal 
spending and then saying we're going to have a freeze. The President 
has suggested a spending freeze, and we've heard a lot about bending 
the cost curve with health care reform. But, Madam Speaker, I think we 
all know that actions speak louder than words.
  The fine print in this so-called PAYGO bill is a $2 trillion increase 
in the national debt. Just read the bill and you see the truth. It's 
very different from the rhetoric that we hear. Instead of being true to 
their word, the majority has increased spending by an unprecedented 66 
percent over the last year and pushed the deficit to $1.4 trillion in 
2009, an 800 percent increase over the last administration.
  Instead of listening to the American people's pleas that Congress 
focus on the economy and jobs, they spent the last year pushing an 
unpopular, ineffective, and wildly expensive government takeover of 
health care. Instead of taking action on steps that would halt 
unsustainable spending in Washington, majority leaders are about to 
vote to increase our debt limit by $1.9 trillion, the largest one-time 
increase of the debt in the history of the United States of America.

                              {time}  1430

  Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of tightening their 
budget and counting pennies while the Federal Government continues 
along a path of irresponsible spending, risky borrowing, and staggering 
debt.
  Washington has a spending problem. It's time to end it. And these 
days, it seems more like an addiction. Instead of more broken promises 
to cut spending and reduce the deficit, it's past time for President 
Obama and Democratic leaders to respond to the American people to end 
this tyranny of runaway spending in Washington.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, you hear a lot about when the debt was incurred. I 
think it's important that we all understand that the policies that were 
put in place that caused that debt to be incurred started in 2001 with 
the economic package. Subsequently, we had the war, and then we had a 
recession. All that came from 2001 to 2007. That was under the policies 
of the previous administration and the previous Congress. So I want the 
Members to keep that in mind.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute now to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Boyd for yielding. 
Let me start by commending our leadership for calling this legislation 
to the floor to restore the same budget enforcement rules that lead to 
the record budget surpluses that we enjoyed in the 1990s.
  While I commend the Senate for finally approving PAYGO, following our 
lead in passing it at the beginning of the last Congress, I am deeply 
disappointed that the Senate could not summon the support to add the 
national deficit reduction commission to this bill.
  The fact that several Senate Republicans who cosponsored the deficit 
commission, including the minority leader, voted against their own 
legislation illustrates the deficit of trust mentioned by the President 
in his State of the Union and is yet another example of the corrosive 
forces that fuel growing public cynicism about our political process.
  Following the Senate's inaction on this issue, I applaud the 
President's intent to issue by Executive Order a commission to attack 
the bipartisan deficit, and I am encouraged by reports that the Speaker 
of the House and the Senate majority leader will call the commission's 
recommendations to a vote.
  Madam Speaker, only strong leadership will propel us to overcome the 
challenges we face. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  The scene and the content of this debate is really like a bad movie 
in a lot of ways. You rewind the tape and we have ultimately had this 
conversation about a year ago when the Democratic majority, Madam 
Speaker, said to the American public, look, we want to borrow $1 
trillion, and with that trillion, trust us, it's going to be great. 
Jobs are going to be created. The sun is going to come out. The tulips 
are going to be there, and it's all going to be fabulous.
  It didn't work out that way. Eleven percent unemployment in the State 
of Illinois, the difference between the promise of the borrowing, 8 
percent unemployment, has now eclipsed to 11 percent in Illinois. And 
in my home

[[Page H587]]

