[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18592-18622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2009

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 665, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 2920) to reinstitute and update the Pay-As-You-Go 
requirement of budget neutrality on new tax and mandatory spending 
legislation, enforced by the threat of annual, automatic sequestration, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 665, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of House 
Report 111-217, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the 
report, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2920

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Statutory 
     Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purpose.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. PAYGO estimates and PAYGO scorecards.
Sec. 5. Annual report and sequestration order.
Sec. 6. Calculating a sequestration.
Sec. 7. Current policy adjustment to the CBO estimates.
Sec. 8. Application of BBEDCA.
Sec. 9. Technical corrections.
Sec. 10. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 11. Exempt programs and activities.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

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

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (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 Act, except to 
     the extent that they are specifically modified as follows:
       (A) The term ``outyear'' means a fiscal year that occurs 
     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 amounts by 
     which PAYGO legislation changes direct spending or revenues 
     relative to the baseline and shall be determined on the basis 
     of estimates included by reference in the PAYGO Act or 
     prepared under section 4(d)(3), as applicable. Budgetary 
     effects that increase direct spending or decrease revenues 
     are termed ``costs'' and budgetary effects that increase 
     revenues or decrease direct spending are termed ``savings''.
       (B) For purposes of these definitions, off-budget effects 
     shall be counted as budgetary effects unless such changes 
     flow directly from amendments to title II of the Social 
     Security Act and related provisions of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 and debt service effects shall not be counted as 
     budgetary effects.
       (C) Solely for purposes of recording entries on a PAYGO 
     scorecard, provisions in appropriations Acts are also 
     considered to be budgetary effects for purposes of this Act 
     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 Act.
       (D) If a provision is designated as an emergency 
     requirement under this Act and is also designated as an 
     emergency requirement under the applicable rules of the House 
     of Representatives, CBO shall not include the cost of such a 
     provision in its estimate of the PAYGO legislation's 
     budgetary effects.
       (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.
       (8) The term ``timing shift'' refers to a delay of the date 
     on which 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) A PAYGO Act shall include by 
     reference an estimate of its budgetary effects as determined 
     under section 308(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, if timely submitted ``for printing in the Congressional 
     Record by the chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the 
     House

[[Page 18593]]

     of Representatives and the Senate, as applicable, before the 
     vote on the PAYGO legislation''. ``The Clerk of the House or 
     the Secretary of the Senate, as applicable, shall also 
     incorporate by reference such estimate printed in the 
     relevant portion of the Congressional Record under section 
     308(a)(3) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 into the 
     enrollment of a PAYGO Act.''. Budgetary effects that are not 
     so included shall be determined under section 4(d)(3).
       (2)(A) 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.--Before a vote in either House 
     on a PAYGO Act that, if determined in the affirmative, would 
     clear such Act for enrollment, 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 such Act under the 
     Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009. If such an estimate is 
     timely provided, the chairs of the Committees on the Budget 
     of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall post 
     such estimate on their respective committee websites and 
     cause it to be printed in the Congressional Record under the 
     heading `PAYGO ESTIMATE'. For purposes of this section, the 
     Director of the Congressional Budget Office shall not count 
     timing shifts in his estimates of the budgetary effects of 
     PAYGO legislation (as defined in section 3 of the Statutory 
     Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009).''.
       (B) The side heading of section 308(a) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by striking ``Reports on''.
       (b) Section 308 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Scorekeeping Guidelines.--The Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office shall provide estimates under 
     this section in accordance with the scorekeeping guidelines 
     determined under section 252(d)(5) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. Upon agreement, the 
     chairs of the Committees on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate shall submit updates to such 
     guidelines for printing in the Congressional Record.''.
       (c) Current Policy Adjustments for Certain Legislation.--
     For purposes of calculating budgetary effects under this Act, 
     CBO shall adjust its estimates as described below for any 
     provision of legislation designated as meeting the criteria 
     in subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 7 and which the 
     chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate, as applicable, designates as 
     meeting those criteria. A single piece of legislation may 
     contain provisions designated as meeting criteria in more 
     than one of the subsections listed above. For appropriately 
     designated provisions, CBO shall exclude from its estimates 
     for purposes of this Act any costs of a provision to the 
     extent that those costs, when combined with all other 
     excluded costs 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, using the most recent 
     baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget 
     Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 used in considering a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget; or, after the beginning 
     of a new calendar year and before consideration of a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget, using the most recent 
     baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional Budget 
     Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. CBO estimates of 
     legislation containing a current policy designation under 
     this subsection 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 the same subsection of section 7.
       (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.
       (3) OMB estimates.--If legislation does not contain the 
     estimate of budgetary effects under paragraph (2), then OMB 
     shall score the budgetary effects of that legislation upon 
     its enactment, based on the approaches to scorekeeping set 
     forth in this Act.
       (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.
       (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.

     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 
     3(4)(D), information about any sequestration if required by 
     subsection (b), and other data and explanations that enhance 
     public understanding of this Act 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 include that 
     order in the annual report and transmit it 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.--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.
       (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. CURRENT POLICY ADJUSTMENT TO THE CBO ESTIMATES.

       (a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to provide for 
     adjustments of estimates of budgetary effects of PAYGO 
     legislation for legislation affecting four areas of the 
     budget--
       (1) payments made under section 1848 of the Social Security 
     Act (titled 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--

[[Page 18594]]

       (A) the provisions of those two 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);
       (D) the 35 percent bracket and that portion of the 33 
     percent bracket that applies to taxable income greater than 
     $200,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a couple; and
       (E) provisions in those two Acts relating to taxes rates on 
     capital gains and dividends.
       (b) Medicare Payments to Physicians.--
       (1) Criteria.--Legislation that includes provisions 
     amending or superseding the system of payments under section 
     1848 of the Social Security Act shall trigger the current 
     policy adjustment required by this Act.
       (2) Adjustment.--The amount of the maximum current policy 
     adjustment shall be the difference between--
       (A) estimated net outlays attributable to the payments made 
     to physicians under that section of the Social Security Act 
     (as scheduled on July 15, 2009, to be in effect); 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 thereafter without change.
       (c) 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 Act.
       (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 July 15, 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 thereafter without change.
       (d) Permanent Extension of Middle-Class Tax Cuts and AMT 
     Relief.--
       (1) Criteria.--Legislation that includes provisions 
     extending middle-class tax cuts or AMT relief shall trigger 
     the current policy adjustment required by this Act if those 
     provisions extend one or more of the following provisions--
       (A) AMT relief for calendar year 2010 and subsequent years 
     in such a manner that the number of AMT taxpayers is not 
     estimated to exceed the number of AMT taxpayers in tax year 
     2008 in any year through the tenth year after enactment;
       (B) the 10 percent bracket as in effect for tax year 2010, 
     as provided for under section 101(a) of the Economic Growth 
     and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and any later 
     amendments through July 15, 2009;
       (C) the child tax credit as in effect for tax year 2010, as 
     provided for under section 201 of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act and any later amendments through 
     July 15, 2009;
       (D) tax benefits for married couples as in effect for tax 
     year 2010, as provided for under title III of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act and any later 
     amendments through July 15, 2009;
       (E) the adoption credit as in effect in tax year 2010, as 
     provided for under section 202 of the Economic Growth and Tax 
     Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and any later amendments 
     through July 15, 2009;
       (F) the dependent care credit as in effect in tax year 
     2010, as provided for under section 204 of the Economic 
     Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and any 
     later amendments through July 15, 2009;
       (G) the employer-provided child care credit as in effect in 
     tax year 2010, as provided for under section 205 of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and 
     any later amendments through July 15, 2009;
       (H) the education tax benefits as in effect in tax year 
     2010, as provided for under title IV of the Economic Growth 
     and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and any later 
     amendments through July 15, 2009;
       (I) the 25 and 28 percent brackets as in effect for tax 
     year 2010, as provided for under section 101(a) of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and 
     any later amendments through July 15, 2009; and
       (J) the 33 percent brackets as in effect for tax year 2010, 
     as provided for under section 101(a) of the Economic Growth 
     and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and any later 
     amendment affecting taxpayers with taxable income of $200,000 
     or less for individuals and $250,000 or less for couples in 
     calendar year 2010 and increased in each subsequent 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) thereof.
       (2) Adjustment.--The amount of the maximum current policy 
     adjustment shall be the difference between what total 
     revenues would have been under the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (as scheduled on July 15, 2009, to be in effect) and 
     what revenues would be if legislation--
       (A) permanently extending the AMT exemption and brackets in 
     effect in tax year 2009 but increased in tax year 2010 and 
     each subsequent tax year as indicated under subsection 
     (d)(2)(B), along with any additional amount necessary to 
     prevent the number of taxpayers who must pay AMT from 
     increasing; and
       (B) permanently extending the provisions identified in 
     paragraph (1),

     were enacted on the same day as the legislation referred to 
     in paragraph (1).

     SEC. 8. APPLICATION OF BBEDCA.

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

     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 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--

[[Page 18595]]

       ``(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 (title 42, United States 
     Code, section 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 program 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).
       ``Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Deposit Insurance 
     Fund (51-4596-4-4-373).
       ``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 Housing Finance Agency, Administrative Expenses 
     (95-5532-0-2-371).
       ``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 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).

[[Page 18596]]

       ``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).
       ``Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac).
       ``Federal National Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae).
       ``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) Economic Recovery 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:
       ``All programs enacted in, or increases in programs 
     provided by, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 
     2009.
       ``Exchange Stabilization Fund-Money Market Mutual Fund 
     Guaranty Facility (20-4274-0-3-376).
       ``Financial Stabilization Reserve (20-0131-4-1-376).
       ``GSE Mortgage-Backed Securities Purchase Program Account 
     (20-0126-0-1-371).
       ``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).
       ``Troubled Asset Relief Program Account (20-0132-0-1-376).
       ``Troubled Asset Relief Program Equity Purchase Program 
     (20-0134-0-1-376).
       ``Troubled Asset Relief Program, Home Affordable 
     Modification Program (20-0136-0-1-604).''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, as 
amended, it shall be in order to consider the amendment in the nature 
of a substitute printed in part C of the report, if offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) or his designee, which shall be 
considered read, and shall be debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, at this point I would also like to ask 
unanimous consent that Members have 5 legislative days to revise and 
extend and insert material relevant to the consideration of H.R. 2920 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009. To understand this bill, it's important and 
useful to understand its short history.
  At the outset of the 1990s, Congress passed the Budget Enforcement 
Act to ensure that the Budget Summit Agreement would be carried out. 
Among these provisions was a rule called pay-as-you-go, PAYGO for 
short. At the time, critics distained and belittled our resort to 
budget process. They accused us of dodging the hard choices we had to 
make if we were going to wipe out the end of 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 PAYGO had played an important part in our 
success.
  In 2002, the Budget Enforcement Act was allowed to expire, and the 
President, President Bush, and the majority, the Republicans at that 
time, chose not to reinstate PAYGO. Without the process rule in place, 
the budget plunged from a surplus of $236 billion in the year 2000 to a 
deficit of $413 billion in the year 2004.
  In April of 2005, in his congressional testimony, Alan Greenspan 
said, ``One of the real problems we had was allowing PAYGO to lapse in 
September of 2002, and were we to still be under a PAYGO regime, which 
I thought worked very well, I think we would have a lot fewer problems 
now.''
  When Democrats took back the House, the reinstatement of PAYGO was at 
the top of our agenda. To expedite its passage, PAYGO was made a rule 
of the House the day we convened. Without support of the Bush 
administration, there was no prospect of getting statutory PAYGO 
enacted in law, but now with the support of the Obama administration, 
indeed, the underlying legislation we are pushing and advancing today 
was originally sent to us for filing by request from the President, Mr. 
Obama.
  With the support of the Obama administration, we're in a position now 
to take a longer stride towards budget discipline by enacting statutory 
PAYGO into law. The Obama administration has inherited a colossal 
deficit

[[Page 18597]]

swollen to accommodate massive recovery measures. As these measures 
pull us up out of the slump, we must focus attention on our longer-term 
fiscal fate.
  By themselves, budget process rules cannot convert deficits into 
surpluses, but as in the 1990s, they can play a vital role. Statutory 
PAYGO works by reining in both new entitlement spending and new tax 
cuts. Both tend to be long lasting. They are easy to pass and hard to 
repeal. And by insisting in deficit neutrality for these new policies, 
PAYGO buffers the bottom line, holds it constant. Its terms are 
complex, but at its core, it's a commonsense rule that everybody can 
understand: When you are in deficit, don't make it worse. When you want 
to spend a dollar, save a dollar. Everybody can understand the 
commonsense logic of this bill.
  I would add that PAYGO has not only been a commonsense idea that 
found its way into the rules of the House and the statute books, but it 
has traditionally received bipartisan report. Originally, it was 
enacted in 1990 under a Republican President and Democratic Congress. 
In 1997, it was extended under a Democratic President and a Republican 
Congress.
  This is not a panacea--I wouldn't hold it out as that--but it is a 
significant step in the right direction. It was proven to work in the 
1990s, and it needs to be reinstated for that purpose now.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to 
myself.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish the Budget Committee had an opportunity to mark 
up this bill; however, the decision was made to bypass the Budget 
Committee and go straight to the floor.
  This bill is not a simple extension of current law. It bypasses the 
deliberate and transparent process, and we are rushing legislation to 
the floor. It's an ongoing trend of a disturbing trend, which is write 
legislation in the leadership offices, rush it to floor, ram it through 
Congress without legislators legislating. We have one of the most 
talented chairmen of the Budget Committee who knows more than anybody 
else how these laws work, Mr. Spratt. It should have gone through his 
committee. Unfortunately, written in leadership, rushed to the floor, 
out it goes. That is a disturbing trend with how this Congress is 
working.
  But let me talk about the need for fiscal restraint and fiscal 
discipline.
  We concur, we agree that we have got to do some things to get our 
fiscal house in order. We need to equip Congress with more and better 
tools to get this budget under control. Unfortunately, this isn't the 
tool. This tool does not work. Let's look at PAYGO's track record thus 
far.
  Since PAYGO was instituted as a rule here, the budget deficit under 
the last Republican budget was $161 billion. The budget today, the 
deficit is at $1.8 trillion, more than a tenfold increase.
  Let me show you how much spending last year in increases were subject 
to PAYGO for this year's spending. Two percent. Two percent of the 
spending that has gone out the door this year was subject to PAYGO, 98 
percent was not. That's $870 billion of new spending not subject to 
PAYGO.
  Since the majority gave us this PAYGO rule, look at what has happened 
to deficits. $161 billion up to $1.8 trillion, deficits for as far as 
the eye can see never going below $600 billion, and in 10 years, above 
a trillion dollars. PAYGO does absolutely nothing to arrest that 
development, to address that.
  More to the point, Mr. Speaker, PAYGO exempts, already, 40 percent of 
the budget, forty percent. All of the money the Federal Government 
spends on government agencies, and all that discretionary spending 
isn't even touched by PAYGO.
  More to the point, Mr. Speaker, is that all of those unfunded 
liabilities we have, according to the General Accountability Office, 
$62 trillion of unfunded liabilities are already out there, due, 
promises made to taxpayers that the government right now doesn't have 
funded, to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Social Security. A mountain of 
debt is before us. And what does PAYGO do to address it? Absolutely 
nothing. PAYGO does nothing whatsoever to address the runaway 
entitlement problems we have today. It simply says if we're going to 
build new programs, new nondiscretionary, mandatory entitlement 
programs, then, and only then, should we pay for it.
  We know the track record of something like this. Without spending 
caps, without reform to go after existing spending programs, this 
simply results in raising taxes.
  So we believe that this is more or less a machine to raise taxes to 
pay for new and more costly government programs. It does nothing to 
attack the fact that we have trillions upon trillions of dollars of 
unfunded liabilities right now. It does nothing to attack the fact that 
just this year alone, discretionary spending is going up 8 percent, 11 
percent for domestic discretionary spending. It ignores all of those 
things. It's really kind of like buying a fire extinguisher after your 
house has burned down. Congress is going to commit all of these fiscal 
crimes only to put PAYGO in place after they've been committed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this bill, as well intended as it may be, is not the 
solution. There are better ideas. And I only wished that we could have 
gone through the Budget Committee and collaborated in making this bill 
better.
  With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas, a member of the committee, Mr. Doggett.
  Mr. DOGGETT. As one economist concluded, it's easy to dodge your 
responsibilities but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our 
responsibilities.
  For 8 long years, fiscal responsibility was abandoned by the Bush 
administration and its congressional enablers. When a difficult 
decision came along, they played a devastating game of dodgeball to the 
tune of, ``Don't worry, be happy.'' Well, record surpluses turned into 
record deficits and the economy began to collapse. This did not happen 
by accident.
  Republican ideologues urged the irresponsible approach of fiscal 
deficit with more borrow-and-spend and tax cuts as the best tactic to 
starve government and ensure that Democrats would never be able to 
address the other deficits in our society: educational deficits, health 
care deficits, and more.
  This year, with only 7 months so far to correct 8 years of failure, 
as we clean up the mess that we were given, we reaffirm our commitment 
to pay-as-you-go. And we're already making it a reality in one of the 
most significant challenges of our time, the health care deficit. We 
correct it without adding to the fiscal deficit. We're paying for long 
neglected health care reform by cutting costs in the system and taxing 
the few at the top who benefited the most from the Bush era.
  Fiscal responsibility, fiscal security is national security. Today's 
vote signals that we are abandoning the Republicans' fiscal model, 
which is straight out of the Magic Kingdom. Their rule, like the first 
law of Disney, is that ``wishing will make it so.'' That may work well 
in the law of fairy tales, but it has been a budgeting disaster and an 
economic nightmare that we begin correcting today.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio, a member of the Budget 
Committee, Mr. Jordan.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
continuing efforts to try to bring some fiscal sanity to this town and 
this place.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this so-called Pay-As-You-Go 
bill. Most Americans, frankly, would label this tax-as-you-go.
  Families and businesses across the country are tightening their 
belts, but this Congress keeps spending like there is no tomorrow, 
putting our country on a path towards bankruptcy. Now they're trying to 
get the American people to look the other way with the smokescreen 
called PAYGO.
  Earlier this year, we offered a balanced budget. That's pay-as-you-
go. But this bill doesn't balance the budget. For 3 years, we've been 
offering

