Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I was here at the creation of the sustainable growth rate formula. It was part of the balanced budget agreement of 1997. I am here today to say that the SGR has not worked.

Here is the problem MedPAC presented to us in 1997:

In year 2, when we sought to curb or cut Medicare rates, volume increases in year 2 tended to make up the difference due to reduced rates.

In year 3, therefore, an automatic adjustment factor or formula was needed to target and recoup excess payments. Sound complicated? Well, that is a simple version. Suffice it to say, the SGR has proven to be so complex, so blunt an instrument, and so draconian that it has barely been used.

For example, in 2008, we reversed a 10.6 percent decrease in physicians' rates and replaced it with a 1.1 percent increase. In 2010, the SGR dictates a 21 percent cut in physicians' payment rates. You and I know that is not going to happen.

By assuming that the SGR will be applied, when we know it has not been applied, and is unlikely to be followed in the future, Medicare spending is substantially understated. CBO says that the rewrite of SGR now before us will result in a net spending increase of $210 billion over 10 years. The CBO has to assume that the SGR will be strictly applied in each of those 10 years. CBO is bound by its rule of projecting the budget; we are not. We know that the SGR is unlikely to be applied, and so the right step, straightforward step, is to pass this bill and change the SGR, not by wiping it out, but by replacing it with an updated formula that is realistic and likely to be used.

The bill before us reflects two agreements that are in the budget resolution for this year. One is to strengthen fiscal responsibility by enacting a statutory pay-as-you-go rule. The other is to institute realistic budgeting by changing this flawed formula called the sustainable growth rate factor.

The budget resolution allows the budget effects of changing the SGR to be calculated against a realistic baseline, one that reflects current policy. This means the baseline assuming the payment rates in effect for physicians in 2009 will stay in effect through 2019.

This baseline assumption represents a realistic benchmark against which to measure the fiscal effects of legislation reforming Medicare's physician payment system. Without a realistic baseline, we will revisit this issue every year, as we have in the past, by passing short-term fixes that do nothing to address the long-term problems. Without the reforms in this legislation, the budget will continue to understate the real cost to the Treasury of Medicare payments.

So now is the time to adjust the SGR. The bill before us is a constructive solution. After 6 years of short-term fixes that did little to address the underlying causes of excess cost growth, we now have the opportunity to vote for a substantive bill. This bill does not allow for uncontrolled spending growth. It provides realistic spending targets that are fair, frugal, and holds physicians accountable.

This bill does address two of the most important challenges in health care: better support for primary care and better coordination of care. It does so by, among other things, providing an extra growth allowance for primary care services. The bill also provides incentives for the creation of accountable care organizations which encourage providers to improve quality and control costs by coordination among all providers serving a patient. This is the type of structural reform we need.

This is a good bill. I urge its support.

Madam Speaker, under section 421(a)(4) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This adjustment responds to House consideration of the bill H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009. Corresponding tables are attached.

For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this revised allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Madam Speaker, today, I am proud to honor a group of 90 World War II veterans from South Carolina who will make their way on November 21st to Washington, DC, in order to visit the World War II Memorial among other national monuments. Their visit will include the Korean, Vietnam and Lincoln Memorials, along with the National Cemetery at Arlington.

The veterans who make the journey to Washington represent all four branches of service, and they fought in all of the major theaters of the war. They fought in Europe in places like France, Italy, and Germany, and in the Pacific in islands like Guadalcanal and Okinawa. Represented in this group are veterans who saw service in pivotal battles such as D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, and Tarawa.

WWII was a time when America was at her best. Our nation met the threats of tyranny and fascism and came to the aid of our allies. The valor of our veterans never shone more brightly, and the sacrifice borne by these veterans should never be forgotten.

We can never forget that WWII was a time of triumph and tragedy. Sixty million people worldwide were killed, including 40 million civilians, and more than 400,000 American servicemembers were slain during the war.

In South Carolina, the war was a time of special sacrifice. 166,119 servicemembers from our state participated in the war. 4,153 lost their lives. We prize our WWII veterans in South Carolina and their tales of victory over tyranny.

Accompanying these veterans and representing the future leaders of our military and our next generation of veterans are students from Andrew Jackson High School's Reserve Officers Training Corps. These young leaders will benefit from the mentoring and guidance provided by the WWII veterans during this trip.

I would like to thank the volunteers from the Honor Flight of South Carolina. This group, ably led by Bill Dukes, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer and Medal of Honor winner Charles Murray are to be commended for ensuring that these veterans have the opportunity to see the memorial dedicated to them.