State, Madam Speaker, that means 200,000 people have taken on debt and 
haven't been rescued. They weren't rescued in December when the 
majority said we're going to raise the debt limit again, and they're 
going to be rescued by this. This is a classic underperformance.
  And the majority, with all due respect, hasn't recognized the failure 
of the stimulus. In fact, they don't even like to use the word 
``stimulus,'' Madam Speaker.
  So in this context, I say let's stop this madness. Let's get back to 
our first priorities. Our first priorities are to be a nation of 
disciplined spenders, and we ought not to empower folks to borrow and 
create more and more debt into the future.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch) who is also a cosponsor of the original PAYGO 
legislation.
  Mr. WELCH. Two points. Number one, my question is, what is the other 
side afraid of? There are certain caricatures that they just want tax 
cuts, we just want spending. The bottom line is that whatever your 
intention, no matter how good and noble you think it is, you have to 
pay for it. The two wars, two tax cuts, and $2.3 trillion in deficits 
that we inherited and a $750 billion bailout of Wall Street requested 
by President George Bush and Henry Paulson have to be paid for. The 
stimulus that's being ridiculed is the only thing that conservative and 
liberal economists have acknowledged has diminished the decline in the 
economy.
  Good intentions are not a substitute for fiscal responsibility. We 
are acknowledging that. We have different goals. We have to fight those 
out. But why, despite whether your goal is a tax cut or a spending 
program, won't you agree to pay for it? That's what this legislation is 
about.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Lance).
  Mr. LANCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
bill, a $2 trillion increase of our debt limit to more than $14 
trillion. Over the past 3 years, it is the Democratic Party that has 
controlled both Houses of Congress, and we have seen the debt limit 
increased dramatically, six times, totaling $5.3 trillion, an increase 
of 60 percent in only 3 years.
  In fiscal year 2007, the Federal Government spent approximately $2.7 
trillion; in 2009, $3.5 trillion, and last week we were sent a new 
budget proposal by the President that would even break that record. We 
must take concrete action to get our spending under control and get our 
economy moving again.
  I fear that unless we take such action, the government's bond rating 
will be reduced, an event that could have catastrophic results for our 
markets.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), a real leader on this issue for all 
of his years in Congress.
  Mr. HILL. I thank my friend for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. This is 
legislation that we Blue Dogs have been fighting for for many, many 
years. And it's very satisfying that it is coming to fruition today.
  I'm not here to play the blame game. There's a lot of blame to go 
around about our Nation's budget deficit. What we need is an instrument 
that gets us back on a pathway of fiscal responsibility. And we know 
that PAYGO works. It worked in the 1990s. And I should also say that it 
was a Republican President who proposed it. President Bush, Senior, was 
the one that thought this was a good idea. President Clinton thought it 
was a good idea. And it resulted in budget surpluses.
  Now we've got problems with our Nation's budget deficit. There's no 
question about that. This is the instrument that gets us back on track 
to fiscal responsibility. And so I join my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle, and I would hope a few others on that side of the aisle, to 
get us back on that path.
  This is the right thing to do, and after many years, it's finally a 
reality.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. It's time for a little bit of truth-telling about their 
side and about our side.
  Truth-telling about our side is that back when we were in charge, we 
didn't do so well on controlling runaway Federal spending. My 
colleagues who know me well know that I many times found myself at 
cross purposes in fighting the President of my own party and some 
leadership in my own party in some of those big spending fights. But 
under the last administration, we doubled the national debt. I want to 
stipulate that.
  But frankly, that's no excuse for what's happening today, Madam 
Speaker. Over the last 3 years, the Democratic majority has literally 
broken the ceiling on fiscal responsibility, and, as I just admitted, 
that ceiling was pretty high.
  Since Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007, the 
national debt has increased by $3.96 trillion, a 42 percent increase in 
3 years. To keep up with this spending binge, Congress has increased 
the debt limit five times over the last 3 years, three times since the 
current administration took office 1 year ago.
  The statutory debt increase that comes before us today, $1.9 
trillion, is the largest one-time debt increase in U.S. history. This 
is the fifth increase, as I mentioned, in the last 19 months. This one-
time increase in the debt limit of $1.9 trillion is actually larger 
than the entire GDP of almost every country in the world. It's larger 
than the GDP of Canada, Russia, Spain or Brazil, and it's larger than 
the GDP of Australia and Poland combined.
  The American people are looking at this extraordinary gusher of 
spending and debt, and they're asking the question, When will it stop? 
And the answer, as we look at the budget that the administration 
submitted earlier this week, is no time soon. I hasten to add the 
administration just this week announced plans for a budget, $3.8 
trillion in scope with a $1.6 trillion deficit, $2 trillion in higher 
taxes.
  And let me say with respect, the American people looking in ought not 
to be deceived by the promises of fiscal discipline known as PAYGO. The 
truth is the bill before us today is about 58 pages long, and 32 of 
those pages are all the programs that are exempted from the PAYGO 
requirements. Forty percent of Federal spending is exempted from the 
fiscal discipline fix that we are being told is encompassed in PAYGO. 
The truth is what ``PAYGO'' really means here in Washington is that you 
pay and they go on spending.
  The fact is what we see here is a failure of leadership. President 
Obama, as a United States Senator, said in March of 2006 when he came 
out against raising the debt limit in a vote, The fact that we are here 
today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership 
failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. 
It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from 
foreign countries to finance our Government's recklessness. America has 
a debt problem and a failure of leadership.
  So said then-Senator Barack Obama in March 2006.
  Let me suggest he was right then, and his words are equally true 
today.
  The American people long for us to put our fiscal house in order. 
They long for us to embrace true fiscal discipline and reform. They 
long for this administration and this Congress to lead us away from the 
brink of fiscal disaster. This PAYGO, this debt ceiling vote is no 
solution, and I urge its opposition.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Madam Speaker, PAYGO, when it was put in place in the past in the 
1990s, was put in place with bipartisan votes. It is my hope that the 
gentleman from Indiana will work with us in a bipartisan way.
  The first thing we must do is understand exactly what PAYGO does. He 
said, for example, that PAYGO has a list of exemptions which wouldn't 
affect current spending programs. Well, PAYGO has nothing to do with 
current spending. It speaks to additional and new entitlement, 
mandatory spending programs and-or tax reductions, changes in law.
  So the first thing we should do, Madam Speaker, is get a good 
understanding about exactly what PAYGO does do--stop digging the hole, 
and

[[Page H588]]