[[Page 18598]]

amendments both in committee and on this floor that would hold the line 
on spending. That's really pay-as-you-go. But this bill doesn't hold 
the line on any spending. In fact, this bill is just another facade to 
allow spending and spending and spending.
  Just remember, last week, for the first time in American history, we 
hit a $1 trillion deficit, and it's slated to go higher as we have a 
few months left in this fiscal year. Just to reiterate a couple points 
that the ranking member made in his opening comments.
  Last year, with the pay-as-you-go rule that the majority had put in 
place, we exempted $420 billion worth of legislation from that very 
rule, and the deficit increased by $1.7 trillion. That's over a 
thousand percent increase over the current pay-as-you-go policy that 
the majority has had in place.
  We need real pay-as-you-go. Our substitute offered by our ranking 
member, Mr. Ryan, is the right approach. It has spending caps. It has 
deficit targets. It takes the right approach to balance our budget. In 
fact, it's going to have a supermajority requirement, something we need 
to override the spending limits and caps in the bill. We don't need 
more of the smokescreens and empty promises that we always see from 
Washington. What we need is real fiscal responsibility.
  Let me just say this. Over the next decade, the debt is slated to 
reach $23 trillion. Now think about what it takes to pay that off.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional minute.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. So $23 trillion. To pay that off, you first have 
to balance the budget, then you have to run a trillion-dollar surplus 
for 23 years, and that doesn't count the interest which is now 
approaching a billion dollars a day.
  We need to get serious and not have these smokescreens and facades. 
We need real pay-as-you-go. We need real fiscal responsibility.
  One of the things that makes this country great is the idea that 
parents make sacrifices for their children so they can have a better 
life than they did, and they in turn become adults and parents and do 
the same thing for their kids. And it's been that cycle that has 
allowed the United States to become the greatest Nation in history. 
When you begin to reverse that process and live for the moment and 
leave the debt to someone else, that is a real problem. Today we can do 
the right thing.
  Vote this pay-as-you-go legislation down and enact the substitute 
version offered by Mr. Ryan. If we do that, we can start to move in the 
right direction and do what's right for our children and grandchildren.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California, who claims paternity of this bill, having first introduced 
the legislation calling for the PAYGO rule, Mr. Miller.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong 
support of this legislation to help restore fiscal responsibility, and 
I salute President Obama and Majority Leader Hoyer for their leadership 
on this important issue. Listening to this debate might leave the 
American people confused about Republican values. Republicans regularly 
declare their fidelity to controlling Federal spending, and they claim 
also that they want to fix our broken health care system. And yet 
Republicans oppose our commonsense pay-as-you-go legislation, and 
Republicans oppose our historic health care reform bill.
  My question to the Republicans is simple: when they controlled the 
House, the Senate and the White House, all of our government, for 8 
long years, why didn't they control Federal spending? Why didn't you 
reform the health care system? But what you did when you got power for 
the first time was you made your highest priority your tax cut to the 
richest people in this country without paying for it. The rest of us 
have been paying for it forever.
  In 2001, you did it, and in 2002 you did it, turning the budget 
surpluses into massive deficits. Why is it they added a record number 
of earmarks to the appropriations bill, running the deficit up even 
further? And why is it that in 8 years, they never ever made health 
care reform a priority? Not ever. Not ever in those 8 years.
  Meanwhile, Americans' health care bills keep rising, the insurance 
companies continue denials of care, and the number of the uninsured 
have continued to grow. Eight years of all-Republican government, 
spending the taxpayers' money like a drunken sailor, and, as Ronald 
Reagan said, with full apologies to the sailor, raising deficits to 
historic levels and inaction on health care of any kind of reform. But 
they have made rhetoric a priority. And they have made politics as 
usual a priority.
  Now that they are out of power, they speak about controlling deficits 
and reforming health care, but they openly state that they hope our 
President fails. Their hope for our Nation is that our President fails. 
I have been a supporter for pay-as-you-go budgeting since 1982, when I 
introduced the first pay-as-you-go bill. When liberals and 
conservatives worked together with President Clinton to adopt the PAYGO 
rules, the Democrats reined in and erased the historic budget deficits 
that were left over from President Reagan and President Bush from the 
1980s and the 1990s. And we recorded record budget surpluses. We ran 
surpluses a number of years in a row. President Bush and the 
Republican-controlled Congress, when they gained power, they erased it. 
They repealed the law.
  And now what we see is the interest payments on that debt crowding 
out the national priorities. In 2007, Democrats made PAYGO part of our 
rules again. Our legislation today strengthens those rules by making it 
part of the law so the Senate and the House will have to abide by it. 
Our bill says Congress could neither cut taxes nor increase entitlement 
spending without first deciding how you can afford to pay for these new 
costs. PAYGO requires difficult decisions about national priorities and 
how to afford them. If we can't pay for new tax cuts or entitlement 
spending, we can't have them. It's simple, it's common sense, and it 
helps reduce the deficit.
  PAYGO will strengthen the economy by helping to reduce interest 
payments on our debt and by helping to address health care reform, 
modernizing energy policy and college affordability. Our health care 
bill, for example, will not increase the deficit one dime. It is paid 
for. Our new college affordability bill is not only paid for, it 
returns $10 billion in deficit reduction to the American people. The 
Democrats are working hard to ensure that, going forward, we can 
exercise fiscal discipline that hardworking Americans need and expect 
from this Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on PAYGO.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to 
simply comment on the last speaker's points.
  He is right in saying the last majority did spend too much money. A 
number of us criticized that. A number of us, Mr. Hensarling and I in 
particular, came to the floor with budget enforcement legislation. A 
minority of the majority at the time voted against it, and all but a 
few in the then-minority voted against it, supplied the votes to say 
``no'' to any kind of budget enforcement. But more to the point, 
spending did grow by too much in the prior 8 years. But look at it now, 
Mr. Speaker. If you thought spending was fast then, holy cow, it is 
really fast now.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a 
member of the Budget Committee, Mr. McHenry.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. 
Today I rise in opposition to the Democrats' so-called PAYGO scheme. It 
sounds good, but the reality is far different from the sound of it. It 
does nothing to control out-of-control spending and reckless government 
spending. The proposal does nothing to hold accountable discretionary 
spending, which is 40 percent of the budget.
  As American families face difficult decisions about every dollar they

[[Page 18599]]

spend, the majority of this Congress believes that 40 percent of their 
budget should be exempt from fiscal discipline. Because Congress must 
show the fortitude and resolve to rein in these spending issues and to 
control reckless spending, I support the Republican alternative. The 
Republican alternative sets discretionary spending caps for the next 
decade. The caps would not impact defense, veterans funding or Social 
Security. And to adequately fulfill our obligations, discretionary 
spending would be allowed to grow at the rate of inflation.
  Unlike the majority of this Congress, our proposal would reduce 
budget deficits in the years to come. It's noteworthy that this PAYGO 
scheme has been the rule of the House for the last 3 years. Well, what 
has happened in the last 3 years? Federal spending went from $2.7 
trillion to $3.6 trillion. That is a 25 percent increase, Mr. Speaker. 
Why? Well, simple. The Democrat majority chooses to waive the rule when 
it is inconvenient and simply spend like drunken sailors. It is 
unfortunate. In order to have fiscal discipline and in order to rein in 
reckless spending and the debt it fuels, we need to focus on these 
issues and have real spending caps.
  It is counterproductive for this Congress to spend so much because it 
will hurt our economy, and yet the folks in charge of this Congress are 
spending, spending, spending. I think that is going to have a negative 
impact on our economy, small businesses and families alike. The 
Nation's finances are on an unsustainable path. Everyone knows that. 
The majority's reckless PAYGO scheme does nothing and misses a great 
opportunity for us to rein in spending.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards) who has been a prime mover behind this bill and is 
the originator of the idea that it should not be a 5- or 10-year bill, 
but a permanent law.
  Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have a moral obligation to not 
drown our children in a sea of national debt, and that is why I'm 
strongly supporting this pay-as-you-go legislation. I believe history 
will show that one of the worst mistakes made by the Republican-led 
Congress of the past decade was to not extend the Federal PAYGO rules 
in 2002. The facts speak for themselves. We went from a projected 10-
year Federal surplus of $5.6 trillion to a deficit of $4.5 trillion, an 
astounding $10 trillion fiscal u-turn. For the good of our children and 
our country's future, it is time to correct that mistake and to see 
that it never happens again.
  The pay-as-you-go principle is one that American families and 
businesses understand. It's common sense, and they get it. 
Unfortunately, some of the Members of Congress who are the architects 
of the largest deficits in American history, those who created the 
deficits they now rail against on a daily basis, don't get it. In 
speech after speech, they sing the siren song of fiscal responsibility, 
yet today they will vote against the commonsense pay-as-you-go law. I'm 
proud to have led the fight to make this new pay-as-you-go bill a 
permanent law, not a temporary one.
  The PAYGO principle makes sense for this Congress and for all future 
Congresses. Had it been made permanent in the 1990s, our national debt 
today would be trillions less and our children's future far brighter. 
We cannot correct overnight the irresponsible fiscal decisions of the 
past decade, but with this PAYGO bill as the permanent law of the land, 
we will begin the important process of reducing deficits and balancing 
the Federal budget. That, more than any speech, is what our children 
and our country deserve.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Yielding myself 10 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I 
will simply say that the majority just passed a budget resolution under 
the current PAYGO regime that doubles the national debt in 5\1/2\ years 
and triples it in 10\1/2\ years.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Our deficit will 
soar to $1.8 trillion this year. The President's budget will triple our 
debt in 10 years and still under this bill be PAYGO-compliant. That is 
how disingenuous this bill is. This bill is so disingenuous that they 
didn't even allow it to go through the Budget Committee for fear, 
perhaps, that the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee might 
come up with something more reasonable.
  Instead, it is the ranking member that had to come up with something 
more reasonable. Families in Wyoming and across the Nation don't have 
the luxury of exempting 40 percent of their budget from balancing. But 
this PAYGO bill does. Forty percent of the budget is off the table. It 
doesn't have to play the PAYGO game. This is sleight of hand. I ask my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill, which falls 
woefully short of its goals. Let's slow entitlement growth. Let's 
control Congress' insatiable appetite for spending. Let's pass the Paul 
Ryan alternative.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation. On the day he was sworn in as President, President Obama 
inherited huge deficits and exploding debt in this country. The 
previous administration wanted to put everything on our national credit 
card and ask future generations to pay for it.
  It's time to put an end to this, and this bill today is the beginning 
of the end of irresponsible spending. It's the end of sweeping our 
problems under the rug and saying we're going to put them off to 
another day. And we have seen the impact this kind of budget mechanism 
can have. We saw it in the 1990s, during which we had a PAYGO rule in 
place and we saw our deficits and debts go from record deficits to 
record surpluses. And when we abandon that, when we abandoned that 
fiscal discipline rule in 2002, we saw our Federal debt explode.
  As we dig ourselves out of this economic ditch we find ourselves in, 
it is important that we put our economy on a long-term, sustainable 
basis, and this legislation is part of doing that. It will require that 
policies that result in revenue reduction or increased mandatory 
spending be offset over the next 5 and 10 years. That will require us 
to take a hard look at our national priorities. It will require us to 
look at the tradeoffs that we have to make, just like every family in 
America has to make those hard decisions. We say let's apply that rule 
to the United States Congress.
  Unfortunately, as we saw from the last administration, there was a 
lot of talk but no action. Mr. Speaker, what this does is say this 
isn't just going to be a House rule. This is going to be a matter of 
the law of the land. And while it can never be a total substitute for 
our ability to muster the political will to get things done, history 
has been a clear guide that this helps us get the job done.
  So I want to commend Leader Hoyer, Mr. Spratt and the others for 
bringing this important legislation to the floor. Let's finally say to 
our children and our grandchildren, We're going to take some 
responsibility. The buck stops here. Let's stop passing on our problems 
to the next generation.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. 
Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding. When I returned to this House Chamber in 2005, 
it was obvious to me that we were spending too much money on the 
Federal level. It was obvious to me that Uncle Sam needed a diet at 
that time. But at this time, it is even worse. We need what I would 
call a budgetary gastrointestinal bypass. And instead, what do you 
bring to the floor? You bring us cosmetic surgery. You give us a fiscal 
facelift. It looks good, but there is nothing behind the mask.
  All you have to do is look at the figures. Since my friend from South 
Carolina has been chairman, he has been allowed to be called 
``chairman,'' since his colleagues on the Democratic side have been 
allowed to be called ``chairmen,'' ``chairwomen,'' ``chairpersons,''

[[Page 18600]]

in other words, since they have been in charge of this place, what has 
happened with the spending in this place? It has gotten worse. You 
complained about overspending, and then you came in and you saw the 
patient and you put the patient on a diet of milkshakes.
  We are in real trouble today, and everybody knows it. Now what did we 
do last week? We decided the fiscal situation in this country was so 
bad we needed to have a new program for wild horses at a cost of $700 
million. Seven hundred million dollars. Millions of more acres were 
closed up for that purpose, but $700 million dropped on the laps of the 
American taxpayer. And this week you're trying to sell us a story that 
somehow you're concerned about overspending. The American people really 
are a little bit sharper than that. They understand that when you 
complain about overspending, and yet in the first opportunity you have 
to have your President in the White House to control both Houses, we 
pass the magic trillion-dollar mark. Yes, we had in the very same week 
for the first time in our dictionary ``earmarks'' listed as a word that 
is now conventional language. In that same week, we set the record $1 
trillion deficit in a single fiscal year.
  So after a while, you can keep looking back, you can keep pointing to 
the mirror, you can keep saying, Look at what those guys did. But at 
some point in time, you have to use an old expression, ``You've got to 
man up.'' You've got to actually say you're responsible for the actions 
taking place right now, and those actions have given us the largest 
deficit in the history of the world.

                              {time}  1315

  We are going to double all of the debt that we have garnered from 
George Washington to George W. Bush in 5 years, and we're going to 
triple it in 10 years. I know that's not the intent of the gentleman 
from South Carolina, for whom I have great respect. I know it's a heavy 
burden he has to try and carry this Democratic proposal and the 
administration's proposal. And I understand he would rather not be in 
this position. But he finds himself in this position, Mr. Speaker, and 
all I can say to my good friend on the other side of the aisle is, I'm 
so sorry. I'm so sorry you have to do this.
  Mr. SPRATT. Let me simply respond by saying, I'm glad to bring this 
to the floor. I voted for it in the past, saw it work, and I think it's 
going to work again. As I said, it's not a panacea, but it's a useful 
device to have in our arsenal of weapons to deal with the recession 
we're in.
  By the way, the recession that we're in, which has caused us to 
suffer a huge swelling in the deficit, started in December of 2007, on 
the Bush watch. Wall Street fell apart in September of 2008. The TARP 
program was initiated in response to that. That too happened during the 
Bush watch. We're in the backwash of many fiscal policies and economic 
policies which happened on their watch, and we're now suffering the 
consequences of them.
  I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina, and I thank my 
colleagues on the other side.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, sometimes the American people don't pay 
attention to an awful lot of what we say here. And frequently, when 
they don't, they're right. If this debate is really about accusations 
and counteraccusations about who's responsible, we're not going to get 
anywhere.
  The American people know we have to pay our bills. We have to, as a 
government, just like they have to do individually. And we have some 
honest debates about what should be our priorities.
  I've been an admirer of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) in 
his persistence in talking about fiscal responsibility. I disagree with 
the gentleman from Wisconsin that the way to fiscal prosperity is by 
radical reduction of taxes for very wealthy people. That's a fair and 
honest debate.
  On our side, there are some folks who think that the worthiness of 
the goal of health care for all Americans is its own justification and 
a way to pay for it. I disagree with that. If it is a worthy goal, we 
have to turn aspiration into affordable reality by paying for it.
  And on the health care bill, which is a major priority for President 
Obama and for Members of Congress, we are going to bring to the floor a 
health care bill that is paid for and does not add to the budget 
deficit.
  One of the major reasons that we should do this legislation is so 
that there is discipline on those of us who are advocating, either for 
tax cuts, because they believe that will be good for the economy, or 
for reform in health care, so that before we spend an extra dollar of 
our taxpayer money, we kick the tires of the system that we're 
affecting, like health care.
  And we have come to the conclusion, on our side, that to achieve one 
of our greatest goals, and that is health care for every single 
American, that we've got to kick the tires of the health care system 
and kick them hard to squeeze out savings that we can.
  This legislation, where we're accepting the burden of responsibility 
to pay for those programs we think are absolutely essential to the 
welfare of the American people, that we have the obligation of paying 
for it. And before we even look at taxes, we want to look at how we're 
wasting money. A dollar saved by cutting down waste is a dollar avoided 
in taxes.
  So this legislation, whatever it is characterized, as a machine for 
spending, which, frankly, is absurd, is a machine for responsibility. 
And whether or not our colleagues want to characterize this politically 
or not, there is a reason, on our side, that we believe fiscal 
responsibility is a burden we should accept, and we will, with this 
legislation.
  I thank the Budget Committee for its leadership on this.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains between the two sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 16 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 13\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the senior member of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Garrett from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today 
thrilled that the majority has finally decided to focus on their own 
recklessness, their out-of-control spending. So by bringing a statutory 
PAYGO bill now to the floor, we can definitely now conclude that, if 
they were left to their own devices, the Democrats would run this 
country's finances into the ground. I think it's basically an admission 
of guilt on their part that they simply cannot help themselves.
  Frankly, I find it a little disingenuous that the majority is now 
raising the banner of fiscal responsibility, after hearing on this 
floor that the Republicans were the ones who were reckless when we were 
voting against their $800 billion stimulus bill. It's a little hard to 
listen to their calls now for spending restraint 4\1/2\ months after 
the Democrats passed, and the President signed, a $410 billion omnibus 
appropriation bill that contained over 9,000 earmarks.
  So, lest we forget, earlier this year the House Democrats rammed a 
budget through this Congress that would double the national debt in 5 
years, triple it in 10 years. This is spending that is already on the 
books, and PAYGO will do absolutely nothing to stop it.
  Furthermore, their proposal now is seriously flawed. First of all, it 
only applies to increases or reductions in tax rates and any new or 
expanded entitlement programs. It basically does absolutely nothing, 
nothing to address the tidal wave of entitlement spending that we all 
know is coming in the very near future.
  It also does absolutely nothing to address the waste, the fraud, the 
abuse of the taxpayer dollars that we have seen through the 
discretionary appropriation process.
  So, basically, enacting their PAYGO at this point is really a little 
bit like closing the barn door after the horses have all gotten out.
  Still, in conclusion, I want to come to this floor and say that I 
applaud the

[[Page 18601]]

Democrats for their newfound interest in spending restraint. And if we 
truly want to do this and work in a bipartisan consensus on this issue, 
then I think we will achieve what we all seek.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this 
legislation, and I thank Leader Hoyer and Chairman Spratt and Chairman 
Miller for their leadership on budget enforcement.
  The issue is very simple. Congress must pay for what it spends. Pay-
as-you-go budget enforcement rules in the nineties helped to balance 
the budget, realize consecutive surpluses, and project a 10-year, $5.6 
trillion surplus, all the while tough decisions were being made by the 
Congress and the Clinton administration during a decade of increasing 
defense, health care and infrastructure costs.
  In 2007, our new majority immediately renewed PAYGO, a great step 
towards fiscal responsibility, but not enough by itself. We need 
statutory authority, as this legislation and the President proposes, to 
guarantee PAYGO is enforced.
  While the minority is quick to blame the administration and our 
majority for the current state of the Federal budget, it is important 
to remember that we didn't get here overnight or by accident. When 
PAYGO was allowed to expire by the Republicans in 2002, so also did 
budget discipline. The administration and Republican Congress made 
conscious decisions to enact the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the 
wealthy, while fighting two wars and expanding entitlements without 
paying for them, except by increasing the deficit.
  These fiscally irresponsible decisions, among others, turned the 
surplus into the $1.3 trillion annual deficit President Obama inherited 
on the day he took office.
  Over the last several months we have been forced to invest to arrest 
an economic collapse. But we must quickly return to sound fiscal 
discipline with PAYGO as a firm pillar of rebuilding our economy. This 
priority is already evident in commitments by the President and our 
leadership to pay for the health care reform, the highway bill, and 
other priorities that are currently working their way through the 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me simply say I misspoke earlier when I had said that a few 
Democrats voted for the Budget Control Act. I was wrong. No Democrats 
voted for the Budget Control Act when we had it here on the floor. Not 
a single Democrat voted in 2004 when we had the opportunity to pass 
real budget reform.
  Unfortunately, some members of my party at the time voted ``no'' as 
well, and that's why it didn't pass.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fiscal facade. Nothing can change the fact 
that what this bill does is it basically is a situation where we commit 
all the fiscal crimes, then we outlaw them after they've been 
committed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself an additional 10 seconds to say 
we simply sweep under the rug $410 billion in spending, a $1 trillion 
stimulus, a new cap-and-tax system, pass this facade, and then a brand 
new $1 trillion health care bill.
  This is a bitter pill to swallow for the American taxpayer, and we 
shouldn't swallow it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the great 
work that he does on the Budget Committee.
  Almost every economist today will tell you that they're very much 
concerned about the future viability of America, primarily because of 
the ever increasing debt that we face in this country. I am pleased 
today that we are simply here discussing PAYGO though, because it is 
such an important concept.
  I would also point out that the reason that I am not supporting the 
Democrats' PAYGO recommendation is primarily because it exempts 40 
percent of the budget, all of the discretionary spending, from PAYGO 
rules and requirements.
  It's also important for us to realize that in the 110th Congress, the 
PAYGO rule was waived 12 times, exempting $420 billion from non-offset 
deficit increases. I look forward to the gentleman from Wisconsin's 
substitute bill that will be debated later today.
  But I would also like to point out that I introduced this afternoon a 
resolution that would change the House rules and require a point of 
order on any waiving of a PAYGO rule by the Rules Committee, so that if 
a bill comes to the floor and it has waived PAYGO, any Member could 
make a point of order, and it would require a vote on the House floor 
before that waiver could take effect.
  In conclusion, I would simply like to say, I can't think of a more 
important subject to be debating today than PAYGO, because the major 
challenge that America faces today is our long-term debt and ever 
increasing debt that we face.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Boyd).
  Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I rise today in favor of 
the legislation before the House. This PAYGO bill is a piece of 
legislation of which I've been an advocate for years. It brings me 
great satisfaction to see this bill with such broad support here in the 
House of Representatives.
  I'm always intrigued, Mr. Speaker, by the language used here and the 
words and the rhetoric. And I heard the word used earlier by the 
gentlelady from Wyoming that some were disingenuous.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that my friend, Mr. Ryan, is 
disingenuous. I think he's a great American, and I think that he 
opposes this legislation because he believes it would create an 
automatic pay-for for tax cuts, and he just thinks that is wrong. I 
don't understand how we can consider paying for the great military we 
have, the Medicare programs, all of the issues that made this country a 
great place. I assume that they believe that we can go overseas and 
borrow that money from the Chinese, like we have for the last 6 or 8 
years.
  But, Mr. Speaker, sooner or later we will be buried under that 
mountain of debt. And when our creditors figure out that we can't pay 
it back, the house of cards will crumble.
  My Blue Dog colleagues and I have, for years, introduced pay-as-you-
go legislation that requires the government to pay for new programs 
that it creates. Throughout the Bush administration, however, it was 
difficult to get an audience. Thankfully, the very first bill that the 
Obama administration sent to this Congress was the PAYGO bill.
  Furthermore, the leadership of this House, Speaker Pelosi and 
Majority Leader Hoyer, have taken up this cause wholeheartedly. I also 
want to thank my chairman, the Budget Chairman, John Spratt, for his 
leadership, who worked with me during the creation of the fiscal 2010 
budget that conditioned the enactment of some major policies this year 
on action of PAYGO in the House.