I ask the House of Representatives to join with me in honoring these 90 veterans who make this memorable visit to Washington, and pay tribute to their service and sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, under section 321 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal year 2010 through 2014. This adjustment responds to House consideration of the bill H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. A corresponding table is attached.

The revision represents an adjustment for the purposes of section 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this revised allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Madam Speaker, under section 321 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This adjustment responds to House consideration of the bill H.R. 3631, ``To amend title XVIII to provide for the application of a consistent Medicare part B premium for all Medicare beneficiaries in a budget neutral manner.'' A corresponding table is attached.

This revision represents an adjustment for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this revised allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act. In one fell swoop, this legislation helps millions of students afford to go to college, and it reduces the deficit by making the student loan program more efficient. Rarely are we given the chance to help students, improve government services, and reduce the deficit all at the same time; today we should embrace that opportunity.

By making the student loan program more efficient, the bill reinvests some of those savings into increasing the maximum Pell Grant award next year and in the future, benefitting the six million low-income students who rely on Pell Grants to help pay for college. The legislation provides for the maximum Pell grant to increase from $5,550 in 2010 to $6,900 in 2019. The bill also revamps the Perkins loan program, expanding it to every college in the country--currently, fewer than 500,000 students receive Perkins Loans. The bill also simplifies the process for applying for federal student financial aid, and offers new services to help students both attend and complete college.

In addition to making college more accessible, this bill also invests in education for pre-school and school-aged children. It expands and improves early learning systems through competitive grants for states to offer high-quality services for children age zero to five, and will support more and better training for early childhood educators. The bill also provides funding to help modernize and repair schools-- elementary and secondary schools as well as community colleges across the country. The funding is targeted for projects that are energy efficient and that create healthier and safer learning environments for our children.

To help strengthen our economy, the Congressional budget resolution that we passed earlier this year called for significant investments in education--including in Pell Grants--within a framework of fiscal responsibility. Today we have before us a bill that fulfills the challenge. It makes the student loan program run more efficiently, and thus reduces the deficit, while making dramatic improvements in our education system that will help students of all ages. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Madam Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and for the five-year period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 424 and 427 of S. Con. Res. 13, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2010.

The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature.

The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set by S. Con. Res. 13. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels.

The second table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under S. Con. Res. 13 for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 and fiscal years 2010 through 2014. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach the section 302(a) discretionary action allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure.

The third table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 with the ``section 302(a)'' allocation of discretionary budget authority and outlays to the Appropriations Committee. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget. Act, which establishes a point of order against any measure that would breach section 302(b) sub-allocations within the Appropriations Committee.

The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 424 of S. Con. Res. 13. This list is needed to enforce section 424 of the budget resolution, which establishes a point of order against appropriations bills that include advance appropriations that: (1) are not identified in the joint

statement of managers; or (2) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I want to call the attention of the House to the remarkable life and work of Harriet Bucy, because it is inspiring and a shining model of what citizenship in a democracy is all about,

When Harriet Bucy died on May 8, 2008, she left a void in her community. She was one of those rare individuals who seem to have more energy and enterprise than the rest of us. Only a week before her death, the City Council of Rock Hill recognized Harriet Bucy for her role in having Rock Hill selected among the one hundred best communities in America for young people. Accomplishments like these will last long after her.

Harriet Bucy was an artist and used her passion for art to teach it to others. Her spirit and ability as a teacher won her the notice of school district officials, and she was drafted for a succession of assignments. In each, it became clear that she had a gift for inspiring and managing others.

Harriet Bucy was a founder of the Rock Hill School District Foundation, and helped it build a network of support, and provide numerous teachers with thousands of dollars in scholarship grants. Like other institutions she created, it carries on.

Harriet Bucy started the Community and Leadership Support Program, better known as CLASP, and continued forging relationships

between schools and organizations in the community. Governor Riley's Education Improvement Act mandated more involvement between schools and community, without specifying how these relationships were to be created. Harriet Bucy built the model that worked, not only in Rock Hill but in other districts who came to see what Rock Hill had accomplished under her guidance.

I have attached a eulogy in tribute to Harriet Bucy published in the Herald, shortly after her death, and ask that it be printed after my statement, as a memorial to this woman ``with an overarching ability of bringing people together.''

[From the Herald, Sept. 9, 2009]

Bucy Served Community

Harriet Bucy always contended that a community partnership

was more than just a financial contribution. A real

partnership involved families, business and industry, clubs,

the faith community and organizations.

Bucy, who died Thursday at the age of 69, proved how

important such a partnership could be during her 23 years as

the Rock Hill school district's first community leadership

director. That partnership has endured.