then we can begin to fill in the hole and reach fiscal responsibility, 
reach a balanced budget like we did back in the 1990s.
  Madam Speaker, with that, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
  Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, every day families across the country 
make sacrifices to stay within their household budgets. They know you 
can't spend what you haven't saved. But for the past decade, Congress 
has failed to grasp that simple premise. That failure has led to what 
the President has aptly described as a deficit of trust. It's hard to 
govern when you don't have the public trust, and it's hard to borrow 
when you have lost the trust of world markets.
  During the 1990s, PAYGO forced Members to make hard decisions. 
However, PAYGO rules were waived in 2001 on the theory that we could 
pay for two wars with two tax cuts. Today, thanks to years of hard work 
by the Blue Dogs, we're taking the first step to win back the public 
trust.
  Madam Speaker, today I am a Blue Dog.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Ryan 
to control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin will control the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Thirty seconds were remaining, so you have 
15 minutes and 30 seconds that you control.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the vote we are having here today is not a vote for 
PAYGO, or whatever we want to call it. It is a vote to raise the debt 
ceiling. It is a vote to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. The 
majority might argue this isn't about the debt, but let's not be 
fooled. This is about a debt ceiling. Treasury has to raise it because 
we have had this incredible spending spree, and we are on an 
unsustainable trajectory of more debt.
  Now, let's take a look at where we are right now. Right now, the 
burden of the debt on our economy is 60 percent. That is worse than 
what is required in Europe, because under this budget that is passing, 
it goes up to 77 percent of our economy by the end of the President's 
budget. Now, already, foreigners hold about half of our debt, and China 
lends us the most. The problem we have, Madam Speaker, is that the 
Chinese aren't going to keep lending us all their money.
  Let me tell you a little bit about what will happen to America. The 
debt trajectory we are on will weaken America. The debt goes to 
catastrophic levels in this country which will destroy our economy--
that is a tough word--and for sure give the next generation an inferior 
standard of living. These are facts. They are not opinions.
  Now, one thing that I find interesting about PAYGO is the budget that 
we are living under right now doubles and triples our debt in 10 years, 
and it is all PAYGO compliant. The debt skyrockets under the current 
budget, and it all does so within PAYGO. And if you actually look at 
the President's budget, it says: with this PAYGO rule, not only will 
the debt triple in 10 years, but we will have another $473 billion 
under PAYGO to spend on top of that. That is what PAYGO does, Madam 
Speaker.
  PAYGO has been in place before. We have seen it. It started in 2007 
when the Democrats took over Congress. At that time, when PAYGO was put 
in place, we had a $161 billion deficit. We have a $1.6 trillion 
deficit now. Forty percent of the entire budget is exempt from PAYGO. 
It does not do a thing at all to reduce the deficits. In fact, what 
PAYGO does is it locks in the deficits at its current levels, and it 
doesn't address the spending crisis.
  Not only is spending growing at an unsustainable rate, not only are 
entitlements growing themselves right into bankruptcy, not only are we 
looking at bankruptcy of Medicare, Society Security, and Medicaid right 
around the corner. PAYGO is ripe with loopholes. It exempts 40 percent 
of spending, as I mentioned. It exempts mandatory spending on 
appropriation bills. It exempts all spending designed as emergencies, 
and more than 160 programs are exempt from its enforcement.
  The point is this, Madam Speaker: my greatest concern is that if we 
pass this illusion of fiscal control, that will replace any real fiscal 
spending control whatsoever. It is good talk. It sounds good. When you 
look at the details, it accomplishes nothing. And when it is ever 
applied, it is only to chase higher spending with higher taxes. We 
should reject this and start over.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, the American public must be baffled by 
the charges and countercharges going back and forth. I would just 
invite, Madam Speaker, those listening to make their own decision based 
on two facts.
  First is that the gentleman from Kentucky said a few minutes ago that 
the present administration had tripled the Federal spending. I would 
invite people to go look at the record, which says that the 2008 budget 
was $2.9 trillion. The proposed budget for this year is $3.7 trillion. 
That is not tripling.
  Second, in the years in which we have had the PAYGO rule in effect, 
we have accumulated 30 percent of the Federal debt. In the years we 
have not had it in effect, we have accumulated 70 percent of the 
Federal debt.
  Choose based upon the record and I think people will see that voting 
``yes'' on this commonsense legislation is the right path.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida controls 12 
minutes. The gentleman from Wisconsin controls 12\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BOYD. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming, a distinguished member of the Budget 
Committee, Mrs. Lummis.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam Speaker, two points I would like to make. One is 
this is not the same statutory pay-as-you-go as was in effect in the 
1990s. During the years that President Clinton was working with a 
Republican Congress, they did balance the budget and they did create a 
surplus, but they did it using a statutory pay-as-you-go mechanism, or 
perhaps it was a nonstatutory pay-as-you-go mechanism, that actually 
didn't have as many exemptions as this one does. The fact that we are 
using a statutory pay-as-you-go terminology that really doesn't limit 
in any way spending to be paid for is simply disingenuous.
  The other point I would like to make is about our debt limit. We 
don't have to raise the debt limit today, the debt ceiling. What we 
would have to do is put strict spending caps on ourselves, roll back 
the budget to fiscal year 2008 levels; we would have to pull in 
stimulus money, TARP money, and other expenditures that have either 
been returned to the government or not yet made. And we wouldn't even 
have to raise this debt ceiling.
  So this is an issue of lacking fiscal responsibility. We are in a 
situation of borrow-as-you-go, not pay-as-you-go.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I would like to remind the gentlelady from Wyoming that we did 
borrow-as-you-go since 2001, and we want to do pay-as-you-go starting 
now.
  It is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania, the vice chair of the Budget Committee, Ms. Schwartz.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Today, the House will take a major step in efforts to 
balance the Federal budget. Like American families and businesses, 
Congress must be fiscally responsible and pay for what we spend.
  Our focus this year is twofold: restoring our economy and reducing 
the deficit. PAYGO legislation is an essential step in the process of 
cutting the deficit. Growing jobs and restoring fiscal discipline is 
not easy or quick, particularly given the financial situation we 
inherited.
  In 2002, Republicans allowed PAYGO to expire and turned budget 
surpluses

[[Page H589]]