                              {time}  1330

  These leaders are responding to the deficit situation that we find 
ourselves in after years of reckless spending policies after the 
original bipartisan PAYGO was allowed to expire in 2002.
  As you may have heard today, PAYGO was a tool used in the 1990s to 
help bring this country to record surpluses, Mr. Speaker. Given our 
current budgetary outlook, with the debt growing faster than our 
economy, we know we must act.
  The President and our Democratic colleagues understand that we cannot 
continue business as usual the last 8 years in Washington on a number 
of levels, including our budget.
  The enactment of this legislation is necessary to ensure our national 
security, our quality of life, and slow the drain on our economy. The 
world is

[[Page 18602]]

watching to see if we are serious about turning this country's fiscal 
sinking ship around.
  We did it in the 1990s, and we can do it again with this tool. The 
enactment of PAYGO, Mr. Speaker, in the 1990s was a bipartisan act. 
PAYGO should not be a partisan issue. Fiscal responsibility should not 
be a partisan issue. We all have a vested interest in making sure that 
our fiscal policies are sound.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. BOYD. We know all too well that we cannot live on credit forever. 
This bill is the first step we need to take to ensure to restore fiscal 
sanity to Washington.
  I believe that everyone here, Mr. Speaker, wants to leave a more 
prosperous country with a better standard of living for our children 
and grandchildren.
  I urge my Republican colleagues, many of whom have stood up and 
supported the PAYGO concept in the past, to support this responsible 
legislation today. I, furthermore, challenge the Senate to share 
equally in our goal to balance our budget and ensure that new programs 
are paid for.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), 
a member of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is a sham. Now, that's a very strong word, but the 
facts that support it are equally strong. In the last Congress since 
Democrats took control and PAYGO was enacted, $420 billion of new 
spending was exempted from its provisions. Over the last few weeks, 
this House has passed nine new spending bills. Every one of those new 
spending bills increased spending over the last year by as much as 22 
percent, and not a single dollar of those spending increases was paid 
for. Every one will add to the deficit, add to the debt, and about 46 
cents of every one of those dollars will be borrowed, primarily from 
the Chinese, Indians, and other foreigners.
  The deficit has gone from $160 billion to nearly $2 trillion since 
PAYGO started. How does that make this a good thing? How is that an 
example of how this has worked to control spending and be fiscally 
responsible?
  And in PAYGO, spending increases don't have to be paid for but tax 
cuts do, and there is nothing in here whatsoever to deal with our 
ballooning massive debt.
  Mr. Speaker, PAYGO is nothing more than a public relations effort to 
make the most profligate Congress ever appear to be less profligate. 
The American people are not buying it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. I thank Mr. Spratt.
  When I came to Congress in January 1999, our national debt stood at 
$5.6 trillion. Our country faced a very different fiscal situation than 
the one we have today. At that time fiscal restraint and the use of 
budget enforcement tools had helped turn around a dire financial 
situation and produce budget surpluses during the last 2 years of the 
Clinton administration.
  Unfortunately, the PAYGO requirements that had been so effective in 
bringing about responsible budgeting through the 1990s were allowed to 
expire in 2002 by the previous majority, and the results speak for 
themselves. Our national debt increased and almost doubled in the past 
8 years. The $5.6 trillion debt we had when I first came to office in 
1999 now stands at $11.4 trillion.
  Today, with H.R. 2920 we have a chance to help restore fiscal 
discipline in Washington and put our country back on a sustainable 
fiscal path. Our country should live as do most American families, 
within a budget. I have nine grandchildren; and it's absolutely wrong, 
it's immoral to mortgage their future and the future of other children 
and grandchildren in our country.
  We should vote and pass H.R. 2920 for future generations in our 
country.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield myself 3 
minutes.
  Let me recap what's happening here, Mr. Speaker. This bill has good 
intentions. The gentleman bringing the bill to the floor has the best 
of intentions. He's a good man. This bill, however, Mr. Speaker, is a 
fiscal facade. It doesn't work. It's not like the bill that occurred 
back in the 1990s.
  This bill has no spending caps, for example. This bill exempts 40 
percent of all the spending we have in place today. How can you say 
that this makes the Federal Government work just like the family budget 
when you get to exempt 40 percent of the budget? Families don't get to 
do that.
  If a family is already living beyond its means, if a family is 
spending on credit card money, if a family is spending more than it 
takes in, that's an unsustainable budget. This does nothing to change 
that.
  The Federal Government is already living beyond its means. The 
Federal Government already is on an unsustainable fiscal course. The 
Federal Government already has a $1.8 trillion deficit this year. It's 
passing an 11 percent increase in all domestic agency spending. The 
Federal Government already has a $62 trillion debt unfunded liability. 
What does this PAYGO do about it? Nothing. Not a single thing about all 
of those fiscal problems.
  This is not a bill to get Congress to live within its means. This is 
a bill to give Congress men and women an ability to put a press release 
out to make it look like they're being fiscally responsible in the most 
fiscally irresponsible Congress of all time.
  Next week, Congress is going to create a new entitlement, a new 
unfunded entitlement that the Congressional Budget Office tells us will 
grow a lot faster than any spending cuts or revenue increases. We're 
going to create a new entitlement next week for health care on top of 
the other ones we already have, which are about $58 trillion in debt. 
We're going to do this bill after we've already spent an 11 percent 
increase on domestic spending programs, after we borrowed $1.1 trillion 
for a stimulus, after we passed a $410 billion bloated omnibus 
appropriations bill.
  This is PR politics. This is press release. This is not fiscal 
conservatism, fiscal responsibility; and what's so unfortunate about 
this, Mr. Speaker, is I'd like to think we could have had a bipartisan 
agreement to fix this. If we had actually brought the Blue Dog bill to 
the floor, which included spending caps like we're going to be 
proposing, we could have had something that we could have all 
supported. Unfortunately, the leadership bypassed the committee, as is 
usual these days, ran this thing to the floor so they can get their 
press releases out before they create a brand-new entitlement next 
week.
  It's sad, it's cynical, it's wrong, and the American people aren't 
buying it, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), the vice chairman of our committee.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Statutory 
PAYGO Act that we are hopefully going to pass today.
  Pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, rules as we talk about them are fairly 
straightforward. Congress should pay for any new spending. There is a 
strong bipartisan history of support for PAYGO. In fact in the 1990s, 
as a result of statutory PAYGO, this country saw record deficits 
transformed into record surpluses.
  Sadly, when those statutory PAYGO provisions expired in 2002, the 
former administration, with support from a Republican-controlled 
Congress, ignored the common sense of paying for new spending and 
turned our surpluses into mounting national debt, doubling the debt in 
8 years.
  But Democrats are serious about fiscal responsibility. In 2007, the 
Democratically controlled House set PAYGO rules, making a commitment. 
Again, any new spending would be budget neutral. And this year, we have 
reaffirmed this commitment to our rules, and we are determined to meet 
the President's goal of cutting the annual deficit in half in 4 years.

[[Page 18603]]

  And now with the support of the current administration, we are 
reinforcing our commitment to fiscal responsibility by giving PAYGO the 
force of law.
  As vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, I know how important 
it is to make wise, targeted investments for our future in energy 
independence, in health care, and economic growth; but we must do so in 
a deficit neutral way. To do so, we must ensure that any new spending 
is paid for.
  And that is what we have done when we passed the energy bill. That is 
what we're doing as we move forward on health care reform, and it is 
what we're doing as we move forward, of course, on spending bills.
  The statutory PAYGO is smart budgetary policy. It is common sense, 
and most importantly, it will guarantee our Nation's fiscal security. I 
urge support for fiscal responsibility for the future of our country 
and for our debt reduction by voting ``yes'' on statutory PAYGO.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman as 
to how many speakers he has remaining, as we have just one left.
  Mr. SPRATT. We have one more speaker, and then I will close.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman and friend for 
yielding.
  The proposition before the House today I think is rather direct, and 
here's what it is. If the House is going to vote for automatic spending 
for a proposition that spends the taxpayers' money every year without a 
separate vote, then it must offset that spending either by raising more 
revenue or cutting other automatic spending. If the House is going to 
reduce taxes on people, if the House is going to say that we're going 
to ask less of the American people in a given tax, then we must either 
raise some other source of revenue or reduce some other automatic 
spending in order to pay for that.
  Now, I don't know why this is controversial in the sense that it 
seems logical if we're locking ourselves into higher spending or 
locking ourselves into lower revenue, whatever the purpose of that may 
be, that we should only borrow the money to do that under extraordinary 
circumstances.
  The Education Committee yesterday gave a good example of how this 
ought to work. A lot of Members of the House want higher Pell Grant 
college scholarships and less expensive student loans, and so we passed 
a bill yesterday that does that, but we paid for the bill by reducing 
spending that I believe is corporate welfare to the banking system.
  So here's what we did: we reduced that corporate welfare, increased 
Pell Grant scholarships, lowered the cost of student loans, and did 
some other things in education and had $10 billion left over to reduce 
the deficit. That's what pay-as-you-go yields. Rather than simply 
spending the money and borrowing to cover it, rather than simply 
reducing taxes and borrowing to cover it, it forces us to do what the 
sensible and rational thing is to do, and that's pay for it as you go.
  This is not a Republican or Democratic idea. It's a commonsense idea, 
and I think the Members should all vote ``yes.''
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), the vice ranking member of the 
committee, the rest of our time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
6\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a sad, sad day yet again on the House floor. I do 
want to add my voice, though, in agreement with so many of my other 
colleagues talking about the bipartisan respect that we have for the 
chairman of the Budget Committee. And I suppose it was because he has 
bipartisan respect, as opposed to partisan respect, that the Speaker of 
the House decided to bypass him and the Budget Committee in bringing 
this legislation to the floor. Perhaps it was an opportunity to 
actually enact commonsense legislation.
  Unfortunately, we'll never know that. We'll never know that, Mr. 
Speaker. And so what I've heard is speaker after speaker on the 
Democratic side of the aisle tell us that PAYGO just means, When you 
spend a dollar, you save a dollar. I believe I heard the distinguished 
chairman say that. And the President of the United States, in adding 
his support for this proposition, said, Congress can only spend a 
dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the use of the term ``PAYGO'' suggests one thing. 
The practice of PAYGO is something completely different.
  Mr. Speaker, you can see from this chart exactly what PAYGO means in 
practice. These are the spending increases that were subject to so-
called PAYGO in the 2009 fiscal year: 2 percent. Two percent, Mr. 
Speaker, of all spending was subject to PAYGO, this commonsense 
proposal. I'm not sure it's common sense to the American people to tell 
them that you're going to be fiscally responsible and then exempt 98 
percent of all spending.

                              {time}  1345

  I don't believe that's common sense, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe 
it's common sense at all and, once again, what it tells us is we don't 
have a serious policy for fiscal responsibility or fiscal sanity here. 
What we have is fiscal flimflam.
  We have a bumper sticker slogan that substitutes for a policy that 
needs to save our children and grandchildren from a sea of red ink, and 
so all of this spending is either exempt or somehow PAYGO gets 
magically waived.
  Under this proposal, Mr. Speaker, nondefense discretionary spending 
is going to increase 9 percent. PAYGO is not subject to it. Overall 
discretionary spending increases 8 percent. PAYGO doesn't apply to it.
  All our entitlement programs that are just exploding, exploding, Mr. 
Speaker, guess what? They're exempt as well. So Social Security grows 
almost 5 percent, Medicare grows almost 4.3 percent. So the slogan, the 
slogan doesn't match the policy.
  I have the greatest amount of respect for the distinguished chairman. 
I have the greatest amount of respect for our President. But, Mr. 
Speaker, if you were a private company selling a product called PAYGO 
and you told the American people that it means ``when you spend a 
dollar, you save a dollar,'' you'd get sued for false advertising. You 
would be fined. You would be fined for saying that. It is not a real 
policy.
  Now, let's say if it was a real policy. We know it's not, but, Mr. 
Speaker, what if it was a real policy? What if those who brought this 
legislation really designed legislation that did what it said it was 
going to do? Well, unfortunately, under this Democratic Congress, we 
know that spending is out of control by any standard known in the 
history of mankind.
  Already, since the Democrats have come to control the White House and 
Congress, we have seen an administration sign into law a $1.1 trillion 
government stimulus plan, costing every American household $9,810, 
including $10 million for urban canals and $100 million for a new 
after-school snack program.
  We've seen them pass a $410 billion omnibus bill, costing every 
American family $3,534, including $150,000 for lobster research, 
$143,000 to develop and expand a comprehensive online encyclopedia.
  We see them continue the cycle of bailouts: $13 billion for Chrysler, 
$47 billion for GM, another $30 billion for AIG, and the list goes on.
  And what we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is now a budget that is going to 
increase, increase the Federal debt by a factor of three. It's going to 
triple, triple the Federal debt in the next 10 years. More Federal debt 
in the next 10 years than in the previous 220.
  And so we see all of the spending that is out of control and so we 
say, Okay, if you really want to control this spending or if you really 
want to have pay-as-you-go and you're unwilling to control the 
spending, well, Mr. Speaker, that just leaves us with one other option. 
That is a 60 percent increase of income taxes on the American people.
  So either one. Which is it? Is it false advertising or do you really 
want to increase income taxes on the American people by 60 percent? 
Which is it?

[[Page 18604]]

  Again, what's happened since we've had this vaunted PAYGO? What's 
happened to deficits?
  Well, I don't know how they manage to do it, Mr. Speaker, but in just 
2 years under Democratic control we've seen the deficit go from $161 
billion to now over $1 trillion. The first time, the first time in our 
Nation's history over $1 trillion, on its way to $1.8 trillion. That's 
already with having PAYGO in place, before we get the statutory 
version. I can't imagine how much worse it's going to be once somehow 
this gets enshrined.
  So, again, what this is is an effort to put a bumper sticker on a 
huge problem. It's the Democrats going to the American people and 
saying, Please, stop us before we spend again. We just somehow can't 
control ourselves. And so this is supposed to be a Band-Aid on a fiscal 
life-threatening wound.
  The American people deserve better, Mr. Speaker. They deserve the 
Republican alternative that puts real caps on spending and will save 
the American people.
  Mr. SPRATT. Let me respond to some arguments that have been made and 
not responded to during the course of this argument.
  First of all, the sequestration base, the programs which are subject 
to across-the-board cuts or abatement in the event that there is a 
deficit on the scorecard, why is that a narrow selection of programs? 
Because it's a cross section of programs purposely intended to reach a 
number of different constituent groups so that we will not use 
sequestration. Neither the President nor the Congress would want to use 
a meat cleaver like that.
  We've said, knowing that it could happen if we defaulted in doing 
anything else, young people, old people, farmers, miners, a huge cross 
section of our constituencies are represented in that sequestration 
base to make it certain, clear that we would never resort to that 
particular base for making across-the-board cuts to put PAYGO back in 
balance.
  Secondly, there's been repeated talk about, You passed PAYGO in the 
last Congress and look what happened. The truth of the matter is our 
Republican colleagues have never wanted to vote for PAYGO because it 
was always double-edged the way we proposed it. Double-edged meant yes, 
it would apply to mandatory spending increases, but it would also apply 
to tax cuts, because both have an adverse impact on the deficit bottom 
line.
  They would never vote for the second edge, the double-edged sword, 
and consequently they have to come up with another explanation as to 
why they do not support it.
  So they fall back on the economy itself. Look what happened to the 
economy after the adoption of the PAYGO rule in the 110th Congress. 
But, come on. This is a case where we have a coincidence, maybe, but 
not a correlation. The PAYGO rule had nothing to do with what happened 
to the economy. The Bush administration's economic and fiscal policies 
had a lot to do with what happened to the economy.
  The fact that the Bush administration inherited a projected surplus 
of $565.6 trillion and turned it into a projected deficit of $3 
trillion had an impact on the economy. The addition of $5 trillion to 
$6 trillion to our national debt had an impact on our economy. And 
don't forget the recession officially started during the Bush 
administration, December 2007. That's when it started.
  And when it really got bad, when Wall Street nearly went under in 
September and October of 2008, that, too, was the Bush administration. 
And we voted up the TARP, and that's one of the reasons--the Troubled 
Asset Relief Program, a $700 billion program. When we voted that up, 
the Bush administration was still in office.
  So there's the answer to the charge that somehow or another the PAYGO 
rule didn't do anything to affect the economic situation we find 
ourselves in.
  The reason we are seeing the largest deficits in the history is we're 
in the longest recession since the Great Depression. It's had a 
profound impact on us. The incubation of those conditions occurred 
during the Bush administration.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the facts stand. All during the 1990s, when we had 
the budget process rules in place, they contributed mightily. We had a 
good budget and the convergence of a good economy, and we put the 
budget back in balance by the year 1998.
  The facts speak for themselves, and facts are stubborn things. The 
budget process rules worked before. They will work again, if we vote 
for the statutory PAYGO.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009 to write into law the principles of 
fiscal responsibility brought about by the Democratic Congress.
  H.R. 2920 requires Congress to offset the costs of tax cuts or 
increases in entitlement spending with savings elsewhere in the budget.
  If the net effect of all legislation enacted during a session of 
Congress increased the deficit because Congress has not succeeded in 
paying for all the new costs that it has enacted, there would be an 
across-the-board reduction in certain mandatory programs.
  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.
  Today, the United States has a $1.7 trillion deficit. 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 earlier this year, which economists 
largely agree was a necessary emergency response to this recession.
  Mr. 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 this legislation, and I urge all my 
colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2920.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the pay-as-you-go 
legislation before the House.
  Across the length and breadth of this country, Americans are making 
some tough choices when it comes to their families' spending. They are 
tightening their belts and deferring major purchases. When they do buy 
something, consumers are increasingly choosing to pay for it with cash.
  A similar choice is before the House today. Over the last eight 
years, Congress has dug itself a deep budget hole. The choice before us 
is whether to take a necessary step to stem the tide of red ink, or 
continue to pay lip service to the problem and dig the hole deeper.
  It is disingenuous to suggest that the deficit problem began recently 
with the financial crisis and the recession. At the end of the 1990s, 
the federal government was balanced. We were actually running large 
budget surpluses and paying down the national debt. The pay-as-you-go 
rules that were in effect throughout the 1990s deserve a lot of credit. 
These rules simply said that Congress could only spend money for tax 
cuts and entitlement spending programs if they were fully paid for with 
savings elsewhere in the budget.
  In 2002, the pay-as-you-go rules expired and the Republican-led 
Congress and the Bush Administration refused to extend them. Instead, 
the Administration and Congress went on a massive spending and tax cut 
spree. We all know the result. The public debt nearly doubled under the 
previous Administration, rising from $3.4 trillion in 2001 to $6.3 
trillion on January 20, 2009.
  We need to get back to commonsense budgeting. We know these rules 
work. Others will try and change the subject and say that runaway tax 
cuts are not the problem. The House needs to reject this argument and 
restore budget discipline where it is needed most.

[[Page 18605]]


  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, federal government 
spending is out of control. Adjusted for inflation, this Majority has 
increased federal spending at a greater rate than during FDR's 
implementation of the New Deal.
  It's hard to imagine that the Majority could spend so much in such a 
short period of time. Unfortunately, there is even more spending on the 
way in the form of a trillion dollar government takeover of health 
care. So much for controlling rising health care costs.
  In fact, in recent testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, CBO 
Director Douglas Elmendorf made it clear that the federal government's 
budget is on an unsustainable path.
  That is why I rise today, in support of increased transparency and 
accountability in the budget process. Sadly, the federal budget process 
has become a complex shell game with dramatic and consequential long-
term costs.
  I believe the PAYGO legislation before the House today is a step in 
the right direction but it is only a step.
  Unfortunately, this Majority has wavered in its commitment to PAYGO 
in the past, setting aside the PAYGO rule more than a dozen times since 
taking control of the House.
  If the Majority continues to use budgeting gimmicks and adds more 
programs to the exclusion list, this legislation will not accomplish 
the goal of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to make the tough choices that will put 
this country on the path towards fiscal responsibility and 
sustainability.
  Mr. POSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of fiscal 
accountability and pay-go requirements. Unfortunately, the bill before 
us today misses the mark, will lead to higher taxes for all Americans, 
and it will allow federal spending and deficits to continue to grow 
unabated. Not only that, but this bill is totally unnecessary.
  In 2007, House Democrats enacted a pay-go requirement in the House 
Rules. Their pay-go rules have been in place for more than two and a 
half years. Yet spending has grown out of control and taxes have been 
raised.
  How could this be? Well, it's quite simple; all the majority has to 
do is include a provision that waives the House pay-go rules. It was 
done 14 times in the last Congress in order to approve $410 billion in 
increased spending. Not only that, but pay-go was used as the excuse 
for raising taxes 34 times. Somehow, pay-go has been waived time and 
again to increase spending, but when it comes to taxes it is the 
convenient excuse to raise them. Over this same period of time the 
federal deficit has increased from $162 billion to $1.7 trillion this 
year.
  If Congress is really serious about pay-go all they have to do is to 
follow the House Rules. The House Rules already say that Congress must 
pay for legislation that passes the House. If they really want to have 
pay-go all they have to do is follow the rules they have in place and 
stop waiving the rules. Passing another law will not add discipline. It 
will simply be another law that can be waived with a one line sentence 
in future legislation, or they can designate the spending as 
``emergency'' spending. That is what has been done in the past and 
there is no reason to believe it will be any different in the future.
  Washington's problem is spending, yet H.R. 2920 exempts most 
government spending from the restrictions in this bill. The bill 
exempts from the pay-go requirements more than forty percent of the 
federal budget that is subject to annual appropriations bills, allowing 
discretionary spending to increase at levels exceeding the baseline 
level needed to simply keep up with inflation. Additionally, the bill 
exempts over 200 programs from the pay-go requirements including 
hundreds of billions of dollars in entitlement programs. When you add 
all these together there is very little to which pay-go applies.
  So, what does this bill do? Not really much of anything. Already this 
year the Congress has passed a nearly $800 billion stimulus bill that 
even the Administration says is not working as expected, a $410 billion 
omnibus appropriation bill, a $350 billion TARP bailout, a $3.5 
trillion federal budget, and nine appropriations bills that far exceed 
spending levels in last year's bills. And, somehow the American people 
are supposed to believe that the same ones who brought us this 
excessive spending are now getting serious about the budget deficit.
  I am supportive of the substitute amendment that puts in place real 
spending discipline. Only with spending discipline will we lower the 
deficit. The alternative amendment sets a real cap on spending. Setting 
a spending cap is the only way to get spending under control. If H.R. 
2920 is really about controlling the deficit, why does it not include a 
spending cap, at least curbing the rate of increase in spending? The 
alternative that I am voting for takes a serious step toward curbing 
spending by capping deficit spending at not more than 3 percent of 
Gross Domestic Product (GDP)--far below the 11 percent for the current 
year. Absent a real cap spending will continue to grow unabated.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating 
legislation that will establish in law the principle that our country 
should pay for what it buys.
  I've been an advocate for Pay-as-you-go legislation, also known as 
PAYGO, since I was elected to Congress. It just makes sense--we 
shouldn't spend more money than we have.
  PAYGO has a long history of success--in the 1990s it helped generate 
record surpluses.
  However, when the Clinton administration left office, PAYGO was 
allowed to expire by the new administration. As a result, the record 
surpluses were wiped out.
  We need to restore common sense to the Federal Government. While 
PAYGO is not a cure-all for deficits, it is a crucial first step toward 
reducing them. It puts our Nation on the road back to fiscal 
responsibility and restoring our Nation's fiscal health.
  And, to make sure that future administrations can't change the PAYGO 
policy midstream, today we are enacting PAYGO into law.
  Mr. DONNELLY of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support 
of H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act. As an original cosponsor 
of the bill, I urge all of my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives to vote for this legislation which I believe is 
crucially important to restoring our nation's fiscal health and setting 
us on a path to a stronger future.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are rightly troubled by Washington's 
failure to adhere to fiscal discipline. Under the previous 
administration, surpluses inherited from the Clinton administration 
were turned into record deficits. These deficits--which are financed by 
foreign investors like China--add to a growing national debt that will 
need to be repaid by our children and grandchildren, by no fault of 
their own.
  As a member of the Blue Dogs, I believe that getting our fiscal house 
in order must be one of our Nation's top priorities. The American 
government must stop living beyond its means.
  Mr. Speaker, the old adage holds true: when you find yourself in a 
hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. If we are to 
restore fiscal responsibility in Washington, we need to ``pay as we 
go'' so that we stop adding to the national debt. Hoosier working 
families do this day in and day out. They tighten their belts, make a 
budget, and then stick to it by making tough choices.
  Since I came to Congress in 2007, we have made some important 
progress in restoring budget discipline, including the restoration of a 
Pay-As-You-Go rule in the House that requires all legislation that 
increases mandatory spending or creates new tax cuts to be offset by 
equal reductions in spending or tax increases before that bill is 
eligible for a vote.
  The legislation under consideration today goes one important step 
further than the current PAYGO rule--it would give PAYGO the force of 
law. H.R. 2920 would instate ``statutory PAYGO'' requiring that new 
spending increases or new tax cuts passed over a two-year Congress be 
paid for. Statutory PAYGO alone will not solve all of our fiscal 
problems, but it will be an important enforcement tool to help keep 
spending in check.
  Statutory PAYGO is not a new idea. It has been used before, and to 
great success. In the 1990s, President Clinton worked successfully with 
the Congress to use statutory Pay-As-You-Go to turn deficits into 
surpluses. Unfortunately, in 2002, the law was allowed to expire.
  Mr. Speaker, today we mark an important day, as the House considers 
restoring PAYGO as the law of the land. I urge my colleagues to vote 
for H.R. 2920, to support stronger controls on spending, and take one 
more step to achieving fiscal responsibility and a stronger, more 
secure future.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009, While this legislation 
is well meaning, it would remove power from Congress for spending and 
give even more authority to the Executive Branch; it would not reduce 
spending or reduce the deficit; it removes the important role of the 
House Budget Committee and House Appropriations Committee in 
determining spending for the citizens and vital needs of the United 
States. Finally, Congress now has strong provisions ensuring that the 
budget is balanced. All we need to do is our job.
  Why are we here? In 1990, Congress passed the bipartisan Budget 
Enforcement Act

[[Page 18606]]

of 1990 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. This 
law included a version of ``pay-as-you-go'' (PAYGO) requirement for new 
laws affecting mandatory spending and revenues, as well as annual 
limits on discretionary spending. This law expired in 2002. However, 
both the House and Senate have enforced PAYGO requirements through our 
own respective rules. As a member of the Appropriations Committee in 
both the U.S. House of Representatives and in the State of Michigan, I 
am used to making difficult decisions. The Appropriations Committee has 
to balance its budget and it has to pass its legislation on time in 
order for the Nation to function. Since the Democrats have been in the 
majority, earmarks--which account for 1 percent of the budget--have 
been reduced in both number and total. Discretionary spending has gone 
down. The Democratic leadership has mandated more disclosure, more 
openness and more transparency to the appropriations process.
  The bill removes power from Congress for spending and gives it to the 
Executive Branch. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 
states that ``the legislation would shift some control over the budget 
process from the Congress to the executive branch in ways that could 
effectively require lawmakers to vote on legislation without a clear 
indication of the potential impact of their decisions on the triggering 
of a future sequestration.'' Congress alone has the Constitutional 
authority to protect and spend the people's purse--not the Executive 
branch.
  The bill would not reduce spending nor reduce the deficit. If the 
PAYGO system provided for by the bill was used in place of the current 
congressional rules, CBO projects that the legislation's enactment 
could lead to larger future deficits. Compared with current PAYGO 
rules, CBO contends that the bill could lead to higher spending or 
lower revenues in future years by incorporating certain increases in 
spending and reductions in revenues into the baseline for budget 
enforcement purposes. According to CBO, the legislation could increase 
deficits through three different budgetary mechanisms--the proposed 
temporary rule to score certain changes in spending and revenues 
relative to ``current policy'' rather than current law; the bill's 
modification of the baseline's treatment of some expiring mandatory 
programs; and the bill's proposed new system for scoring legislation to 
convert discretionary programs to mandatory ones.
  The bill removes the important role of the House Budget Committee and 
House Appropriations Committee in determining spending for our 
constituents. By mandating across-the-board cuts, the bill removes the 
role of both the Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee to make 
precise, detailed revenue reductions or program changes. Mandatory 
across-the-board spending cuts and sequestration sounds good, but in 
mandating that all programs take a cut, inevitably hurts worthwhile, 
meaningful programs. This is the role of the authorizing and 
Appropriations Committees in Congress. This is the reason why members 
of Congress are elected--to make difficult, tough decisions. As a 
member of the House Appropriations Committee, this is what we do all of 
the time.
  The bill is not as strong as current PAYGO rules in Congress today. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill could 
``enhance overall budget enforcement,'' but only if combined with the 
Congress' existing PAYGO rules. If the PAYGO system provided for by the 
bill was used in place of the current congressional rules, CBO projects 
that the legislation's enactment could lead to larger future deficits. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill could 
``enhance overall budget enforcement,'' but only if combined with the 
Congress' existing PAYGO rules. If the PAYGO system provided for by the 
bill was used in place of the current congressional rules, CBO projects 
that the legislation's enactment could lead to larger future deficits.
  The bill's mandatory across-the-board spending cut mechanism that is 
supposed to deter deficits is impractical. CBO believes that, under the 
bill, the power of mandatory cuts as a deterrent would be weakened for 
two reasons. First, the PAYGO scorecard would be based on the average 
annual budgetary effects of legislation over a 10-year period rather 
than ``year-by-year effects.'' Second, the sequestration mechanism 
would expire after FY 2014. According to CBO, those two factors would 
require less budgetary discipline than a requirement to fully offset 
increases in spending on a year-by-year basis or to continue the 
sequestration enforcement mechanism indefinitely.
  Congress should not abdicate its role. We are all elected by the 
people of our congressional districts to do a tough job. Those same 
people can judge by our record how well we have served and represented 
them. I welcome the challenge that comes with balancing the budget. I 
refuse to balance the budget by further eliminating or reducing 
programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; like Food 
Stamps; or like the hundreds of other domestic programs that help 
women, children, senior citizens and families survive. Congress needs 
to retain control of the people's purse and not give the executive 
branch even more authority. We must make the difficult decisions on 
both revenue and spending cuts and increases and follow Congress' 
current, stronger PAYGO rules.
  During a time when our country and my home state of Michigan is 
witnessing record unemployment, business losses and home foreclosures, 
it is time for elected leaders to do their job--lead. This legislation, 
while well meaning, abdicates the role of Congress and does not protect 
meaningful programs for children, women and families.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2920.
  This year, the budget deficit is projected to grow nearly ten-fold 
from last year, due to several costly spending measures enacted over 
the past two years by this Congress.
  Despite this spending spree, I do believe enacting statutory PAYGO 
would be good policy. We need to set the tone for long-term fiscal 
responsibility and prevent costly tax burdens for future generations.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us is not a responsible and 
comprehensive deficit reduction approach that will yield results.
  Because H.R. 2920 includes broad exemptions for over one hundred and 
sixty programs, there will be no way to reform entitlement spending 
without enacting tax increases to make up the difference. And, there is 
no excuse for higher taxes.
  Perhaps the most glaring error with H.R. 2920 is that discretionary 
spending would not be subject to PAYGO restrictions.
  That's why I supported the substitute amendment offered by Mr. Ryan 
of Wisconsin.
  Mr. Ryan's amendment sets a cap on overall spending and appropriated 
spending in an effort to prevent our deficit from growing faster and 
larger than our economy.
  Restoring caps on discretionary spending is paramount to fiscal 
discipline. Discretionary spending represents forty percent of our 
budget and excluding it from PAYGO requirements, as the underlying bill 
does, would be fatally irresponsible.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our Nation's fiscal 
future and for the passage of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009, 
H.R. 2920.
  During my time in Congress, I have always strived to be a good 
steward of taxpayer money. In fact during a previous session of 
Congress, the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog group, 
presented me with its Fiscal Responsibility Award for my votes to 
maintain fiscal discipline, reject irresponsible tax cuts, and 
eliminate corporate welfare.
  In 2007, I was pleased that the House of Representatives restored the 
``pay-as-you-go'' principle in the House rules when Democrats regained 
control of the House in the 110th Congress. This simple rule ensures 
that every new dollar of spending is offset and will not worsen the 
deficit. The House's pay-go rule requires that legislation affecting 
direct spending or revenues must not increase the deficit (or reduce 
the surplus) over a six-year or eleven-year period. I strongly 
supported these efforts. While a PAYGO rule is a good first step, H.R. 
2920 goes further by applying automatically to legislation and provides 
an automatic enforcement mechanism to ensure Congress follows fiscal 
discipline.
  Fiscal discipline served us well in the past. In the 1990s with pay-
as-you-go as the law, we turned the massive deficits of the 1980s into 
a record surplus under President Clinton. When President Bush came into 
office in 2001, he inherited a projected ten-year, $5.6 trillion budget 
surplus. Over the first six years of the Bush administration, however, 
the President and Republican-controlled Congress turned that surplus 
into a projected ten-year, $2 trillion deficit and allowed the 
statutory PAYGO requirement to lapse in 2002. This was followed by 6 
years of unrestrained spending under President Bush and the federal 
debt held by the public doubled.
  The most instructive gauge of the federal deficit is the federal debt 
as a percentage of our total economy or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 
According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the budget 
surpluses and fiscal discipline of the 1990s reduced the debt from 49.4 
percent of GDP to 33 percent of GDP by 2001. During President Bush's 
two terms, that figure rose back to 41 percent of GDP.
  PAYGO is only one tool, but it is a strong one to return our Nation 
back to fiscal stability.

[[Page 18607]]

The PAYGO rule 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. This rule also sends a 
message to the American people that the government is committed to 
putting the country back on stable economic footing. I urge my 
colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank, you Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Chairman 
Spratt, for introducing this critical bill. As a Member of the House 
Budget Committee, I rise in support of H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act of 2009. This vote is one of the most important actions 
Congress can take towards ensuring fiscal discipline and restoring a 
balanced federal budget.
  Our nation faces great challenges in our efforts to get our economy 
back on track. As we take steps in Congress to address short-term 
economic problems, we need to do so with an eye on the long-term impact 
of our decisions. As a former business owner, I know the importance of 
keeping your books balanced and your budget in order. You can't run a 
successful business by spending more money than you have and running up 
huge deficits. Careful budgeting often means making tough choices. But 
oftentimes the tough choices are the necessary ones. I remember the 
1990s, when we turned large deficits into budget surpluses through a 
disciplined commitment to balancing the budget.
  H.R. 2920 requires Congress to pay for any new policy that reduces 
revenues or expands spending. Under this bill, if the net effect of all 
new tax and entitlement legislation enacted during a session of 
Congress resulted in an increase to the deficit, there would have to be 
a corresponding cut in Federal spending. However, this balanced 
proposal protects our most vulnerable citizens by preventing cuts in 
certain designated initiatives like Social Security, Medicaid, and 
school nutrition funding. H.R. 2920 also represents a realistic 
approach that would make an exception for emergency spending and 
several current policies including Medicare physician payments, the 
Alternative Minimum Tax, middle class tax cuts, and the current estate 
tax exemption.
  While we have heard a lot of rhetoric from our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle about fiscal responsibility, all that they 
offer is ``more of the same.'' In 2002, the Republican-controlled 
Congress allowed PAYGO rules to expire, which took us from a projected 
surplus of $5.6 trillion to projected deficits of more than $11 
trillion. Their substitute amendment would have replaced PAYGO with 
discretionary spending limits and deficit targets. Targets are not 
enough, and have failed us in the past. We need statutory and automatic 
requirements to comply with PAYGO. The Republican proposal also 
exempted tax cuts from complying with PAYGO, which is part of how we 
ended up in the current economic crisis. More of the same will not 
solve our economic problems.
  I cosponsored the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act because it is a crucial 
step towards returning to fiscal discipline, just as I have worked on 
the budget committee to pass responsible, disciplined spending plans. 
This commitment goes back to my first term in Congress, when I crossed 
party lines to support the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. We need 
discipline now in order to make sure we can afford our most important 
priorities for future generations down the road. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to commit to budget discipline 
and vote in favor of H.R. 2920.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009, which re-commits the 
Congress to the fiscal restraint and deficit reduction that produced 
budget surpluses and shared prosperity during the 1990s.
  The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, or ``PAYGO,'' requires Congress to 
offset the costs of tax cuts or increases in entitlement spending with 
savings elsewhere in the budget. This proposal is enforceable and it is 
realistic because it allows Congress to maintain a select number of 
policies without offsets such as Medicare physician payments and the 
Alternative Minimum Tax that Congress votes overwhelmingly to extend 
every year.
  H.R. 2920 is similar to the PAYGO law Democrats enacted under 
President Clinton to reverse the huge deficits created by the Reagan 
and George H.W. Bush Administrations. Unfortunately, another President 
Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress allowed these rules to expire 
in 2002 with devastating results. Reckless tax cuts for the wealthy and 
an Iraq war financed with deficit spending transformed a projected 
budget surplus of $5.6 trillion into a projected deficit of $4.5 
trillion in only a few short years. The Bush Administration's 
uncontrolled deficit spending and total failure to regulate the 
financial sector produced an economic meltdown that pushed the U.S. 
economy to the brink of collapse by early 2009.
  Thankfully, responsibility is again in fashion in Washington. 
President Obama and the Democratic Congress are focused on economic 
recovery and modernization. Statutory PAYGO is a crucial step to 
restore fiscal discipline, force difficult choices on taxes and 
spending, and begin reducing the deep deficits left by the previous 
Administration. As a member of the House Budget and Appropriations 
Committees, I know that deficit reduction will enable the Congress to 
make needed investments in priorities such as health care, education, 
and clean energy in the coming years.
  I urge my colleagues to vote with me to pass the Statutory Pay-As-
You-Go Act and make the Congress live with the same reality every 
Minnesota family faces: you cannot spend money you do not have.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 
2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009. This important 
legislation will establish mandatory ``pay-as-you-go'' budget 
discipline, rein in deficit spending, and reduce the national debt.
  This bill requires Congress to offset the cost of increases in most 
mandatory spending or tax cuts with savings elsewhere in the budget to 
avoid increasing the national budget deficit. If the net effect of 
legislation enacted during a session of Congress increases the deficit, 
there would be an across-the-board reduction in certain mandatory 
programs. This fiscally responsible legislation includes carefully 
crafted, necessary provisions allowing Congress to take emergency 
action exempt from PAYGO rules in response to extreme circumstances 
such as war, economic crises, or other emergencies.
  Establishing a pay-as-you-go law is critical to restoring fiscal 
responsibility and balanced budgets to Washington. We need targeted, 
responsible investments to get our economy back on track, but Congress 
must be required to determine how it will pay for new proposals. Pay-
as-you-go legislation will ensure that Congress determines how to pay 
for new initiatives by searching out and cutting waste throughout the 
budget.
  In the 1990s, pay-as-you-go budget discipline was enshrined in law 
and it led to record budget surpluses. After PAYGO was originally 
codified in 1990, total federal spending as a percentage of GDP 
decreased each year from 1991 through 2000. After Congress let PAYGO 
expire in 2002, projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion were transformed 
into record deficits. Passing the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009 
will require Congress to make the tough choices necessary to get 
unacceptably high budget deficits under control and avoid passing 
today's costs onto our children, grandchildren, and future generations.
  I am proud to support the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009 because 
it is grounded in fiscal discipline and responsibility. Families make 
tough budget choices to live within their means, and the government 
should be forced to do the same thing. I urge passage of the Statutory 
Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


    Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Ryan of 
                               Wisconsin

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment in the nature 
of a substitute.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part C 
     of House Report 111-217 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Budget 
     Control Act of 2009''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                 TITLE I--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS

Sec. 101. Discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 102. Adjustments to discretionary spending limits.
Sec. 103. Conforming amendments.

                    TITLE II--TOTAL SPENDING LIMITS

Sec. 201. Total spending limits.
Sec. 202. Effective date.