into a deficit for 2009 of $1.3 trillion. How did this happen? They 
grew annual spending by over 8 percent. They passed the largest 
expansion of entitlements without paying for it. They started and 
didn't pay for two wars. And they gave and did not pay for tax cuts for 
the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Collectively, these actions 
added $8 trillion to the national debt.
  We must agree, and we should, as Republicans and Democrats, agree to 
pay for what we spend as an important step in putting our Nation back 
on track towards fiscal discipline and responsible budgeting. I would 
say vote ``yes'' for PAYGO legislation.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the 
vice ranking member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, already in just 2 years, an 84 percent 
increase in enacted spending, 84 percent, a $1.2 trillion stimulus bill 
that has us mired in 10 percent unemployment, a $450 billion omnibus 
bill, another $400 billion omnibus bill. The explosion of spending is 
unprecedented in our Nation's history. And that leads us to the vote 
that is before us today. Increase the debt limit for the third time in 
12 months; increase it another $1.9 trillion, our Democratic colleagues 
say, so that we can increase the burden per household $16,214. Where 
will it all end?
  And now, just this week, we hear from the President of the United 
States: we haven't spent enough. Let's spend some more. Let's propose a 
budget that will simply triple--triple--the national debt over 10 
years.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of the spending, tired 
of the debt, tired of the deficits, and certainly tired of the 
bailouts.
  And don't take my word for it, Madam Speaker. Let's hear what CNBC 
had to say about the matter of the President's budget: ``part of a 
record $3.8 trillion budget that would boost the deficit beyond any in 
the Nation's history.''
  The New York Times: ``The budget projects that the deficit will peak 
at nearly $1.6 trillion.'' It goes on to say: ``and remain at 
economically troublesome levels over the remainder of the decade.''
  Wall Street Journal: ``All of this spending must be financed, and so 
deficits and taxes are both scheduled to rise to record levels.''
  And so what do we hear? We hear from our Democratic friends, well, 
let's have PAYGO.
  Well, what did we learn about PAYGO? Number one, they have already 
had a House rule for 2 years. And at least as practiced in the last 
fiscal year, 98 percent, Madam Speaker, 98 percent of all spending was 
either waived or it was exempt. PAYGO is a budget fig leaf.
  Well, what does the President suggest? He says let's freeze spending. 
But what we discover when we run the numbers is that he doesn't turn on 
the freezer for a year. He turns it off quite soon after that. And when 
you plug in the numbers, it is a difference between growing government 
49.27 percent versus 49.01. They are bankrupting America. Reject this 
vote and reject this debt limit.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Madam Speaker, the elements of this bill are critically 
important. Pay-as-you-go is essential. It is critically essential at 
this point in the issues being dealt with by this country.
  If you look back over the course of the last several years, you will 
see how this huge deficit has gone up over and over again.
  Let me just give a couple of examples of the way in which the huge 
debt that we have now has increased under the leadership of the 
opposition on the other side of the aisle here, and the previous 
President.
  One of those was the military invasion of Iraq, which was completely 
unjustified. There was no justification for it whatsoever. The price of 
that is approaching now $1 trillion.
  Another issue that was dealt with in the context when they were in 
the majority was the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. 
Those tax cuts have now created the greatest concentration of wealth in 
the hands of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans that this country 
has ever experienced since 1929, 1930. Now, we know what brought that 
about, and we know the same kind of circumstances that we are dealing 
with now.
  Let me just give another example. They are not very much in favor of 
things like health care. Take, for example, what they tried to do with 
Medicare back in 2003 and how the price of that has gone up so much. 
They introduced prescription drug provisions in the Medicare program, 
but they would not allow for the negotiation of any price. They would 
just say that whatever the drug companies want to charge you, that is 
what you are going to have to pay. And that price is now going up to 
somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion.
  All of that has created the huge deficit that we have; and if you 
look at the way in which that deficit has adversely affected this 
economy, you see it over and over again. In housing, for example: over 
the course of the last 1\1/2\ years, the housing situation in this 
country has gone desperate. All of these things need to be changed. 
This bill will deal with it constructively and effectively, and it 
should be passed unanimously.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say 
the concept of PAYGO sounds great, but it is an absolute fig leaf when 
you look at the practicality of it only applying to 2 percent of the 
budget. It's just not a genuine proposal.
  But I want to say this: I think it is good to have this discussion. 
But both parties have been spending too much money, and not just 
Congress, but the Federal Reserve. Just think about 2008. Bear Stearns 
bailout, $29 billion. A Bush stimulus bill in May of 2008, $168 
billion. The Fannie Mae bailout, $200 billion. The AIG bailout, $85 
billion, going now to $140 billion. And that was under the Democrat 
majority in the House, and President Bush signed it into law. So both 
parties have been in this mix.
  And then comes President Obama. A $787 billion stimulus bill that 
brought our unemployment from 8 percent to 10 percent. An omnibus 
spending bill, $410 billion. A health care proposal that costs over $1 
trillion. Cap-and-trade that will cost American households $1,500 per 
house. And another stimulus bill that the Democrats, under Speaker 
Pelosi, just passed in December of about $60 billion.

                              {time}  1500

  Ladies and gentlemen, both parties are guilty, but this is the 
essence of it. It is a tripling of the national debt. Therefore, we 
have a debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is a mechanism, an outside 
trigger to force Democrats and Republicans to come together and cut 
spending. But instead what do we do? We move the trigger. And the 
result is this. And guess who inherits it. The children. And Gen X and 
Gen Y, who will already not get Social Security because it is going 
broke, and Medicare that has $39 billion in unobligated debt right now. 
We are not facing what we need to do.
  Instead of moving the debt ceiling, we need to be going back into our 
spending and cutting spending, not kicking the can down the road for 
another Congress, another election, and another generation. Vote ``no'' 
on this. Let's stay over the weekend and start coming together to cut 
the budget.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Dakota, a fellow Blue Dog, Mr. Pomeroy.
  Mr. POMEROY. I thank the gentleman for yielding and commend him so 
much for the leadership he has shown on budget matters. Receiving 
fiscal lectures from this crowd is a little bit like getting investment 
advice from Bernie Madoff. You know, when George Bush took the 
Presidency, the debt was $5.6 trillion. And under majorities in the 
House and Senate, with a Republican President, the debt doubled. Part 
of the reason is the expiration of pay-as-you-go budgeting principles. 
Don't take my word for it. The record is clear.
  When we adhered, on a bipartisan basis, with the Bush I agreement, 
the budget '97 agreement, and the Democrat-passed '93 agreement to pay-
as-