                       TITLE III--DEFICIT LIMITS

Sec. 301. Deficit limits.
Sec. 302. Effective date.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Spending reduction orders for total spending limits and 
              deficit limits.
Sec. 402. Enforcement procedures under the Congressional Budget Act.
Sec. 403. Definitions.
Sec. 404. Amendments to section 257 of the Balanced Budget and 
              Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

[[Page 18608]]



                 TITLE I--DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS

     SEC. 101. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       Section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking paragraphs (1) 
     through (13) and inserting the following new paragraphs:
       ``(1) For fiscal year 2010--
       ``(A) for the general purpose category, $1,048,000,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $1,302,000,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the overseas contingency operations category, 
     $130,000,000,000 in new budget authority and $67,000,000,000 
     in outlays;
       ``(2) For fiscal year 2011--
       ``(A) for the general purpose category, $1,058,000,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $1,233,000,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the overseas contingency operations category, 
     $50,000,000,000 in new budget authority and $70,000,000,000 
     in outlays;
       ``(3) For fiscal year 2012--
       ``(A) for the general purpose category, $1,069,000,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $1,171,000,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the overseas contingency operations category, 
     $50,000,000,000 in new budget authority and $54,000,000,000 
     in outlays;
       ``(4) For fiscal year 2013--
       ``(A) for the general purpose category, $1,079,000,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $1,161,000,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the overseas contingency operations category, 
     $50,000,000,000 in new budget authority and $50,000,000,000 
     in outlays;
       ``(5) For fiscal year 2014--
       ``(A) for the general purpose category, $1,094,000,000,000 
     in new budget authority and $1,161,000,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(B) for the overseas contingency operations category, 
     $50,000,000,000 in new budget authority and $50,000,000,000 
     in outlays;''.

     SEC. 102. ADJUSTMENTS TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING LIMITS.

       Section 251(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Adjustments to Discretionary Spending Limits.--
       ``(1) Concepts and definitions.--When the President submits 
     the budget under section 1105 of title 31, United States 
     Code, OMB shall calculate and the budget shall include 
     adjustments to discretionary spending limits (and those 
     limits as cumulatively adjusted) for the budget year and each 
     outyear to reflect changes in concepts and definitions. Such 
     changes shall equal the baseline levels of new budget 
     authority and outlays using up-to-date concepts and 
     definitions minus those levels using the concepts and 
     definitions in effect before such changes. Such changes may 
     only be made after consultation with the Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Budget of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate and that consultation shall include written 
     communication to such committees that affords such committees 
     the opportunity to comment before official action is taken 
     for such changes.
       ``(2) Adjustments.--
       ``(A) Emergency designation.--If appropriations for 
     discretionary accounts are enacted that the President 
     designates as emergency requirements and that the Congress so 
     designates in statute, the adjustment shall be the total of 
     such appropriations in discretionary accounts designated as 
     emergency requirements and the outlays flowing in all fiscal 
     years from such appropriations.
       ``(B) Overseas contingency operations designation.--If 
     appropriations for discretionary accounts are enacted that 
     the President designates as overseas contingency operations 
     related to the global war on terrorism that the Congress so 
     designates in statute, the adjustment shall be the total of 
     such appropriations in discretionary accounts designated as 
     overseas contingency operations and the outlays flowing in 
     all fiscal years from such appropriations.
       ``(3) Special outlay allowance.--If, in any fiscal year, 
     outlays for a category exceed the discretionary spending 
     limit for that category but new budget authority does not 
     exceed its limit for that category (after application of the 
     first step of a spending reduction described in subsection 
     (a)(2), if necessary), the adjustment in outlays for a fiscal 
     year is the amount of the excess but not to exceed 0.5 
     percent of the sum of the adjusted discretionary spending 
     limits on outlays for that fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 103. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (1) Section 275(b) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking ``2002'' 
     and inserting ``2019'' and by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
     ``2019'';
       (2) Sections 254(c)(2)(A) and (f) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 are amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2014''

                    TITLE II--TOTAL SPENDING LIMITS

     SEC. 201. TOTAL SPENDING LIMITS.

       Total Spending Limits.--After section 253 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, add the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 253A. ENFORCING TOTAL SPENDING LIMITS.

       ``(a) Projections.--
       ``(1) Long-term projections.--For each of at least 10 
     fiscal years within the guideline period:
       ``(A) OMB shall prepare a report of the projected spending 
     amount and the guideline spending amount (as defined in 
     section 250(c)) and include such report in the budget as 
     submitted by the President annually under section 1105(a) of 
     title 31, United States Code.
       ``(B) CBO shall prepare a report of the projected spending 
     amount and the guideline spending amount (as defined in 
     section 250(c)) and include such report in the CBO annual 
     baseline and reestimate of the President's budget.
       ``(2) Inclusion in spending reduction orders.--Reports 
     prepared pursuant to subsection (a) shall be included in the 
     spending reduction report set forth in subsection (b).
       ``(b) Spending Reduction Report.--Within 15 calendar days 
     after Congress adjourns to end a session and on the same day 
     as a spending reduction order (if any) under sections 251 and 
     253A, but after any spending reduction required by section 
     251, OMB shall issue a spending reduction report to reduce an 
     excess spending amount (if any).
       ``(c) Spending Reduction Order.--A spending reduction 
     ordered pursuant to subsection (b) shall be implemented using 
     the procedures set forth in section 256A.
       ``(d) Guideline Period.--The guideline period shall be as 
     follows:
       ``(1) Fiscal year 2010: 24.6 percent.
       ``(2) Fiscal year 2011: 23.2 percent.
       ``(3) Fiscal year 2012: 21.7 percent.
       ``(4) Fiscal year 2013: 21.7 percent.
       ``(5) Fiscal year 2014: 21.8 percent.
       ``(6) Fiscal year 2015: 21.8 percent.
       ``(7) Fiscal year 2016: 21.7 percent.
       ``(8) Fiscal year 2017: 21.7 percent.
       ``(9) Fiscal year 2018: 21.7 percent.
       ``(10) Fiscal year 2019: 21.7 percent.
       ``(11) Fiscal year 2020 and each subsequent fiscal year: 
     21.7 percent.''.

     SEC. 202. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall apply to fiscal year 2010 and subsequent 
     fiscal years.

                       TITLE III--DEFICIT LIMITS

     SEC. 301. DEFICIT LIMITS.

       Amend section 253 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 253. ENFORCING DEFICIT LIMITS.

       ``(a) Enforcing Deficit Limits.-- In this section, the term 
     `deficit limit' means an amount, as estimated by OMB, that 
     equals--
       ``(1) 8 percent of GDP for 2010;
       ``(2) 6 percent of GDP for 2011;
       ``(3) 4 percent of GDP for 2012;
       ``(4) 3 percent of GDP for 2013;
       ``(5) 3 percent of GDP for 2014;
       ``(6) 3 percent of GDP for 2015;
       ``(7) 3 percent of GDP for 2016;
       ``(8) 3 percent of GDP for 2017;
       ``(9) 3 percent of GDP for 2018; and
       ``(10) 3 percent of GDP for 2019.
       ``(b) Spending Reduction Report.--Within 15 calendar days 
     after Congress adjourns to end a session and on the same day 
     as a spending reduction order (if any) under sections 251 and 
     253A, but after any spending reduction required by section 
     251 and 253A, OMB shall issue a spending reduction report to 
     reduce an excess spending amount (if any).
       ``(c) Spending Reduction Order.--A spending reduction 
     ordered pursuant to subsection (b) shall be implemented using 
     the procedures set forth in section 256A.''

     SEC. 302. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This title shall apply to fiscal year 2010 and subsequent 
     fiscal years through fiscal year 2019.

                      TITLE IV--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. SPENDING REDUCTION ORDERS FOR TOTAL SPENDING LIMITS 
                   AND DEFICIT LIMITS.

       The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 is amended by adding after section 256 the following:

     ``SEC. 256A. SPENDING REDUCTION ORDERS FOR TOTAL SPENDING 
                   LIMITS AND DEFICIT LIMITS.

       ``(a) Application.--A spending reduction order issued 
     pursuant to this part shall apply to eliminate breaches of 
     the limits set forth in sections 253 (deficit limits) and 
     253A (total spending limits) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
       ``(b) Spending Reduction Orders.--
       ``(1) Eliminating a spending excess.--OMB shall include in 
     its spending reduction order a requirement that each spending 
     account shall be reduced by an amount of budget authority 
     calculated by multiplying the baseline level of budgetary 
     resources in that account at that time by the uniform 
     percentage necessary to reduce outlays sufficient to 
     eliminate an excess spending amount.
       ``(2) Exemptions.--The following shall be exempt from 
     reduction under any order issued under this part:
       ``(A) Net interest.--Payments for net interest (set forth 
     in function 900).
       ``(B) Social security.--Benefits payable under the old-age, 
     survivors, and disability insurance program established under 
     title II of the Social Security Act.
       ``(C) Veterans programs.--Benefits payable by the 
     Department of Veterans affairs and other programs providing 
     benefits to veterans.
       ``(D) Obligated balances.--Obligated balances of budget 
     authority carried over from prior fiscal years shall be 
     exempt from reduction under any order issued under this part.

[[Page 18609]]

       ``(E) Constitutional obligations.--Any obligations of the 
     Federal Government required to be paid under the U.S. 
     Constitution or contractual obligations as determined by OMB 
     shall be exempt from reduction under any order issued under 
     this part.
       ``(F) Unemployment insurance.--Benefits payable under 
     unemployment insurance payments.
       ``(G) Emergency legislation.--Provisions of spending 
     legislation the President designates as an emergency 
     requirement and the Congress so designates in statute.
       ``(H) Overseas contingency operations designation.--
     Provisions of spending legislation the President designates 
     as overseas contingency operations related to the global war 
     on terrorism and the Congress so designates in statute.
       ``(I) Discretionary spending.--Discretionary spending if 
     the discretionary spending limits set forth in section 251(c) 
     are not exceeded.
       ``(3) Application to fast growing programs.--Any program 
     whose growth in the budget year is less than the rate of 
     inflation as determined by OMB shall be exempt from a 
     spending reduction issued under this title.
       ``(4) Limitation on spending reductions.--No program shall 
     be subject to a spending reduction of more than 1 percent of 
     its budgetary resources.
       ``(5) Uniform percentage.--The percentage required to 
     produce a spending reduction, as ordered by a spending 
     reduction order, shall be calculated by OMB by adding all 
     budgetary resources of the Government, and reducing that 
     amount by an amount sufficient to reduce the total amount of 
     outlays of the Government to equal, or lower, a level of 
     outlays than the amount set forth in the guideline period.
       ``(6) Effect of a spending reduction order.--Upon the issue 
     of a spending reduction order, a spending reduction shall be 
     ordered for all nonexempt spending accounts. The spending 
     reduction shall be effective as follows:
       ``(A) Budgetary resources subject to a spending reduction 
     to any discretionary account shall be permanently cancelled.
       ``(B) The same percentage spending reduction shall apply to 
     all programs, projects, and activities within a budget 
     account (with programs, projects, and activities as 
     delineated in the appropriation Act or accompanying report 
     for the relevant fiscal year covering that account, or for 
     accounts not included in appropriation Acts, as delineated in 
     the most recently submitted President's budget).
       ``(C) Administrative regulations implementing a spending 
     reduction shall be made within 120 days of the issue of a 
     spending reduction order.
       ``(D) Budgetary resources subject to a spending reduction 
     in revolving, trust, and special fund accounts and offsetting 
     collections subject to a spending reduction in appropriation 
     accounts shall not be available for obligation during the 
     fiscal year in which the spending reduction is issued, and 
     shall be available in subsequent years only to the extent as 
     provided by law.
       ``(7) Inapplicability of sections 255 and 256.--Sections 
     255 and 256 shall not apply to spending reduction orders 
     under this section.''.

     SEC. 402. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES UNDER THE CONGRESSIONAL 
                   BUDGET ACT.

       (a) Enforcement.--Title III of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 is amended by adding after section 315 the following 
     new section:

     ``SEC. 316. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES.

       ``(a) Discretionary Spending Limits.--It shall not be in 
     order in the House of Representatives or the Senate to 
     consider any bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference 
     report that includes any provision that would cause the 
     discretionary spending limits as set forth in section 251(c) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985 to be exceeded.
       ``(b) Total Spending Limits.--It shall not be in order in 
     the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any 
     bill, joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 
     includes any provision that would cause the total spending 
     limits set forth in section 253A of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to be exceeded.
       ``(c) Deficit Limits.--It shall not be in order in the 
     House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill, 
     joint resolution, amendment, or conference report that 
     includes any provision that would cause the total deficit 
     limits set forth in section 253 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to be exceeded.
       ``(d) Waiver or Suspension.--
       ``(1) In the senate.--The provisions of this section may be 
     waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative 
     vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       ``(2) In the house.--The provisions of this section may be 
     waived or suspended in the House of Representatives only by a 
     rule or order proposing only to waive such provisions by an 
     affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members, duly chosen 
     and sworn.
       ``(e) Point of Order Protection.--In the House, it shall 
     not be in order to consider a rule or order that waives the 
     application of paragraph (2) of subsection (c).
       ``(f) Motion to Suspend.--It shall not be in order for the 
     Speaker to entertain a motion to suspend the application of 
     this section under clause 1 of rule XV.''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents set forth in 
     section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 315 the following new item:

``Sec. 316. Enforcement procedures.''.

     SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 250(c)(4) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended by striking paragraph 
     (4), redesignating the succeeding paragraphs accordingly, and 
     adding the following paragraphs:
       ``(19) The term `spending reduction' refers to the 
     cancellation of budgetary resources provided by discretionary 
     appropriations or mandatory spending.
       ``(20) The term `GDP', for any fiscal year, means the gross 
     domestic product during such fiscal year consistent with 
     Department of Commerce definitions.
       ``(21) The term `total spending' means the total aggregate 
     outlays of the Federal Government.
       ``(22) The term `guideline period' means the period of 
     fiscal years set forth in section 253A(d).
       ``(23) The term `projected spending amount' means the 
     amount of total outlays of the Federal Government for a 
     fiscal year within the guideline period.
       ``(24) The term `guideline spending amount' means the 
     amount of total outlays of the Federal Government for a 
     fiscal year as a percentage of GDP for such fiscal year 
     within the guideline period.
       ``(25) The term `excess spending amount' means the amount 
     by which a projected spending amount exceeds the guideline 
     spending amount for a fiscal year within the guideline 
     period.
       ``(26) The term `spending reduction order' means a spending 
     reduction order as defined in section 253A(c).
       ``(27) The term `advance appropriation' means 
     appropriations that first become available one fiscal year or 
     more beyond the fiscal year for which an appropriation Act 
     making such funds available is enacted.
       ``(28)(A) The term `emergency requirement' means any 
     provision that provides new budget authority and resulting 
     outlays for a situation that poses a threat to life, 
     property, or national security and is--
       ``(i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building 
     up over time;
       ``(ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring 
     immediate action;
       ``(iii) unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
       ``(iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
       ``(B) An emergency that is part of an aggregate level of 
     anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally estimated 
     in advance, is not unforeseen.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 665, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, as we mentioned earlier in the 
debate, we're offering better ideas. We think it's incumbent upon us on 
the big issues of the day, if we don't think the majority is going in 
the right direction, if we don't think they're offering the right 
ideas, it's not just enough for us to criticize and say we're against 
what they're doing. We owe it to our employers, the American people, 
our constituents, to offer an alternative. That's what we're doing 
right here today.
  And I want to first say thank you to the majority leader and to the 
chairman for making it such that we can offer this alternative. 
Normally, in the minority one would naturally expect to offer a 
substitute. Unfortunately, that is not the norm these days, and I 
appreciate the fact that the majority leader and the chairman were true 
to their word and made it so that the minority could offer a substitute 
so that we, too, can say we think we have a better way forward.
  Let me explain what our bill does, three basic components to our 
substitute bill. Caps on spending. So what we think ought to happen 
here is let's fix the problem. Let's focus on the problem. And what is 
the problem, Mr. Speaker? Spending, deficits, and debt are out of 
control.
  First off, we propose caps on discretionary spending. Yes, caps on 
discretionary spending. When this was combined with PAYGO in the 1990s, 
it worked. It helped pave the way for surpluses. It's an idea that has 
enjoyed bipartisan support, until now.
  So if you take a look at who really controls the deficits, the 
deficits under

[[Page 18610]]

our substitute or the deficits under the majority's plan, our deficits 
are far lower. Still higher than I would like, but our deficits take 
this deficit down to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product, 
which is what all economists say is a minimum. If your deficits are 
above 3 percent, then the debt spirals out of control. Unfortunately, 
under the Democrats' plan, their PAYGO bill, the deficits always stay 
above 3 percent, spiraling out of control, according to any economists 
if you ask them.
  Second, we think we ought to have caps on total spending. Let's keep 
in mind just how big the Federal Government is relative to our 
constituents and the economy's ability to pay it.
  So we propose a cap to keep the size of the Federal Government 
relative to where it has been in history, and no larger, meaning don't 
let the government grow faster than the economy. Don't let the 
government grow faster than our constituents have an ability to pay for 
it. Don't let the Federal budget grow faster than the family budget. 
And so what we also do is we have a cap on Federal spending as a 
percentage of GDP, gross domestic product.
  What we are showing here is, yes, spending not only goes down and 
then stays in control, we keep spending historically where it has been, 
slightly above 20 percent of gross domestic product.
  What does the Democratic PAYGO bill do? Nothing. It allows spending 
to grow far in excess of where it has been before, meaning what this 
Democratic PAYGO plan does is it locks in place the growth of the 
Federal Government so that it will grow faster and higher than it ever 
has in the history of this Republic.
  What does the future look like under their version of fiscal control 
versus our version of fiscal control? Here's what the Federal 
Government looks like. Under the Democratic PAYGO bill, the Federal 
Government keeps growing forever and ever and ever.
  Look at the moment in the middle of this chart. That's the moment 
when my three children who are 4, 6, and 7 years old are my age. And 
what the Democrat PAYGO bill says is the government will literally be 
twice as big as it is today for them at that time. Under our bill, we 
put the Federal Government on the pathway of sustainability.
  It's really about this. The question is: Are we going to fulfill the 
American legacy or not? Are we going to face up to the challenges 
confronting this generation so that we can make the next generation 
better off? That is, after all, the lessons we were taught as 
Americans. We own up to the challenges confronting us so that our 
children and our grandchildren can have a better tomorrow.
  Unfortunately, under the Democratic PAYGO bill, that's not the case. 
The Democratic PAYGO bill severs that tie. It breaks the American 
legacy.

                              {time}  1400

  Here's what I mean when I say that: For the last 40 years, the size 
of our government has been relatively the same in that it's been 
consistent. About 20 percent of GDP has gone to the government. About 
20 cents out of every dollar made in America has been spent by the 
Federal Government to run the Federal Government. Well, by the time my 
kids are my age, according to the current plan that we are on, 40 cents 
of every single dollar made must go to the Federal Government just to 
keep this government going for my kids at that age.
  I asked the Congressional Budget Office, what would the tax rates on 
my three children, who are 4, 6 and 7 years old, have to be when they 
are my age, in their late thirties, if they are going to have to pay 
taxes to pay for all of this government we're consigning them to? 
Here's what the Congressional Budget Office said. They said the lowest 
tax bracket, the low-income Americans that pay 10 percent bracket, must 
go up to 25 percent. They said the middle-income tax brackets that 
middle-income Americans pay will have to go to 66 percent. And they 
said the top income tax bracket in America, the one that all the small 
businesses pay, the one that all the job creators pay, would go to 88 
percent.
  If we don't fix this problem these are the tax rates that will have 
to occur for the next generation. These are the tax rates that will 
occur on the next generation if you pass the Democratic PAYGO bill. If 
you pass the Republican substitute, we are putting the kinds of tools, 
the kinds of tools in place, the kind of enforcement and discipline in 
place to make sure that doesn't happen, to make Congress face up and 
fix these problems. We have three different spending caps enforced by 
sequesterers to make sure it actually happens, belts and suspenders to 
make sure Congress actually fixes this fiscal train wreck.
  The question before us, Mr. Speaker, is: Will this generation, will 
the people right now elected by Americans face up to this reality? And 
this is the key question, Mr. Speaker. The sooner we do it, the better 
off everybody in America is. The sooner we tackle the spending that's 
out of control, the sooner we take ourselves off the reliance of debt 
purchases by China, India, Japan and everybody else, the sooner 
Americans can be in control of their own destiny and their own economy. 
The sooner we reform government and the entitlement programs that are 
presenting us with this $62 trillion unfunded liability, the more 
likely we can prevent those people in and near these programs, 
depending and counting on these programs, will not have severe 
disruption in their lives.
  The more likely the kinds of changes that must happen can be phased 
in gradually. But every year we delay, every year we punt, every year 
we pass bills like this Democratic PAYGO bill, the more likely people 
will see severe disruption in their lives, the more likely you will 
have crushing tax increases, massive borrowing, unsustainable deficits, 
the more likely we will not be able to sell our bonds, the more likely 
our interest rates will go up, the more likely our tax rates will go 
up, the more likely we lose jobs and competitiveness.
  Every year we delay fixing just the entitlement problem, we add about 
$4 trillion of debt to our children and grandchildren. So we are 
saying, let's fix what's broken; and what is broken is spending. What 
is broken is that spending is out of control. Both parties contribute 
to that. Let's face up to that. Both parties should come together to 
fix it, and that's what we are proposing to do.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, so that everyone will understand, what the gentleman is 
proposing is that we rewrite the budget resolution, which we wrote and 
passed in both the House and Senate months ago, to go back to square 
one and basically begin all over again because we will have to change 
302(a) and all the work we've done to get the appropriation bills 
passed by the end of July. We would have to go back and take at least 
$48 billion out of all those bills to comply with the numbers that Mr. 
Ryan proposes in his alternative budget resolution today.
  I will have to say that when I told Mr. Ryan we were not going to 
have a hearing, that we were not going to have a markup, we were going 
to bring this matter straight to the floor, I also told him out of a 
sense of fairness that he could have a substitute, that I would support 
a substitute. He deserves one. I had no idea that he would offer a 
brand-new budget resolution as a substitute. I thought it would be a 
substitute, maybe a cap on discretionary spending. So this came as a 
surprise. There is a cap on discretionary spending here; but as I read 
it, there is no cap, there is no PAYGO provision. He has left it out of 
there completely. That's the way we read over here. I can't find 
anything in there.
  In addition, I thought ours was pretty dense; and then I read some of 
your draftsmanship, if I can share with everyone. Try this on: The 
percentage required to produce a spending reduction, as ordered by a 
spending reduction order, shall be calculated by OMB by

[[Page 18611]]

adding all budgetary resources of the government, and reducing that 
amount by an amount sufficient to reduce the total amount of outlays of 
the government to equal, or lower, a level of outlays than the amount 
set forth in the guideline period.
  If we are dense, this is turgid, I am telling you. I'm not quite sure 
what this says, except that it does propose a new budget resolution. It 
would become a statutory budget resolution if we passed it as part of 
this particular bill because this is----
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would the chairman yield just for a quick 
clarification?
  Mr. SPRATT. I will.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will just be quick and brief. Three caps: 
The discretionary cap is set at inflation; the percent of GDP cap 
brings us back to trend historical growth and the size of our 
government; and the deficit targets bring our deficits down to being no 
higher than 3 percent of GDP, and that is the result of what you are 
reading.
  Mr. SPRATT. It is similar to the PAYGO rule here.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That's correct. We think this is better than 
PAYGO. We think instead of having a PAYGO system in place, which puts 
the bias in favor of raising taxes, we ought to have the bias in favor 
of controlling and cutting spending. That is just the difference we 
have between the two of us.
  Mr. SPRATT. You set levels for all of those things and then also 
provide--I believe if they turn out to be wrong, if we had a downturn 
in the economy and wanted to change those numbers, you would have to 
have a two-thirds vote in each House in order to do that.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. That's correct.
  Mr. SPRATT. That loads some cumbersome conditions on the House or the 
Senate if we find ourselves faced with economic reversal.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will continue to yield, we 
believe we need to have a tough enforcement regime so that a simple 
majority cannot waive these kinds of spending caps.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 22 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 27 minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 1 minute just 
to continue this dialogue.
  The reason we have a super-majority vote in Congress to break these 
caps is because we want to make it very difficult--you can never fully 
tie the hands of a future Congress. We want to make it very difficult 
for Congress to avoid this budget discipline. We want to make sure that 
we put a system in place with binding caps that are tough to 
circumvent, that are backed up with sequesters so that, you know what, 
Congress actually makes the tough choices; Congress actually 
prioritizes spending and that we live within our means and that we have 
a process in place that forces us to focus on the problem.
  The problem is, spending is out of control; deficits are out of 
control; borrowing is out of control. We do not want a process, which 
we believe your PAYGO system does, to simply always go to raising 
taxes. The American people are taxed too much. The American people are 
paying more taxes than they have in the history of this country. We 
don't need to raise their taxes any more. We will sacrifice our 
economic livelihood. We will make ourselves less competitive to foreign 
countries if we keep raising taxes. Spending is a problem. That's why 
our substitute focuses on spending.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. Americans know 
they should save for their retirement, but it's tough because you've 
got to put money away now for later, and there are things to spend it 
on now. You know, there is a nice dinner to go to; there is a vacation 
to take, maybe a TV or a car to buy or something like that. So what do 
we do? I do it. Probably many people listening to this do it. Your 
employer takes it out of your paycheck so that you kind of never see 
it, and it goes straight to your retirement so you can save it so that 
you know it will be there when you need it.
  What that is is an external discipline, making us do the thing we 
know is right for us to do but that, as human beings, we have a hard 
time doing ourselves without that external discipline.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is that external discipline. Because Members 
of Congress are no different than anybody else. When we have money, we 
spend it. When Republicans were in charge, we spent too much money. We 
overspent by hundreds of billions of dollars. Now the Democrats are in 
charge. They're overspending by trillions of dollars. But whether it's 
hundreds of billions or trillions, whichever majority has been in this 
Congress, we have spent more than we have taken in. I can't remember 
the exact figure; but I think that for 43 out of the last 45 years this 
Congress has spent more money than revenue that has come in and has run 
a deficit, regardless of who was in the White House or who was in 
charge. We can't do that.
  What this bill says is you can't increase spending faster than 
people's incomes. It's that simple. Because if you do, if the Federal 
Government spends more money, increases spending by more than people's 
incomes have increased, there's only two ways to do it, borrow it or 
increase taxes. And if we continue to do it, we continue to borrow and 
we continue to increase taxes until we will have no economy and no 
growth left. Mr. Speaker, that's where we are right now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, that is where we are right now. We don't 
have to wait 10 years, 15 years or 20 years. We are in that position 
right now. The American people are taxed too much, and we are borrowing 
way, way too much. This bill, this discipline, this Republican 
substitute will bring that to an end; and I urge us all to support it.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Schrader).
  Mr. SCHRADER. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud original cosponsor of this 
statutory PAYGO legislation. The passage of statutory PAYGO will show 
our commitment to fiscal responsibility once again. I am a little 
surprised that my Republican colleagues are not interested in renewing 
this bipartisan work and to help stop the bleeding that's occurring in 
our great Nation. Respectfully, I think we've lost our way a bit there.
  In January 2001, the United States had a projected 10-year budget 
surplus of $5.6 trillion. Eight years later the 111th Congress opened 
to face a national debt in excess of $10 trillion and a single-year 
budget deficit we inherited of $1.5 trillion. What has changed? Lack of 
bipartisanship. During the 1990s a Democratic President and Republican-
controlled Congress worked together to balance the budget, to produce 
record deficit-reducing surpluses by the end of the Clinton 
administration. However, in 2002 the Bush administration chose to allow 
PAYGO to lapse and moved away from that bipartisan fiscal discipline. 
It's important for PAYGO to be enacted to make sure that we live up to 
our fiscal responsibilities.
  Unlike the mere rules that we currently have, the statutory PAYGO 
bill now before the House does not expire, cannot lapse, and is not 
easily waived. I am very concerned about the alternative offered here 
by the good gentleman from Wisconsin because it moves away from the 
pay-as-you-go principles. Indeed, it gets rid of PAYGO all together, as 
the Chair pointed out; and frankly, it's an abrogation of our 
legislative responsibilities to make the tough decisions.
  The alternative does establish the bipartisan PAYGO measures that 
gave us great results not too many years ago. The arbitrary deficits 
limits are a return to the failed policies of the past,

[[Page 18612]]

the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings bill that led to the PAYGO legislation in the 
first place. And frankly, with the nonspecific and arbitrary spending 
limits, it leads to probably the Republican budget's version of what we 
should do to reduce spending; and that means cuts to education, health 
care and public safety. Frankly, it virtually eliminates all 
opportunity to do the health care reform, declare our energy 
independence and build on a 21st century education system that we so 
greatly campaigned on and fought here to do in the United States 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, as a small business owner and father of five, I know how 
important it is to live within your means. As Oregon's chief budget 
writer, I worked hard to make sure my State spent only what it paid 
for. The American people expect the same responsibility from their 
Federal Government. While American families are tightening their belts, 
the message sends a strong signal that Congress plans to do the same. 
However, as the ranking member asserts, statutory PAYGO is not a 
panacea by itself for our fiscal health. Our choices remain. As our 
economy recovers, we must cut spending, return to budget surpluses and 
pay down the national debt.
  I support statutory PAYGO as a critical first step towards fiscal 
responsibility, and I invite my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans 
alike, to support statutory PAYGO.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Baron Hill.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HILL. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding me 
this time on PAYGO.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a proud day, especially for people like me, who 
is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and who has this issue of PAYGO 
as a signature issue. After literally years of working towards 
compromise, we finally have this day before us. We are actually going 
to be voting on statutory PAYGO.
  There are a lot of people to thank. One person I would particularly 
like to thank is former Congressman Charlie Stenholm. I hope he is 
listening today. Charlie was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition when he 
was a Member of this body, and he worked tirelessly day in and day out 
to make sure that this day would finally arrive.
  Charlie, if you're listening out there, I'm sure that you have a big 
smile on your face right now.
  I want to thank the Speaker, the majority leader and the entire 
leadership in the Democratic Party for embracing the concept of PAYGO 
as well, and I would like to thank the President of the United States, 
who has also embraced the concept of PAYGO.
  Now, PAYGO, as has already been mentioned, is not a panacea. It is 
not a complete solution, but it worked one time. What we're voting on 
today was in place during the 1990s, and we will recall that it was 
those PAYGO rules that were in place that finally got us to a point 
where we actually had surpluses for the first time in over 40 years. So 
it works. It has a history of working.
  To the detractors who say that this is not the solution, it was a 
solution back in the 1990s, and it has a history of working. If it 
worked then, it can work now. When we had it back in the 1990s, we also 
had discretionary spending caps, so PAYGO is just a start. We must 
finish the job.
  I have a granddaughter who is a little over 30 days old, and I don't 
want to be passing on this debt that we've accumulated here recently 
and in the last 10 years to her.
  When this decade began, we had a sour economy, and we've had to do 
some unusual things in order to try to revive this economy. It has 
caused spending to go up, but I, along with the President and Members 
of Congress, now feel like this is the first step toward getting us 
back on track and making sure that we get this spending under control.
  I have heard from the other side. They have a different idea of what 
PAYGO should look like, but as I said before, this PAYGO that we have 
now was in place in the 1990s, and it worked. It provided surpluses for 
us, and it will work in this century as well.
  So I applaud the authors of the bill. I applaud the people who have 
introduced this today. It is a happy day. Let's pass PAYGO, and let's 
get on with the task of making sure that we get spending under control.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. May I inquire as to how much time remains 
between the two sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 17\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina has 21 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the Speaker of 
the House, the gentlewoman from California, Madam Speaker (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for his masterful leadership of the Budget Committee. He is, 
indeed, a great American. He put forth earlier this year a budget which 
is a statement of our national values, about what is important to the 
American people as being manifested in our priorities in that budget. 
It's a budget that is designed to reduce the deficit, to create jobs, 
to give tax cuts to the middle class, and to have as three of its 
pillars to turn the economy around: education, health care and energy. 
And today, as part of that framework of fiscal responsibility under his 
leadership, this legislation is coming to the floor.
  I would also like to acknowledge our distinguished majority leader, 
Mr. Hoyer, for being relentless in his pursuit of this legislation. He 
has long supported it, and I don't think we would be here today without 
his determination. We just heard from Mr. Baron Hill, an author of the 
legislation, a leader of the Blue Dog Coalition in the House.
  The Blue Dog Coalition came together with the organizing principle of 
fiscal responsibility. We all owe them a debt of gratitude because it 
has become the mantra of the Congress: we will not increase the 
deficit.
  Mr. Hill spoke as a policymaker and as a new grandfather, and that is 
a very important perspective, a new grandfather. As a grandmother of 
many grandchildren for a long period of time, I know that we have a 
moral responsibility not to heap mountains of debt onto our 
grandchildren; and, today, we will be able to put this into place as a 
statute, not just as a rule of the House, which we did when we took 
control of the House as Democrats, but now as a statute.
  I want to pay, also, homage to Mr. George Miller, a Progressive 
Democrat, a leader in the Congress for many years. Long before I came 
to Congress, I was reading about Mr. Miller introducing PAYGO 
legislation in the Congress. Now I'm talking about 30 years ago.
  And I do remember going in 1982, not as a Member of Congress, to the 
Democratic Convention in Philadelphia. This was a midterm conference in 
between nominating conventions for President; and Mr. Miller at that 
1982 convention introduced as a resolution a PAYGO resolution, which 
succeeded at that convention. It became part of the Democratic 
platform, and then again, as I say, he introduced that legislation into 
the Congress. It wasn't until a number of years later that it was 
implemented.
  During the Clinton years, that PAYGO formula was what took us out of 
the debts of the Reagan-Bush years and into a trajectory of surplus 
into the future. The last four Clinton budgets were in surplus. Now 
we're back in deficit from the excesses of the reckless economic 
policies of the Bush years. We must dig our way out again; we must 
sweep up behind, and this is a way. Statutory PAYGO legislation is a 
way to get that done.
  I reiterate: when the Democrats took control of the Congress, we made 
it a rule of the House that we had to abide by pay-as-you-go. Now we 
have a President of the United States committed to signing this 
legislation, and we are able to pass it, not as a rule of the

[[Page 18613]]

House but as a statute, as a law of the land.
  I thank Mr. Hill, Mr. Baron Hill; Mr. George Miller; Steny Hoyer; and 
you, Mr. Chairman, for making all of this possible.
  It's a very important day for our country because it is a day when 
the Congress of the United States says to the American people: we will 
be accountable. We have said it. We have done it, and now we will make 
it a statute of the law of the land.
  So, again, I urge our colleagues. I hope we have a good, strong vote 
across the political spectrum, in the Democratic Party from right to 
left and, hopefully, across the aisle, so that we can have all of those 
who claim to support fiscal responsibility placing their vote behind 
this important legislation.
  If the idea is that you want to persuade the Nation that cutting 
taxes is a way to grow our economy, those tax cuts must be paid for. If 
we want to say that we want to increase entitlement spending, we must 
pay for that, and if we do not, there are consequences. There are 
consequences, and that is what is important about this legislation. We 
either pay as we go or, as we say, go into sequestration, have across-
the-board cuts, a draconian measure that must be avoided, and here is 
the way to do it.
  So I urge all of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
support statutory PAYGO and as a tribute to those who fought the fight 
for so many years and as an obligation to our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak in support of the Ryan 
substitute and against the underlying bill, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2009. The actual name of the underlying bill should be ``how to 
give cover for spending like a teenager with an unlimited credit 
card.''
  Now, Congress receives a lot of criticism for not reading the bills 
before we vote on them. This isn't a very heavy list. This bill is 23 
pages. You can print it off and have a read through it. In fact, the 
first two pages are just a list of cosponsors and the table of 
contents. Then, in the underlying bill, you've got about eight pages of 
actual regulation. Then the last half of the bill, over 10 pages, are 
exceptions to this statutory law that the Speaker just described to 
us--yes, a statutory law.
  In the statutory law are statutory exceptions. The long list of 
exceptions in the underlying bill gives the Democrats a talking point 
of saying they're going to address the wild spending of Congress 
without actually having to make any choices, not just the hard choices. 
They don't have to make any choices at all.
  Now, some of the exceptions are necessary. Some of them are 
acceptable. We should be concerned about our veterans; we should be 
concerned about our seniors; we should be concerned about our children. 
There are exceptions to PAYGO to ensure that our veterans get the 
health care they need, that the seniors get the long-term care they 
have earned, that our children are healthy and educated and are not 
going hungry should be protected and should not be subject to politics.
  For those Members who grew tired of reading the bill, on the last 
page of those exceptions, the second to the last third of the sentence 
are exceptions to PAYGO for TARP. Now, we all remember TARP. It failed 
last September, and it passed last October under a Democratic Congress, 
I might add.
  We're going to validate that vote for TARP today by now elevating 
TARP to the same level of protection as Medicare, Medicaid, Social 
Security, veterans, and child hunger.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. BURGESS. Yesterday, Neil Barofsky, the Special Inspector General 
of TARP, testified before a committee that TARP could ultimately cost 
the American taxpayer $23 trillion. Most of us can't even begin to 
fathom that number. TARP was authorized by Congress for $700 billion. 
As of yesterday, the cost to the American taxpayer from TARP was $2 
trillion, $2 trillion that we don't have and which we borrowed from 
China and from foreign countries that don't have America's best 
interests at heart. We gave it to banks that have recently recorded 
record profits. Goldman Sachs is going to take out $2 billion in 
bonuses this quarter after taking nearly $10 billion of the TARP money. 
Mr. Speaker, they don't need to be protected in this PAYGO statute.
  In the past few weeks, I've been involved in the greatest debate of 
my elected career. I've been working on a commonsense approach to 
health care to lower costs and to reform medical liability laws in this 
country. We've spent exactly 1\1/2\ days marking that bill up in my 
committee. The health care bill has been scored to cost $2.3 trillion, 
and that's about what we've given TARP, $2 trillion.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to associate myself with the 
comments of Speaker Pelosi, who spoke just a few moments ago in strong 
support of this pay-as-you-go legislation.
  I do rise in opposition to the Republican substitute that's offered 
by my colleague, Mr. Ryan, which I see completely abolishes the pay-as-
you-go rules contained in the base bill, and it replaces them with 
unrealistic and infeasible restrictions that do nothing to address the 
long-term budgetary challenges that we face.
  The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, offered by Majority Leader Hoyer, 
will restore fiscal discipline through the most basic principle of 
responsible accounting. Every dollar spent must be offset by a dollar 
earned or saved. This is the way that American families balance their 
checkbooks, and it's the way that we should balance the Federal budget.
  Statutory pay-as-you-go governed our budgetary policies in the 1990s. 
As we saw, it helped turn deficits into record surpluses. 
Unfortunately, when the Republican majority allowed the law to expire 
in 2002, our fiscal accountability went with it.
  Well, today, we have a chance to turn that around. We saw what 
happened when we had these kinds of fiscal disciplines in place. The 
country was on much more sound fiscal footing. This bill is not a 
panacea, of course, for our budgetary challenges. The fiscal health of 
our Nation will ultimately depend on a thriving economy. However, this 
is an important step to restoring budgetary discipline, to forcing 
tough choices on taxes, on spending, and on bringing down the deep 
deficits that we face.
  We have a moral obligation to pass this legislation, and instill the 
kind of fiscal discipline that we need to see, not only for now but for 
the future. We have an obligation to do this, not only for our children 
today but for the children of tomorrow. Without reducing the deficit, 
we cannot invest in vital priorities like health care, education and 
clean energy, which are critical to our economic future. Mr. Speaker, 
it's time to get our fiscal house in order.
  I would like to thank Leader Hoyer, Chairman Spratt, and my 
colleagues on the Budget Committee for their exceptionally hard work on 
this legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Ryan substitute and to support the 
passage of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act in its current form. It's 
the right thing to do, and its time has come.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding to me.
  As a member of the Budget Committee, I know that PAYGO is critical to 
putting us back on the path to fiscal responsibility.