[[Page H590]]

you-go, we set the path towards surplus. When pay-as-you-go expired, 
Katy bar the door, and the deficits exploded.
  Now, as we get our hands around this fiscal situation, my friend Mr. 
Ryan is in part right when he says that this is not a full measured 
response. You know, we have got a long journey. We have got to begin 
with a solid step. Restoring pay-as-you-go budget principles is that 
step.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, we need to step up to the plate. Look at what is 
happening with the current government right now. I have three children. 
They are 5 years old, 6 years old, and our oldest just turned 8. For 
the last 40 years, the size of our government has been remarkably 
consistent, about 20 percent of the economy. Meaning we have taken 20 
cents out of every dollar made in America to go to the Federal 
Government. When my three children are my age, the current government 
we have right now, this is before you would even pass the President's 
budget, that current government goes to 40 percent of our economy. You 
will have to take 40 cents out of every dollar made in America just to 
keep the government we have now in place at that time, doubling the 
taxes on the next generation.
  I asked the Congressional Budget Office what would the income tax 
rates have to be to support all of this when my kids are my age? The 
lowest tax bracket, which is now at 10 percent, they said that would 
have to go to 25 percent. The middle income tax brackets for middle 
income families go up to 66 percent. Top tax bracket on small 
businesses, 88 percent.
  Madam Speaker, we know we are crashing our economy with this borrow-
and-spend mentality. And all of that is PAYGO compliant. This is not 
budget discipline, it is an illusion. Let's come together and fix this 
problem.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Tennessee, a great leader on this issue for many, 
many, many years, leader of the Blue Dogs, Mr. Tanner.
  Mr. TANNER. You know, if we accept that everything that everybody has 
said on both sides of the aisle is true, that is still not, in my view, 
a good financial reason to vote against this bill. It may be a good 
political reason, but it is not a good financial reason.
  Yes, this bill is imperfect, but it is a first step. PAYGO only 
applies to those laws that are enacted that either demand by the law 
itself that Federal revenues be altered or that spending be changed. It 
does not affect discretionary spending and so forth. It is a first 
step. This bill is not perfect. But whatever your reason is is not a 
good reason, financially speaking, to vote against something that is 
good. Perfect? No. But the perfect is always the enemy of the good in a 
legislative body.
  And so unless one wants to talk politics, if one wants to talk 
finances, I cannot think of a good financial reason to say, ``Well, 
let's just do this if this is all we can do.'' It is a good first step, 
and it ought to be taken.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much 
time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin controls 5 
minutes, and the gentleman from Florida controls 6\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege now to recognize the 
Speaker of the House, and yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his 
extraordinary leadership on this important issue, an issue of 
importance to our country, to our economic stability, to our fiscal 
soundness, and to our children and our grandchildren.
  This is an issue, pay-as-you-go, who could oppose this great idea? It 
has a provenance in the Democratic Party that goes back over 30 years, 
but it has been in practice in a bipartisan way over time. To my 
progressive friends, I say that Congressman George Miller of California 
introduced a resolution in 1982 at the Democratic convention, mid term 
convention in Philadelphia, calling for pay-as-you-go. It was passed 
and adopted as part of the Democratic platform, a measure for fiscal 
soundness, recognizing that even those of us who see a role in 
government, a limited role in government and investments in our 
children's future know that it must be paid for or else we are heaping 
debt onto our children. That was in '82.
  It wasn't until later, with a Republican President, President Bush, 
and a Democratic Congress, that PAYGO was implemented. Then later, 
under a Democratic President, President Clinton, and a Republican 
Congress, PAYGO was implemented. All of those times it brought down the 
deficit and, in the case of President Clinton, it led to a path, a 
trajectory of $5.6 trillion in surplus.
  It hit, I wouldn't say a bump in the road, I would say a giant mogul 
when President Bush came in with a Republican Congress and the 
Republican President abandoned PAYGO. And now for the past 8 years, up 
until 2009, January, we have had these growing deficits. Here we are 
again sweeping up behind to get rid of the trajectory that we are on of 
increasing the deficit.
  So here it is. It is an historic day. I am so very happy. When I 
became Speaker of the House, the very first day we passed legislation 
that made PAYGO the rule of the House. Today we will make it the law of 
the land. I talked about the progressive provenance of this idea, but 
because of the extraordinary leadership of the Blue Dog coalition in 
the Congress, this pay-as-you-go is part of a blueprint for fiscal 
responsibility that has been their mantra and which they have made the 
mantra of the House Democrats, and I hope today in a bipartisan way of 
the House of Representatives.
  I commend Mr. Boyd for his relentless leadership on this subject; 
Baron Hill, author of the legislation; Jim Matheson, Stephanie Herseth 
Sandlin, the leadership of the Blue Dog coalition; and a person who has 
been a relentless and articulate spokesperson on this issue, John 
Tanner, zwhom I had the honor of following in this debate. As I say, 
the Blue Dogs have made this a priority.
  But it is out there also with subjecting spending to the harshest 
scrutiny. Every Federal dollar that is spent must be subjected to 
scrutiny to make sure the taxpayer gets his or her money's worth. 
Subject the spending to scrutiny. And that is what President Obama is 
proposing with his freeze and cuts.
  Pay-as-you-go. This largely applies to the entitlements, which are 
the largest part, biggest increases in the deficit. And third, the 
commission to review the entitlements and how we can control cost. This 
is an obligation that we have to our children. It is an important part 
of the work that we do, to be able to make difficult, difficult choices 
on how we make investments, understanding that they must be paid for.
  So the luxury of just heaping bills with projects or whatever, or in 
terms of new entitlements especially in terms of PAYGO, that day is 
over unless it is paid for. So how is it a reflection of the values of 
our country; how important it is to meeting the needs of the American 
people. Would we put it before something else? That is what this is 
about, about prioritizing so that we can get on a path of deficit 
reduction, reducing the national debt, reducing the debt service, 
hundreds of billions of dollars of interest on the debt, which gets us 
really nothing in return.
  So the time is long overdue for this to be taken for granted that the 
Federal Government will pay as it goes, that we will be on a path of 
deficit reduction, and that every action that we take in any bill that 
we take will have to meet the test. Does this reduce the deficit? Does 
this create jobs? Does this grow our economy? Does this stabilize our 
economy well into the future? Central to all of that, and a very strong 
pillar of fiscal responsibility, is this PAYGO legislation that we have 
here today.
  I couldn't be more thrilled for what this means about the 
fundamentals of how we govern, how we choose, and how we honor our 
responsibility to future generations to reduce the deficit. With all 
the respect and admiration and gratitude to our Blue Dog coalition for 
being so persistent in passing this, and my congratulations, if I may, 
to