[[Page 18614]]

  I cosponsored the President's PAYGO bill in June and am happy to say 
that the bill before us today is even stronger. Instead of sunsetting 
in 5 years, our bill is permanent. It closes certain loopholes making 
it harder to use budget gimmicks to hide true costs. It also 
prioritizes tax relief for the middle class.
  Unfortunately, instead of attempting to further strengthen the bill, 
the Republican substitute would gut it.
  While the underlying PAYGO bill addresses both sides of the equation, 
spending and taxes, the Republican substitute takes a dangerously 
lopsided approach focusing only on one part of the problem. While our 
bill makes a permanent change for fiscal responsibility, the public 
substitute makes a temporary show of responsibility without limiting 
Congress' ability to pass reckless tax cuts in the future.
  With the recent economic downturn, cities in my district have been 
devastated by high unemployment. The communities of Lowell and Methuen 
have unemployment in the double digits, while in Lawrence, the 
unemployment is over 17 percent, almost twice the national average.
  Yet in the middle of a deep and painful recession in which families 
are struggling to make ends meet and many are dependent on the social 
safety network to survive, the Republican substitute employs a freeze 
guaranteed to stall the economic recovery in its tracks. But the 
Republican substitute does more than undermine our economic security, 
it threatens our national security as well.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have strong concerns 
that the Republican substitute, if enacted, would create large gaps in 
our defense budget at a crucial time when we face numerous threats to 
our security from around the world. Some critics have argued that PAYGO 
doesn't go far enough, and they're right. It does not. PAYGO alone 
won't balance the budget and restore responsible government, but it is 
a critical first step towards fiscal responsibility.
  Gutting PAYGO and replacing it with a short-term, one-sided approach 
offered by the Republican substitute is a step backwards. During one of 
the worst economic crises in our Nation's history, we must take the 
needed steps to put our financial house in order.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Ryan substitute.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
yield 3 minutes to the House Republican Conference chairman, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. I'm sorry I missed Speaker Pelosi's remarks on this PAYGO 
debate, but I do have a copy of what she said in January of 2007. She 
said, ``After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit 
itself to a higher standard: pay-as-you-go, no new deficit spending. 
Our new America,'' da-da-da-da-da. I quote with great respect.
  Under the Democrat majority, we have seen a Congress that has 
presided over the most unprecedented spending spree in American 
history. Since Democrats took over, the Nation's deficit has exploded 
by a factor of 10: $162 billion in fiscal year 2007, we're at a 
trillion now, and we're headed for $1.8 trillion in fiscal year 2009. 
Public debt has doubled from $4.8 trillion in 2006. The national debt 
is set to triple by 2019 under the Democrats' budget, including PAYGO, 
I understand.
  You know, I heard the President had to move his press conference from 
9 o'clock to 8 o'clock tonight because the popular television show 
America's Got Talent is on at 9, so the President is going to have his 
press conference tonight at 8. So the TV lineup tonight should be 
America's Got Talent at 9, and America's Going Broke at 8. And there is 
nothing in this PAYGO rule that's going to do anything about it.
  The truth is, under this PAYGO deal, discretionary spending, which 
amounts for 40 percent of all of the spending, is being increased at 8 
percent in this year. It's completely excluded from this. Emergency 
legislation, mandatory spending is not subjected. Hundreds of mandatory 
programs are not subjected.
  We're hearing a lot about fiscal discipline, putting our fiscal house 
in order. When Democrats say PAYGO, they mean you pay and they go on 
spending. Well, as usual, Republicans have a better plan to restore 
fiscal sanity to Washington, D.C., thanks to the great leadership of 
Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
  The Republican substitute will focus on spending. The fundamental 
problem of the government's fiscal policy is spending and deficit. It 
targets problem areas by sequestering certain discretionary spending 
that grows faster than inflation, protects retirees, troops and 
veterans, no automatic tax increases. It actually reduces the deficit, 
takes a very straightforward approach, and I commend my colleague for 
bringing it forward.
  I urge my colleagues to get real. No more slogans. No more 
prepackaged bumper sticker talk about fiscal discipline and reform. The 
American people want us to come together in real and meaningful and 
bipartisan ways to get spending under control here in Washington, D.C., 
and the Ryan substitute is a powerful and important step in that 
direction, and I urge its support.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Budget Committee, I rise in 
proud support of the statutory pay-as-you-go rule. It is time to get 
real, as my colleague before me just stated, and it's time to get real 
with the realities we face today. We can argue all day long and point 
accusatory fingers back and forth about who caused what, but the fact 
remains that we face a huge American challenge that's going to require 
a unique American solution to pull ourselves out of the fiscal hole 
that we find ourselves in today.
  This legislation that we have before us today has history on our 
side. When we had pay-as-you-go budgeting rules in effect in the 1990s, 
it helped instill fiscal discipline. And then with the help of the 
American people by growing the economy, it led to 4 years of budget 
surpluses. We were actually paying down the national debt. We were 
having a conversation about a lockbox for Social Security trust funds. 
And then for whatever reason, in 2001 it expired, and the discussion 
then was whether to reinstitute it--and the fear at that time was that 
we may end up paying down our national debt too fast, which would be 
destabilizing. Oh, how I would love to see a return of those days. But 
instead, it led to a fiscal course of action that doubled the national 
debt in 8 short years.
  Now, this legislation isn't going to be the cure-all. We have a lot 
of serious work to do. We have an opportunity before us today to reform 
the health care system, to deliver system reform that will rein in 
rising costs, which, if it goes unchecked, will bankrupt everyone from 
families to businesses to public budgets. The fastest growing area of 
Federal spending today, rising health care costs. We have work to do to 
make that change.
  I also still believe in the merits of an outside independent 
commission on entitlement reform that would report back with 
recommended changes so we can address the rising costs of entitlement.
  But today let's go back to what works to address the fiscal crisis 
that we face. The 1990s shows us the way to do that, with 4 years of 
surpluses where we were able to turn the corner and provide a more 
stable financial system for our country. That was squandered over the 
last 8 years, unfortunately.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to reject the proposed amendment, 
to support the underlying bill, and let's get to work making some tough 
but necessary decisions for future generations so we don't end up 
leaving a legacy of debt for my two little boys or to future 
generations.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 3 minutes to 
the vice ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Hensarling of 
Texas.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page 18615]]

  Mr. Speaker, we were certainly honored earlier when the Speaker of 
the House came to speak on this legislation. I tried to listen to her 
very carefully. I think I heard, ``We will not increase the deficit is 
now the congressional mantra.''
  That's interesting. I really haven't studied mantras in the past, but 
what I do note is that since the Democratic majority has been the 
majority in this institution, the Federal deficit has gone from $161 
billion to over $1 trillion for the first time in our Nation's history, 
on the way, according to the Congressional Budget Office, to a $1.8 
trillion deficit, a tenfold increase in just 2 years. So I would say, 
with all due respect to the Speaker of the House, apparently the mantra 
is not working very well.
  I also believe I heard the Speaker of the House say, ``We have a 
moral responsibility not to heap deficits on our children.'' Well, I 
take that very seriously. As a father of a 7-year-old girl and a 5-
year-old boy, I think every single day about the deficits that are 
being heaped on our children and grandchildren.
  So I guess I would ask the Speaker of the House, who is no longer 
present on the floor, if we have a moral responsibility not to do it, 
why did you do it? Why have you increased the deficit tenfold? Why is 
it that you brought a budget to the floor and passed it with the 
Democratic majority that will triple the national debt in the next 10 
years and create more debt in the next 10 years than the previous 220? 
I would say, Madam Speaker, why did you do it?
  Now, I know she also spoke with great pride of reinstituting the 
PAYGO rule when the Democrats became the majority. Well, it sounds 
nice. Again, it makes for a very good bumper sticker slogan, but, Mr. 
Speaker, facts are kind of pesky things. So when we look at when the 
Democrats came into Congress and reinstituted the PAYGO rule, all we 
see is a sea of red ink for as far as the eye can see. Deficit upon 
deficit upon deficit. Trillions of dollars of deficits. It's not 
exactly a plan, Mr. Speaker, I would take great pride in.
  I must observe that the only thing that exceeds the Federal deficit 
is the credibility deficit that Democrats have on the issue of fiscal 
responsibility.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. I follow a member of the Republican Party who just said 
that the Democrats have a credibility problem on budget. I would remind 
the gentleman that it was indeed under Republican control of this 
Chamber and the Senate Chamber and the executive branch that pay-as-
you-go discipline on budget deficits was ended. Why did they end? 
Because they had no intention of living within their means. Don't take 
my word for it. Look at the record.
  The national debt tripled. Percentage of the national debt we had to 
borrow from other countries tripled. I earlier meant national debt 
doubled. Percentage financed by other countries tripled. That's the 
record of the minority party. In fact, I believe it's that record that 
got them from the majority to the minority.
  You might think that given the economic crisis that their very fiscal 
policies brought about, we would have an opportunity today to work 
together in a bipartisan fashion to put in place this foundation of 
fiscal stability, pay-as-you-go. It has happened before.
  In 1991, President George H.W. Bush convened a budget summit, he was 
so alarmed at budget deficits, Deficits much smaller than what 
President Obama inherited from his predecessor. They agreed that across 
the party aisle to install pay-as-you-go.
  In 1993, I was a Member of this body when we passed it on a party-
line vote. But in 1997, that pay-as-you-go budget discipline was 
enshrined in a bipartisan budget agreement and continued for another 5 
years.
  It's time for us to work together. It's time for us to rein in these 
out-of-control deficits.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, our distinguished Speaker of the House came to the floor 
1 minute ago and gave a nice speech and said with passage of this PAYGO 
bill, the deficit won't go up any more. Wow. Let me just simply say 
that is not true. Here is what the deficit path is by the Democratic 
budget that passed earlier. It is up to $1.8 trillion now, and that 
admittedly is for some unforeseen circumstances, the TARP and the 
financial crisis and other things. It goes back down, and then just 
like a rubber band, it springs right back up. And under the deficit 
path that the majority passed with their own budget resolution, the 
deficit goes right back up to over $1 trillion, a huge, huge increase 
in the deficit, to the point where the deficit stays above 3 percent of 
our economy the entire time, above $600 billion.
  Unsustainable deficits, unsustainable borrowing. Here is the problem, 
Mr. Speaker. One of these days, we are not going to be able to keep 
borrowing all this money. One of these days, our bond financiers, 48 
percent of whom, these days, are foreign governments, China, Japan and 
India, one of these days they are not going to keep lending us all this 
money because we are not getting our fiscal house in order. We already 
have a $62 trillion unfunded liability. That means we are making 
promises to spend $62 trillion for people in this country today that we 
don't have.
  And so when people lend us money--this year, we are borrowing half of 
our budget. Borrowing. I went to the Bureau of Public Debt last week, 
and I watched a bond auction. I watched the Treasury Department borrow 
$40 billion in about 4 minutes. We had very talented people sitting 
around a room of flat-screened TVs and laptop computers sipping coffee 
as if it were just another day at the office. Forty billion dollars, 
forty minutes.
  We are doing something like this every day these days. Two trillion 
dollars of our $4 trillion budget, effectively, is being borrowed just 
this year. There is going to come a moment when they are not going to 
keep lending us all this money. There is going to come a moment when we 
may not be able to have an auction succeed. There is going to come a 
moment when we are going to have to pay these people, these 
governments, a lot more money to lend us their money. That moment is a 
fiscal day of reckoning for America. That moment is a moment when our 
interest rates go up. That moment will happen faster, sooner, rather 
than later, if we don't fix these problems.
  What is the problem? Spending is the problem. Spending in excess of 
what we tax is what creates deficits. It is what is creating this 
unprecedented level of debt. And so what does this PAYGO bill do? It 
just says raise taxes, effectively, if we want to build more programs, 
if we want to spend more money. What are we proposing? Let's cut 
spending. Let's control spending. Let's cap spending. Let's make the 
American Federal budget work like a family budget so that we actually 
control and cap how much money we spend. I know around here that sounds 
like a novel idea, but it isn't. Every American family inevitably must 
do this.
  If you live beyond your means, sooner or later you are going to have 
to make up for that fact. The question is whether this Congress will do 
that so that the next generation doesn't get hit with this tab, so that 
the next generation doesn't have this inferior standard of living that 
we know quantifiably, irrefutably and demonstrably we are consigning to 
the next generation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself 1 additional minute only to 
say, Mr. Speaker, we have real solutions here that have real spending 
control so we get to real deficit reduction, so we really get on to the 
process of paying off our debt by reforming how much money we spend.
  That is not what the Democrats are doing. They are passing a fiscal 
facade so that they can do so with the right hand while in the left 
hand they pass more spending out the door. A trillion-dollar cap-and-
trade bill a couple of

[[Page 18616]]

weeks ago, a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill, a trillion-
dollar stimulus package, next week a $1 trillion new health care 
entitlement, which even the Congressional Budget Office is telling us 
is going to grow at unsustainable rates, faster than even Medicare and 
Medicaid.
  Let's stop this fiscal insanity. Let's pass real spending control. 
Let's pass the Republican substitute that actually controls and caps 
spending.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
  Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, as I listened to this debate, two words echo 
in my mind, and those words are ``history'' and ``chutzpah.'' Let's 
talk history for a moment in this historic Chamber. As I listened to 
the minority talk about cutting spending and it being a novel idea, 
darn right it's a novel idea--because they've never done it. In the 
last 10 years when they controlled the White House and they controlled 
this Chamber, they did three big things. They put in place one of the 
largest entitlement programs ever with the pharmaceutical benefit in 
Medicare, they fought two wars at the cost of hundreds of billions of 
dollars, and they cut taxes on the very wealthiest people in this 
country.
  Two massive increases in spending and a severe reduction in revenue. 
Guess what? Structural deficits. Facts are stubborn things. The fact is 
the minority took a $5.6 trillion surplus, and while they controlled 
this Chamber, they turned it into a $1.3 trillion deficit. And now they 
have the chutzpah to look to this side of the room and to criticize our 
efforts to bring that under control.
  The PAYGO legislation we're talking about today is a restoration. It 
is a restoration of the discipline that prevailed when Bill Clinton was 
in the White House, and we had real statutory PAYGO and we created 
those surpluses. And we're trying again. Is it perfect? No, it's not 
perfect. Does it have some exceptions I would rather not see as 
exceptions? Yes, it does. But it is a very, very constructive step in 
the right direction. And it will take us back to where we were in the 
1990s when we actually got the budget deficit under control. It's a 
step in the right direction.
  The amendment that they are proposing that we support is not a 
serious effort. It would impact severely our armed services and many of 
the people who rely on this government for their education, for their 
housing and for all the things that, as a decent society, we feel the 
obligation to provide. I'm proud to be one of the cosponsors of this 
bill and to say it is imperative that we pass this legislation today.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the chairman how 
many more speakers he has remaining?
  Mr. SPRATT. I plan to use the time left, and Mr. Hoyer will speak as 
well and share part of the time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. So the chairman and the majority leader are 
remaining?
  Mr. SPRATT. If I may inquire of the Chair, how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes remaining
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me make 
everyone aware of what is at stake here. What the minority has proposed 
is to take this resolution, this bill, and add to it a budget 
resolution for 2010 and years thereafter, way outside of the 
established procedure of the House to do at this point in time. We have 
strived mightily to finish up all of the appropriations bills by the 
time we adjourn for the August vacation. And it looks as though we are 
going to be successful in our pursuit. And I think we all deserve 
credit for having accomplished that.
  Were we to adopt this resolution, we would have a completely 
different set of numbers. At least $48 billion would have to be 
reallocated within section 302(a), because there is a cut immediately 
in discretionary spending. If you hold constant and inflate the amount 
of money provided for overseas contingency operations, military 
operations, the amount of money that would have to be extracted from 
other programs that has basically already been distributed, already 
been allocated, already been cut, would be around $70 billion.
  That is a lot of work that would have to be done again. We would have 
to basically go back to square one and start over again. So that is the 
first problem we have with this bill. And that basically is enough 
reason for anyone who is concerned with finishing timely business here 
in the House for the summer before adjourning, that is enough to vote 
against the substitute that the gentleman is offering.
  But if that's not enough for you, read onward. Get a copy of this 
resolution and read the language to see what is being proposed here, 
because what the gentleman proposes to do is to fix spending, total 
spending, discretionary spending and deficit as a percentage of gross 
domestic product for a period of 5 years, after which it will be fixed 
at the levels it reaches at the end of the 5-year period of time. This 
would have profound consequences for the budget. We have never budgeted 
like that, not over that period of time.
  Furthermore, the gentleman says we are going to put these in place--
this is a resolution that he understandably, under the circumstances, 
has cobbled together in a few days--he is going to impose something 
that would be binding for 5 years. And if there were a reversal in the 
economy for the worse, and we needed to engage in countercyclical 
economic intervention, this would be a huge stumbling block, because 
two-thirds of the House would have to agree to any deviation from the 
spending limits that this resolution or this substitute would impose, 
two-thirds of the House. A determined minority of one-third could block 
any kind of salutary action we wanted to take.
  That's not good policy. It's not good policymaking. We have never 
done it before. It would be a mistake to do it now. So for those 
reasons, I would say to all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, read the resolution, read the substitute, and I think you will 
see this is something we do not want to do at this particular point in 
time. We don't want to go back to square one and do the appropriations 
bills all over again. We don't want to cast a rigid cast around the 
budget resolution so that if we do have a downturn in the economy the 
budget resolution itself would actually be, the budget would actually 
be procyclical. We try to have countercyclical economic policies built 
into our budget. This budget resolution, this budget substitute would 
actually be procyclical. It would worsen the downturn in the economy if 
it were to take that turn at this point in time.
  So for all of these reasons, I would urge Members on both sides of 
the aisle, mine particularly, but the other side as well, to look 
carefully before you cast this vote and vote ``no'' on the substitute 
that has been offered by Mr. Ryan.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. 
Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I yield myself the remainder of our time. The 
gentleman from South Carolina rightfully says that our substitute would 
involve rewriting the budget resolution. Yes. We think we should 
rewrite the budget resolution. What does the incumbent budget 
resolution the majority passed do? It doubles the national debt held by 
the public in 5\1/2\ years, triples it in 10\1/2\ years. It raises 
taxes by $1.5 trillion. It chases ever-higher spending with ever-higher 
taxes, and those tax increases never catch up with the spending 
increases, thus an unprecedented level in debt increases.
  So, yes, we think we should go do something else and go a different 
path. What are we proposing? We're proposing instead of the system in 
place that ignores discretionary spending, instead of putting a system 
in place that

[[Page 18617]]

ignores the current unsustainable trajectory of entitlement spending, 
instead of putting a system in place that will inevitably lead to 
higher taxes, we want spending discipline. We want to cap spending.
  And here is what our bill accomplishes that the majority bill does 
not. Under our bill, the deficits go down. Under the majority's bill, 
the deficits go up. Under our bill, for future generations, we keep the 
size of our government in check so that we can give the next generation 
a higher standard of living so that we don't send to them an 
unsustainable burden of debt and taxes.

                              {time}  1500

  Under the majority's bill they don't do that. They increase debt. 
They increase taxes. They increase spending. They decrease the standard 
of living for the next generation.
  Now, I find it fairly ironic, and almost comical that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts just came through here and filed an appropriations 
bill. The appropriations bill, TTHUD, increases this year, this year, 
by 25.1 percent. So during this debate on PAYGO, during this debate on 
fiscal responsibility, this fiscal facade press release debate we're 
having right now, they just filed a bill to increase discretionary 
spending on one bill for just 1 year by 25 percent. You know what? 
PAYGO doesn't apply to that. PAYGO has nothing to do with that. So we 
can bring a bill here to increase spending on these few government 
agencies in this bill by 25 percent, and this PAYGO has nothing to do 
with it. You know why, Mr. Speaker? Because 40 percent of the budget, 
including where this spending comes from, is exempt from PAYGO. We just 
don't think that's the right way to go.
  And I've heard all these talks about the 1990s and how successful 
they were, and yes, there were absolutely periods of success. You know 
why? Because we had spending caps. We had discretionary caps in place 
that the Blue Dogs themselves have been advocating, time and again, 
which we agree with, which we're going to be advocating later in this 
debate that were part of the reason for that success. Success in 1997 
was because Republicans and Democrats came together and put together a 
budget agreement which led to those surpluses. Wouldn't it be nice to 
get back to those kinds of days where we come together, not bypassing 
committees, rushing bills to the floor, cramming things through 
Congress and actually came together for real fiscal discipline? 
Unfortunately, the PAYGO bill the majority is offering is a fig leaf. 
It's not true. It's not real. It doesn't work. It doesn't even affect 
discretionary spending. It doesn't even deal with the unsustainable 
pathway of our current entitlement programs which, right now, give us a 
$62 trillion unfunded liability. We say, let's tackle those problems. 
You need to have, unfortunately, artificial budget enforcement on 
Congress. I would love to see that Congress, under our own discipline, 
would be able to control spending, but you know what? We can't. Both 
parties can't. That's why you need artificial discipline. That's why 
you need spending caps. That's why you should pass the Republican 
substitute.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, one question to the distinguished ranking 
member. Where were you when we had, first, Iraq and then Afghanistan, 
and it came to paying for those endeavors which account for by far the 
biggest growth in spending in the discretionary accounts. There were no 
spending caps at that particular point in time.
  I yield for a brief response.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Working in the Budget Committee to make sure 
that the war was inside of the budget, not outside of the budget, as 
the Bush OMB was proposing. We were proposing that that funding be done 
within the budget, not outside the budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority 
leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for yielding. I also want to thank 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for whom I have a great deal of 
respect. I said the other night that he was my friend, but friends have 
disagreements. And on this, on fiscal policy, we clearly have had a 
very significant disagreement.
  I've heard a lot of speakers on this floor talk about how this bill 
doesn't get us to where we want to get. I've heard a lot of people talk 
about how we have four exceptions in this bill. Most of the people that 
have talked about the four exceptions in this bill have repeatedly 
talked, over the last 4 or 5 years, as to how this was current baseline 
spending, and certainly we didn't have to pay for current baseline 
spending, i.e., continuing tax cuts that were in place. Your side of 
the aisle has argued strenuously that that was current baseline funding 
and we didn't need to pay for it. We have taken the position that we 
needed to pay for it. In fact, we paid for the AMT through the House. 
We paid for the tax extenders through the House. Unfortunately, our 
brethren on the other side of the Capitol did not pay for them, sent 
them back. I voted against the AMT extension. I voted against the AMT 
extension, I was one of a small minority in the House, because it 
wasn't paid for. If we're going to have discipline, we need extrinsic 
discipline.
  There's only one real discipline--having to pay for what you buy. 
During the nineties, we paid for what we bought. During the eighties we 
didn't. And during the 2000s we didn't. And there was an inevitable 
result; deficits exploded for the 20 years that Republican Presidents 
were in office, and we didn't pay for things. In fact, the gentleman 
talks about spending, and he talks about caps in his substitute. The 
gentleman knows full well that during the Clinton years, spending rose 
at about 3\1/2\ percent per year, on average, discretionary spending. 
The gentleman knows full well that for the 8 years of the Bush 
administration, it rose at the average of about 7 percent, or twice as 
high as it rose during the nineties. So, in terms of caps, spending, 
which are in the budget, we ought to have budget caps. We ought to 
stick with those budget caps. And, in fact, the Democrats, under the 
rule that he said we adopted, stuck with that rule, even when it had 
consequences that were tough for us. He remembers the District of 
Columbia vote. By adding a Member, it cost a little over $1 million; we 
had to pay for it, even though it caused us a problem, then opened it 
up for an MTR that was a problem.
  But, let me speak to the substance of this bill. The gentleman is 
correct. Other Republicans are correct. We've incurred extraordinary 
debt during the first 6 months. Why? Because the economic program and 
the fiscal policies that were argued for by the Republicans and put in 
place by the Republicans, with little, if any, Democratic support--but 
they had the Presidency, they had the House, and they had the Senate--
led to the worst economy that this country has seen in 75 years. So, 
according to Mr. Bernanke and others, we had an economic crisis 
confronting our country; and if we did not act, we could possibly be in 
a depression, not just a severe recession. So, we inherited the worst 
recession in 75 years when we took office, having been urged by the 
Republican administration to put $700 billion on the fiscal tab in the 
last Congress, urged by the President, by Secretary Paulson and by Ben 
Bernanke. The gentleman and I voted together on that bill. It was a 
tough bill. Nobody wanted to vote for it. But we believed that there 
was a crisis and it was necessary.
  So we find ourselves having passed, because we were still, and 
frankly, falling into a deeper recession in January and February of 
this year, and responding to that with the Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act, and we borrowed $787 billion to do that. I believe it's been 
helpful. The stock market's up 1,000 points since the start of this 
administration. Housing starts have now been higher for the last 3 
months. The Dow is up. NASDAQ is up very substantially. In addition, 
we've lost 200,000 less jobs per month, on average, over the last 3 
months than we lost during the last 3 months of the Bush 
administration. Is that what we want? No. Is it progress? I suggest to 
you it is. It's 33 percent less loss of jobs than we had in the last 3 
months of the Bush administration. Now, that's not where we want