[[Page H591]]

the Senate for passing the bill. It has taken a while, but they are 
there, and now after this and it goes to the President, it will be the 
law of the land. I think this is cause for celebration.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Madam Speaker, I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member, 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, it would be recklessly naive to go about our business 
in Washington pretending there won't be severe consequences for the 
mountains of debt we are piling up. Yet today it is evident that this 
kind of willful ignorance is sweeping across Washington. We are set to 
lift our Nation's debt burden to $14 trillion.
  Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues in this chamber if they know 
how many zeroes 14 trillion has. I would ask the American people if 
they know how many zeroes are in 14 trillion. It is 14 trillion. It is 
beyond comprehension to be talking about numbers this big. More 
precisely, the limit is 1, 4, 2, 9, 4, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0.
  It is a travesty. The writing is on the wall. Congress needs to wake 
up and realize that the future of American prosperity is in dire 
straits, mortal danger. As Americans hunker down to weather the 
economic storm, Democrats in Congress boosted Federal spending by 12 
percent. Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot about the majority's PAYGO 
scheme, but this will not affect any spending that has already 
happened.

                              {time}  1515

  In fact, it will perpetuate the problem by locking in that spending 
going forward. And the majority's solution to offset all of their 
spending is more tax increases, which will kill jobs at the time we 
need them most. Supporters of this legislation will pull the wool over 
the American people's eyes and claim the mantle of fiscal 
responsibility, but the American people aren't buying it. By voting in 
favor of this PAYGO bill, the majority will be increasing the debt 
burden on our children and grandchildren by $1.9 trillion. Strip away 
the sweet-sounding rhetoric, and that's what this bill is all about.
  Madam Speaker, I just end with this rhetorical question: How 
effective can this so-called panacea really be when the debt has risen 
by $5.4 trillion since the majority imposed PAYGO in this very House 
over 3 years ago?
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Mrs. Dahlkemper).
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Blue Dog 
Coalition, I'm proud to stand in support of statutory PAYGO. Pay-as-
you-go legislation was a key factor, as we have heard, in delivering 
the budget surpluses of the 1990s. The Republican-controlled Congress 
allowed pay-as-you-go to expire in 2002, contributing to the dramatic 
turnaround from a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion when President 
Clinton left office to a projected deficit of more than $11 trillion at 
the end of the last administration.
  Restoring statutory PAYGO will help bring our country out of the red 
and back into the black. As the saying goes, a journey begins with the 
first step. I'm proud to cast this vote as Washington takes the first 
step back to fiscal responsibility and sensible spending. Our path to 
fiscal responsibility starts today. Restoring PAYGO is the first step 
to enforcing fiscal discipline and removing the burden of Federal debt 
from the American people. It's my hope this will be the first of many 
steps that both Democrats and Republicans take to balance our budget 
and be good stewards of taxpayer funds.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the statutory PAYGO 
act. This bill, which I'm proud to cosponsor, will help restore fiscal 
discipline by enacting into law the most basic principle of responsible 
accounting, that every dollar spent must be offset by a dollar earned 
or saved. This is the way that American families balance their 
finances, and this same principle should apply to the Federal budget.
  This legislation is particularly important at a time when Congress 
also faces the troubling task of raising the statutory debt limit. I am 
truly dismayed by the need to raise the ceiling of our national debt, 
which already exceeds $12 trillion. We simply cannot keep borrowing our 
way to a better future. It is time that we take decisive action to 
reduce our Federal deficit while continuing to invest in our economy 
and combat unemployment.
  In Rhode Island, the unemployment is now 12.9 percent, the third 
highest in the country. Put simply, Rhode Islanders are still looking 
for jobs, but they are also looking for a government they can trust to 
live within its fiscal means. This is going to require the will and 
cooperation of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike to solve 
our budgetary challenges. Today, it begins by passing the statutory 
pay-as-you-go act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure and send a strong 
message to the American people that the days of fiscal irresponsibility 
are over.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  The Speaker of the House came and just said something to the effect 
that this was a proud moment, a happy occasion, a bill she's really 
excited about. The bill we're about to vote on, Madam Speaker, raises 
the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion. Even if I were a supporter 
of this bill, I wouldn't be proud of it.
  I'm taking a look at the President's budget. On page 172, table S-9, 
the President's PAYGO proposal says that at the end of the budget 
window we can spend another $473 billion. So we're saying all the debt 
that's going up, the tripling of the national debt that we're giving to 
our kids and grandkids, not only does that comply with PAYGO, we can go 
ahead and spend another $473 billion on top of it.
  This, Madam Speaker, is a fiscal charade. Real people from both 
parties need to step up and solve this problem. I have thrown out a few 
ideas of my own. I hope other Republicans and Democrats do the same. 
Because, Madam Speaker, if we don't tackle this problem, it's going to 
tackle us.
  Our constituents sent us here to be a part of a solution and not a 
part of the problem. We know irrefutably we're going to bequeath this 
mountain of deficit and debt onto the next generation. Both of our 
parties share the blame. No one party corners the virtue on fiscal 
responsibility. But we're going to, together, have to come down here 
and fix this problem once and for all. And doing this doesn't do it. 
Doing this is a cop-out. Doing this raises the debt limit $1.9 trillion 
and gives us a fiscal cop-out so we can go talk tough in the election 
about how we did this and that while we bequeath the next generation an 
inferior standard of living.
  I didn't come here to make sure that my three kids are going to have 
a life that's worse off than ours. Nobody here wants that. So let's get 
this fixed, defeat this bill, come together, and do real fiscal 
discipline. The American people are under attack. We overspend.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman controls 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, it's been a good debate, and I join my colleague and 
friend Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin in a call for working together in a 
bipartisan way to solve these problems. Madam Speaker, that's the only 
way that we will solve this massive problem that we have. I don't think 
any of us take pleasure--I know Mr. Ryan doesn't and I don't--in being 
here and talking about having to raise the debt ceiling because of 
policies we have put in place in the past that have incurred a 
tremendous deficit and mounting debt in this country. I would be less 
pleased if I had voted for those policies, and I would be embarrassed.
  I can give you an example: the economic package of 2001 that carried 
us down this trail; subsequently, 9/11; subsequently, Medicare 
prescription drug

[[Page H592]]

programs unpaid for; wars that we continued to cut taxes while we were 
committing our troops overseas and hundreds of billions of dollars to 
prosecute those wars.
  Madam Speaker, we have to stop this foolish policy of spending more 
than we take in. Congress has consistently shown that we don't have the 
will to discipline ourselves when it comes to spending the revenue. 
Pay-as-you-go legislation is a tool that will put us back on the right 
path to fiscal responsibility. It worked in the past, as others have 
said, put in place first by George W. Bush, Sr., along with the 
Democratic Congress, and then later on by President Clinton with the 
Republican Congress. We can do it again if we work in a bipartisan way. 
This is a great first step, though.
  For those who criticize the legislation as having too many 
exemptions, I'm very pleased to hear Mr. Ryan and others say they've 
changed their tune about exemptions, because I've got some vote sheets 
here that show that they voted to enact spending programs or mandatory 
programs that we had paid for, but they voted against the bill when 
it's paid for and then voted for it when it's not paid for. So I assume 
that means that they have taken a different approach into how we're 
going to do business in the future. This pay-as-you-go legislation not 
only will encourage that, but will require it statutorily.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of this resolution. Not because it is good practice for us to 
continue increasing the national debt limit, but because for the first 
time since it expired under the previous administration, we are making 
PAYGO a statutory requirement.
  In addition to other efforts by the Obama administration and 
Congress, PAYGO requirements will help us get our financial house back 
in order from the mess that was handed to us by the previous 
administration.
  After two wars, and tax cuts that were not paid for, the $5.6 
trillion dollar surplus we experienced in 2000 turned into a $1.3 
trillion deficit.
  In the 1990s, the Clinton administration turned the deficits 
accumulated in the two previous presidencies into record surpluses. One 
of the key tools in this transformation was the PAYGO rule, which 
required Congress to find savings for the dollars it spent.
  Unfortunately, after President Clinton left office, the next 
administration and Congress regularly waived PAYGO rules and ultimately 
allow them to expire in 2002.
  After waiving and allowing these rules to expire, we saw the surplus 
built by the Clinton administration vanish, and deficit spending 
resume--spending that will have to be repaid by our children and 
grandchildren.
  A New York Times analysis attributes 90% of that deficit to the 
economic downturn, Bush administration policies, and the extension of 
those policies. According to that analysis, only 7% of the deficit is 
attributable to the Economic Recovery Act passed early last year, which 
economists largely agree was a necessary emergency response to this 
recession.
  Madam Speaker, this is just good policy. For eight years, under the 
previous administration, we saw deficit spending spiral out of control. 
Now many of those responsible for that spending are criticizing the 
majority and the current administration for its spending policies, 
complaining that it is piling up debt for the next generation.
  Today those individuals have a chance to vote for legislation that 
ensures any future programs are paid for, and reestablish the rules 
that led to control in government spending and budget surpluses in the 
1990s.
  I am an original cosponsor of the PAYGO legislation that passed the 
House last July, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting 
this bill to set our nation back on a path to sustainable spending 
policies that will ensure we do not have to continue increasing the 
debt limit indefinitely.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the provisions 
in the bill before the House that restore the pay-as-you-go budget 
rules.
  The PAYGO rules simply require that new entitlement spending and new 
tax cut proposals be fully paid for with offsetting savings. Failure to 
do so would result in mandatory spending cuts. These rules were 
instrumental to the successful effort to rein in soaring deficits in 
the 1990s and resulted in balanced budgets during the final years of 
the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, the pay-as-you-go rules 
expired in 2002 and the Bush administration and the then Republican 
majority in Congress refused to renew them. Our nation's fiscal health 
has paid a heavy price for that refusal.
  Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee heard testimony from 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Specifically, Dr. 
Orszag testified that the large deficits we confront today in large 
measure reflect the failure to pay for policies in the past. Dr. Orszag 
said, ``More than half of these deficits can be linked to the previous 
administration's failure to pay for the 2001/2003 tax cuts and the 
prescription drug bill. Over the next ten years, these two unpaid-for 
policies are slated to add $5.8 trillion to the deficit, including 
interest expense on the additional associated debt.''
  Returning to the budget discipline of the pay-as-you-go rules is 
common sense and will help ensure that we don't repeat the reckless tax 
and spending mistakes of the past.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss our national debt.
  Let's look at the facts of how we got here. Just 10 years ago, the 
National Debt clock was turned off and we were having serious 
conversations about what would happen after we paid down the debt. Our 
nation was running a budget surplus in 1998, starting a stretch of 
surpluses that lasted through 2001. Our nation's fiscal house was in 
order. How then, have we gone from surpluses to significant deficits?
  Some would have us believe that the national debt suddenly appeared 
in the past year. If only it was that easy. The national debt level we 
see today is the result of 8 years of poor decisions. Earlier this 
decade, the Republican-controlled Congress voted to slash taxes for the 
wealthy and charge it to the national debt. The same party voted to 
create a prescription drug benefit and charge the entire cost to the 
national debt. I voted against both of these laws because they were 
fiscally irresponsible. The previous President decided to pursue two 
wars on borrowed money and charge it to the national debt. In contrast, 
the policies that we have adopted this Congress to pull our economy out 
of the recession are responsible for less than 16 percent of this and 
last years' deficit.
  Because of the irresponsible decisions of the recent past, we entered 
this recession with our fiscal house not in order. With our economy 
nearing collapse, our government had a choice to make. Facing the worst 
economic crisis in 75 years, we could have done nothing. Yet, this was 
not a responsible option. During times of great hardship, our 
government cannot shrink away from helping our citizens and helping our 
economy recover. This required federal investment. Leading economists 
have made clear that these investments were vital and that the best way 
to reduce the deficit in the long-term is through a strong economy.
  One major reason for the debt we see today is because President Bush 
and the Republican-controlled Congress allowed the ``pay-as-you-go'' 
law to expire. Every family understands this principle--you must pay 
for what buy. I am saddened that Congress forgot this simple lesson 
earlier this decade. This is only one tool, but it is a strong one to 
return our nation back to fiscal stability. It forces Congress to 
identify inefficient or ineffective programs whose funding can be cut 
to fund higher priorities, such as health care, education, and clean 
energy.
  The bill we consider today restores this budgetary safeguard and 
makes the ``pay-as-you-go'' principle law. In the 1990s, the last time 
that ``pay-as-you-go'' was the law, we turned the massive deficits of 
the 1980s into record surpluses. In 2007, I was pleased that the House 
of Representatives restored this principle in the House rules when 
Democrats regained control of the House. While this rule was a good 
first step, today's legislation goes further by applying automatically 
to legislation and will cut spending if Congress does not do so.
  In addition, this bill would require the Government Accountability 
Office, GAO, to review all programs and initiatives to find any 
duplicative or wasteful programs. The GAO would report what they find 
to Congress so that we can eliminate the wasteful programs and merge 
any duplicative ones.
  I will continue to work to ensure taxpayer money is well spent. I 
helped write the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, which will 
reduce our debt by $10 billion by eliminating wasteful subsidies for 
banks to offer student loans. I am pleased that many other major bills 
being considered, including health reform and climate legislation, have 
been paid for and would reduce the debt as well. I have fought every 
year to cut billions from the flawed missile defense program, which 
never produced a reliable technology; I have supported reducing 
agricultural subsidies that too often go to the wealthiest producers 
instead of small family farmers; and I have advocated for eliminating 
subsidies to private insurance companies for providing the same 
services that Medicare already provides to seniors. These are all 
common-sense steps to reduce wasteful government spending.
  This legislation sends a message to the American people that the 
government is committed to putting the country back on stable economic 
footing. I will vote for this bill and