[[Page 18618]]

to be. We want to be at zero and growing.
  The economic policies that were pursued by my friend and on the 
Republican side of the aisle created 4,240 jobs per month over a 96-
month administration of the policies pursued by my friends on the other 
side of the aisle. The economic policies that were pursued in the 
nineties, with the opposition, to a person, of the Republicans, created 
an average of 216,000 jobs per month. That's a pretty stark difference. 
As a matter of fact, 2 million jobs created during the last year of the 
Clinton administration and 3 million jobs lost during the last year of 
the Bush administration. That's a 5 million turn around. Is there any 
wonder why there's so much stress among families and individuals?
  Now, ladies and gentlemen, maybe you've heard the first rule of 
holes. When you're in one, stop digging. That's what this bill does. It 
says stop digging. The fact is that our Nation is in a deep hole. The 
deficit for this fiscal year is $1.7 trillion. That ought to be of 
great concern to every one of us. We differ on why we have that 
deficit. We believe we have it because the economic program supported 
by the Republicans was such a failure, demonstrably, factually, in 
terms of every indication. Our debt has never been higher. Unless we do 
something to remove ourselves from this hole, the future of our 
children and grandchildren will be severely constrained, and interest 
payments will crowd out nearly all of the investment Americans know are 
vital to their future, from education to clean energy to health care.
  The energy bill. There's no tax in the energy bill. There is no tax 
in the energy bill. But so many of you come and say there's a tax in 
this bill. That's not honest. You ought to know that. There's one thing 
to make a mistake. There's another thing to not tell the truth.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Would the gentleman like me to respond?
  Mr. HOYER. No. But I will yield to you if you want. But I am not 
particularly interested in your responding. If you, on your own time, 
want to say at some point in time that there is a tax in the bill, you 
can point it out to me. Are there consequential costs in actions we 
take? There are. The worst-case scenario, a fiscal meltdown, has a 
nightmare to offer both parties. For Republicans, the prospect that 
taxes will be forced through the roof, I understand that concern. I 
suggest to you there's a constraint on that: Voters throwing people out 
of office who do that to them. Hopefully, voters will return to office, 
however, people who have the honesty to say, you want us to buy 
something, then we will pay for it. You didn't do that. You didn't do 
it for the war. I understand that. I voted for that funding. For 
Democrats, the prospect that the programs we value will be slashed and 
that the weakest and least powerful will suffer most. But there is a 
way out, reclaiming the principles of responsibility that have served 
our country so well.
  I fully believe that we are in this hole because the last 
administration set responsibility by the wayside. They waived PAYGO. It 
was inconvenient to pay for things, and you couldn't do your tax cut 
and pay for them. That's why we waived PAYGO, because you wanted to do 
something that you could not and would not and did not pay for. In 
fact, a recent New York Times analysis tells us that 90 percent of our 
deficit can be attributed to Bush administration policies, the 
extensions of those policies, and the economic crisis that the 
administration left behind.
  But whatever we think brought us to this point, I'm confident that we 
can agree on a tried and tested plan for a new beginning. It is a 
simple one; the principle that from here on out, this country will pay 
for what it buys. It's called pay-as-you-go or PAYGO for short. It was 
a key part of turning deficits into surpluses once, and it can be a 
part of that objective again. Essentially, this PAYGO bill requires 
Congress to find savings, to balance out the dollars it spends so that 
all new policies that reduce revenues or expand entitlement spending 
are fully offset over five and 10 years, an improvement over the 
President's bill.
  In 1990, a similar PAYGO rule was enacted as part of a budget 
agreement between a Republican President and a Democratic Congress. In 
other words, in a bipartisan agreement, we reached a consensus on 
paying as we go. What was the result? The result was an administration 
that, for the first time and only time in the lifetime of anybody in 
this Chamber, we had 4 years of surplus. Now, it wasn't the President 
alone. It wasn't Democrats alone, because in 1997, we reached another 
bipartisan agreement to extend this principle of PAYGO when Speaker 
Gingrich and President Clinton, which I voted for, reached agreement. 
And by forcing Congress to make difficult choices between taxes and 
spending, to scrutinize wasteful subsidies and loopholes, and to fully 
weigh the real cost of tax cuts, PAYGO was instrumental in creating a 
projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion.

                              {time}  1515

  That was squandered. The economy that was supposed to grow so well 
under your economic policies didn't do so. It created less than 2 
million jobs, less than 10 percent of what was created during the 
1990s. Its repeal in 2002 paved the way for the fiscal excesses of the 
last administration.
  On winning the congressional majority in 2006, as the ranking member 
has pointed out, Democrats made it part of the House rules; and today 
we have the chance to give PAYGO the force of law.
  With this law in place, advocates of spending will have to find ways 
to offset the new costs. That's the discipline. That's the extrinsic 
constraint. Advocates of tax cuts will no longer be able to finance 
them with debt. Instead, they will have to tell us which programs they 
would cut. I make that statement knowing full well that if there's a 
crisis, if there's an emergency, if there's a war, if there's a 
Katrina, if there's an economic meltdown, yes, we will waive this, and 
we will borrow money to try to stem the existing crisis. However, 
generally speaking, we won't do that.
  PAYGO won't make those debates go away and won't make those decisions 
for us. It means hard choices for all of us and for the citizens whom 
we represent, but continuing to shun hard choices is the road to fiscal 
ruin.
  Exempted from this bill's PAYGO requirements are extensions of 
current policy on the alternative minimum tax, estate and middle class 
income tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2002, and Medicare payments to 
doctors. As a result, some have criticized this bill for not going far 
enough; but supporters of PAYGO, including President Obama, see 
exemption as a crucial concession to political reality and to the votes 
on your side of the aisle, by the way, who on at least three of those 
instances don't want to pay for them because they are current policy. 
You've made that argument over and over and over again. I've disagreed 
with it, but it is reality.
  It is clear that there is bipartisan support in Congress for 
extending those current policies without offsetting savings. I've told 
my friend Senator Conrad that if he sends back from the Senate any one 
of those four bills paid for, I will fight for them. I will advocate 
for them being paid for. I hope he can do that.
  That gives us two choices. On the one hand, we can pass an all-
encompassing bill that is waived again and again, one that turns into 
what the nonpartisan Center on Budget Priorities calls ``a 
transparently phony fiscal responsibility promise,'' because we've 
waived them. I think that's unfortunate, but that's what we do. That's 
what we have done. A promise, I would add, that would weaken the cause 
of responsibility as a whole.
  On the other hand, we can make a promise we are prepared to keep, and 
we're prepared to keep that to the extent that the Speaker and I have 
both indicated we will not put a bill on this floor coming out of 
conference on health care or any other issue dealing with those four 
unless statutory PAYGO is in the bill, statutory PAYGO has been passed, 
or it is paid for. The Speaker and I have both indicated we will not 
put a bill on this floor coming

[[Page 18619]]

out of conference unless one of those three criteria is met.
  In other words, we have the choice between a satisfying, but weak, 
statement of ideals or of action in the real world of politics. This 
bill takes the latter path. It draws a line before future budget 
busting plans, this far but no further.
  Is that enough? No, Mr. Speaker, it is not nearly enough. Even if 
this bill is passed and signed, we will still be in our hole. There 
will still be years of hard work ahead of us. Hopefully, we can do that 
on a bipartisan basis. Before our heads can be above ground, we need to 
deal with entitlements further. We need to deal with spending further. 
We need to make sure that we have vigorous efforts to rid ourselves of 
waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal Government on spending and other 
efforts that we can take to put us on the path, again, of fiscal 
responsibility to once again get back to an era where we had Clinton 
surpluses and Clinton 216,000 job-per-month creation.
  That's where we want to go. Does this bill get us there? It does not. 
Does this bill take a critical step towards that end? It does.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the substitute, to pass this bill, and 
to put us once again on the road to fiscal responsibility.
  I congratulate Mr. Spratt for his leadership. I want to thank Mr. 
Welch and Mr. Miller, who is one of the early leaders on PAYGO, and Mr. 
Baron Hill of the Blue Dogs for cosponsoring this, along with literally 
180 or more Democrats supporting this important step.
  I will tell my friends, I would hope this was bipartisan, but the 
economic program we adopted in 1993 was not bipartisan either, and it 
led to the best economy I have seen in my lifetime in this country. The 
principal reason for that economic well-being in America was the chip, 
not government, the chip where the information technology age exploded 
and provided extraordinary revenues for our country.
  It is the private sector that drives our economy. It is the private 
sector that will give us wealth and that creates jobs, not the 
government; but the government can create policies within which the 
private sector and particularly venture capitalists can have the 
confidence that we are managing our finances responsibly. That's what 
this bill does.
  Vote for this important piece of legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) has 3 minutes remaining. The time of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has expired.
  Mr. SPRATT. I would say once again, Mr. Speaker, using the balance of 
my time, that every Member in voting on this substitute should 
understand its consequences. Its consequences would be to undo 
completely the bill that we're trying to move now that a lot of us 
believe is a useful measure, useful tool in disciplining our budget. It 
will be a shame to see us come this far only to falter on a resolution 
like the substitute offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin. It will 
not be consistent at all.
  And it's interesting to note that while he makes elaborate provisions 
for limiting spending and limiting deficits, there's no provision 
whatsoever made for incorporation of the PAYGO rule, which has proved 
itself in the past to be successful.
  So I say vote for the resolution, but vote first against the 
substitute that is being offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
because, if it is adopted, it will not adapt to, will not fit into the 
base bill before the House. Instead, it would undo its effectiveness 
altogether.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. As a general matter, all Members are 
reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to others in the 
second person.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 665, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended, and on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in part C of House Report 111-217 offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 259, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 610]

                               AYES--169

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Akin
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     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
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     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)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Heller
     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)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey

[[Page 18620]]


     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     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
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Conyers
     Kingston
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1548

  Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, DRIEHAUS, RANGEL, CARTER, Ms. EDDIE 
BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. TITUS, Ms. WOOLSEY, Messrs. YARMUTH, 
ALEXANDER, ISRAEL and Ms. CLARKE changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. ROSKAM and ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2920 
     to the Committee on the Budget with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith, with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill add the following new sections:

     SEC. 12. EXTENSION OF THE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CAPS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraphs (1) through (13) of section 
     251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
     Act of 1985 are amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) with respect to fiscal year 2011 for the 
     discretionary category: $1,126,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $1,189,000,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(2) with respect to fiscal year 2012 for the 
     discretionary category: $1,150,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $1,193,000,000,000 in outlays;
       ``(3) with respect to fiscal year 2013 for the 
     discretionary category: $1,177,000,000,000 in new budget 
     authority and $1,220,000,000,000 in outlays;''.
       (b) Expiration.--(1) Section 275 of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 note) is 
     amended by striking subsection (b).
       (2) Sections 254(c)(2)(A) and (f) of the Balanced Budget 
     and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 are amended by 
     striking ``2002'' and inserting ``2013''.

     SEC. 13. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST COSTS.

       Section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 639(a)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) containing a projection by the Congressional Budget 
     Office of the cost of the debt servicing that would be caused 
     by such measure for such fiscal year (or fiscal years) and 
     each of the four ensuing fiscal years.''.

     SEC. 14. CBO SCORING OF CONFERENCE REPORTS.

       (a) The first sentence of section 402 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended as follows:
       (1) Insert ``or conference report thereon,'' before ``and 
     submit''.
       (2) In paragraph (1), strike ``bill or resolution'' and 
     insert ``bill, joint resolution, or conference report''.
       (3) At the end of paragraph (2) strike ``and'', at the end 
     of paragraph (3) strike the period and insert ``; and'', and 
     after such paragraph (3) add the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) A determination of whether such bill, joint 
     resolution, or conference report provides direct spending.''.
       (4) At the end, add the following new sentence: ``The 
     Director shall also prepare such estimates for any bill or 
     resolution of a public character that has not been reported 
     by a committee before it may be considered in the House of 
     Representatives or Senate.''
       (b) The second sentence of section 402 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``, or in the case of a conference report, 
     shall be included in the joint explanatory statement of 
     managers accompanying such conference report if timely 
     submitted before such report is filed''.

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the Republican motion to recommit 
adds three germane provisions from the Fiscal Honesty and 
Accountability Act of 2009, which is the Blue Dog PAYGO bill introduced 
by Mr. Hill and 53 Democratic cosponsors. It adds this to the 
underlying bill. This motion to recommit does not strike or amend any 
provision in the underlying bill. The three provisions taken verbatim 
from the House Blue Dog bill and added to the underlying PAYGO bill 
are: Number one, discretionary caps from FY 2011 through FY 2013 at the 
very levels the Blue Dogs set out in their bill; number two, a 
requirement that CBO report the interest costs of legislation; number 
three, a requirement that CBO score conference reports.
  Let me read from the minority views of the Spending Control Act of 
2004 presented by then the minority ranking member Mr. Spratt on behalf 
of House Democrats with respect to discretionary spending caps: 
``Democrats believe that a set of discretionary spending caps arrived 
through bipartisan negotiation is an important part of an effective 
budget enforcement.''
  ``If discretionary spending caps are to work effectively, they must 
be established as part of a bipartisan negotiation that also includes a 
balanced PAYGO provision encompassing both mandatory spending levels 
and revenues. This balanced approach worked in the 1990s, and it should 
serve as a model for efforts to reform the budget process today.''
  Well, we agree. We agree that this bill will be far more effective if 
discretionary spending caps were added to it. So given that this bill 
was bypassed from committee, we want to offer our colleagues yet one 
more chance at bipartisan success here. We are saying to those who are 
here who call themselves Blue Dogs, we want to work with you. You hold 
the keys. You control the fate of not only this provision, but you will 
also hold the keys of next week's provision, which will create a new 
unfunded liability in health care. Messrs. Adler, Arcuri, Barrow, 
Bishop, Boswell, Bright, Carney, Childers, Cooper, Cuellar, Donnelly, 
Fattah, Gordon, Ms. Harman, Messrs. Holden, Marshall, McIntyre, 
Michaud, Mitchell, Murphy, Peterson, Ross, Ms. Sanchez, Messrs. Scott, 
Space, Taylor, Wilson, Altmire, Baca, Berry, Boren, Boyd, Cardoza, 
Chandler, Connolly, Costa, Davis, Ellsworth, Ms. Giffords, Mr. 
Griffith, Ms. Herseth-Sandlin, Messrs. Kratovil, Matheson, Melancon, 
Minnick, Moore, Nye, Pomeroy, Salazar, Schiff, Shuler, Tanner and 
Thompson.
  All we're asking you to do is to vote for the bill you cosponsored. 
That's all this does. Vote for what you've cosponsored. Put your votes 
where your cosponsors are. We can make this bill better. We can make it 
bipartisan. We will help you deliver the margin of victory. Let's do 
this together. Let's have that vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 18621]]


  Mr. SPRATT. This resolution is too clever by half. Our colleagues 
across the aisle have not had some sudden epiphany and decided this 
bill, after all, was something they could embrace. This is an effort 
not to push the bill across the finish line, but to kill it before it 
finally gets passed here from the House. We have worked for months to 
get statutory PAYGO to the point where we can now put it over the top 
and put it in the statute books of the United States of America. If we 
vote for the resolution, if we vote for the motion to recommit, we will 
put that at jeopardy because this is a procedural device to defeat a 
bill that they cannot defeat on the substance of the merits of the bill 
itself. We won the argument on the substantive merits. They want to 
take it back now by a procedural device. Their aim is to insert in this 
bill numbers that were inserted and used in a Blue Dog publication that 
was issued last January, 7 or 8 months ago. The numbers have changed. 
They're dramatically different from what they are in the conference 
report, the concurrent resolution we finally adopted.
  As I said, we've been through an arduous budget process to determine 
these details. If we now begin undoing those details, everything will 
come unraveled, including the bill before us. So I would urge every 
Member on this side to stick together. We're on the verge of passing 
it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), who is one of the 
authors of the bill.
  Mr. HILL. I want to award an ``A'' to the Republicans over here for 
cleverness because this is a very clever thing to do, but it's not the 
right thing to do based upon what Mr. Spratt has already talked about. 
These are old January numbers. This bill is now outdated. The practical 
thing to do is to do what we were just about to do with Mr. Spratt in 
that bill. Now look, we finally are to a point where we can have PAYGO. 
There has been a very delicate balance to get to where we are right 
now, including some negotiations with people over in the Senate.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on an outdated motion to 
recommit and vote ``yes'' for Mr. Spratt.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I rise in 
opposition to the motion to recommit. This motion is designed, 
obviously, to kill the bill. Generally speaking, my friends on that 
side of the aisle don't support the underlying bill. I understand that. 
It constrains you in cutting taxes because it makes you pay for that, 
just as it makes us pay for any increases. That's why this is so good, 
because it affects both sides of the proposition--the spending side and 
the revenue side. This constrains all of us. None of us like 
constraints; but if we don't have constraints, our grandchildren will 
look to us and say that we did not do a good job.
  I want to say to Ed Lorenzen, who has worked with Charlie Stenholm on 
this proposition for over a decade, thank you for the work that you 
have done. I want to say to my Blue Dog friends, thank you for your 
leadership. And I want to say to my progressive friends, who understand 
the ramifications of spending deficits that adversely affect the most 
vulnerable in our country, vote against this MTR. Vote for this 
statutory PAYGO. Let us get back on the road of fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; motions to suspend 
the rules on H.R. 3119; H. Res. 534; and H.R. 2972.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 234, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 611]

                               AYES--196

     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     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)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maffei
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMahon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Perriello
     Peters
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     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
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     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)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     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
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger

[[Page 18622]]


     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
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--3

     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     Thompson (MS)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1619

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona, Messrs. MURPHY of New York and NYE 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 265, 
noes 166, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 612]

                               AYES--265

     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)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     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)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     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
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--166

     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)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Filner
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kucinich
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walden
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     Thompson (MS)

                              {time}  1627

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________