[[Page H593]]

will work for our government to regain its fiscal discipline.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 45, the 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, PAYGO.
  As a former small business owner, I know the importance of keeping 
your books balanced and your budget in order. The PAYGO Act's concept 
is simple, if you propose new spending or reduced revenues it must be 
paid for by reducing spending in other areas.
  Today's vote in favor of Statutory PAYGO is one of the most important 
actions Congress has taken towards ensuring economic discipline and 
restoring a balanced federal budget. PAYGO does not solve all of our 
budget problems overnight, but it has a history of bi-partisan support 
and proven results dating back to the 1990s. During my first term, 
PAYGO helped right the ship and put our nation on a path toward 
replacing deficits with surpluses.
  PAYGO has a proven track record of success, turning deficits in 
record surpluses under President Clinton. As we work to address the 
deficits we have inherited from the last administration, PAYGO is a key 
part of our effort to restore balance.
  As a member of the House Budget Committee, I support Statutory PAYGO, 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the passage of H.J. 
Res. 45.
  Mr. BOYD. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1065, the previous question is ordered.
  The question of adoption of the motion is divided. The first portion 
of the divided question is on concurring in the matter preceding title 
1 of the Senate amendment.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1065, the first portion of the divided 
question is adopted.
  The second portion of the divided question is: Will the House concur 
in the matter comprising titles 1 and 2 of the Senate amendment?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the second portion of the divided question 
will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules 
on House Resolution 960.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 48]

                               YEAS--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Cassidy
     Clay
     Davis (TN)
     Ehlers
     Gutierrez
     Linder
     Meeks (NY)
     Moore (WI)
     Murtha
     Radanovich
     Stark
     Stupak
     Thompson (PA)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1549

  Messrs. TAYLOR, SMITH of Nebraska and McINTYRE changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed her vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the second portion of the divided question was adopted.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 48, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 48, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________