The Rock Hill school district was among the first in the

state to fully embrace mandates in the 1984 Education

Improvement Act to involve parents, businesses and the

community more in schools. But the EIA did not provide a

blueprint for how to do that and, when Bucy signed on, she

practically had to invent her own job.

Fortunately, she was not at all reluctant to do that. One

goal was to bring in donations, and she was particularly

adept at the business end of the job, soliciting millions of

dollars worth of donations and volunteer hours each year.

But she also had taught private art classes while her three

sons were growing up and had taught art and history at

Rawlinson Road Middle School from 1982 to 1985 when the

school was a junior high school. So, she brought both a love

of art and a passion for educating children to the job.

She worked with Rock Hill Clean & Green to create an

environmental education and recycling program. She worked

with what then was the Rock Hill Chamber of Commerce to

sponsor an education initiative. She enlisted teachers and

parents to create the Rock Hill Reads program.

Much of this came under the umbrella of CLASP, the

district's Community Leadership and Support Program. Bucy

also worked closely with the district's Dropout Prevention

Network, New Teacher Institute and America's Promise project,

and was active in civic work such as supporting the York

County Museum.

Bucy soon was being consulted by other school districts in

the state. Rock Hill's program became a model not only for

school districts in the state but also nationwide.

Her overarching talent was an ability to bring together

people from all parts of the community, from different

backgrounds and different lifestyles, all for the purpose of

furthering the quality of education. That good work has

provided the foundation for programs that will continue to

serve the needs of children for generations to come.

A grateful community joins her family and many friends in

mourning her loss.

Madam Speaker, I came here in 1983. And as I did, Bill Hefner was just coming into his own. Speaking of his name, you want to call him only ``Mr. Hefner.'' I will never forget one night we got on an airplane, as we did many nights, US Airways, and someone spoke to him as Congressman this and Congressman that. And the stewardess said, I didn't know you were a Member of Congress. What's your name? He said, Bill Hefner. She said, I don't believe I've ever heard of you. He said, well, you probably know my brother Hugh. He was always ready for a quip like that.

I rise to salute this wonderful guy with great sadness learning of his passing. I didn't know him well, but I knew him when I came here because from the time I was a boy I had watched the Harvesters on WBTV in Charlotte, North Carolina, right after Arthur Smith. He was the lead tenor on the Harvesters, and they were good. And they stayed that good harmonizing for the next 50 years. You couldn't beat them. They were just top rate.

Howard Coble got into a little fray with Bill sometime back because he went into his district and spoke against him in an election. Next election, Bill returned the compliment. This time, he was not speaking, though, he was singing. He went in and made three to four gospel singing experiences and packed the houses and everything, and Howard called him up and said, I was awfully surprised to see you come directly into my district. He said, Howard, you came into my district. Let's just have this understanding. If you come back, next time, I'm not coming in by myself. I'm bringing the whole quartet and we're going to sing you right out of that seat, too. From there after, they had a mutual accord that the one would stay out of the other's district. That's the kind of guy this is that we're talking about, a wonderful guy.

He put on the airs of being a populist sometimes, but he was a lot smarter than he put on, and a lot richer for that matter. He looked at the Reagan tax cuts that probably would have profited him and a lot of his constituents, and said, it's not the right time. It will only add to the deficit. And he was proven only too right. We were debating in our caucus one morning years ago another tax cut that was not nearly the same size, and he finally got up and said, I don't know why we are spending so much time talking about this tax cut. It ain't going to benefit anybody but two people in this caucus. One of them is Norm Sisisky, and the other is John Spratt.

I got up and I said, point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman, this poor-mouthing populist owns the second largest Cadillac dealership in North Carolina and a radio station in Concord. He loved it. He never let me forget it. He never jumped me again for benefiting from tax cuts either.

He became a voice that people listened to because he could get up and speak to something and go right to the pith of it. It's really a gift. He had that gift. As I said, he was a lot smarter than he let on being.

One of my favorite recollections of Bill's debate, we were debating the B2 bomber. He got up and said, you know, if this bomber is so stealthy as everybody says it is and you can't see it, you can't find it, radar can't even see it, what I would suggest is we save ourselves $50 billion. Let's don't build it, but let's tell the Russians we have built it, and they will go crazy trying to find it. That's the kind of humor he brought to the people's House, talking like that all the time with a humorous cover to it but a for-real serious substance to it as well.

He was a great guy. This place has been known through the centuries as the House of the people. Bill Hefner helped this House earn its reputation as a House of the people. We will miss him greatly. He served here with real distinction. He deserves every word of praise being said about him tonight.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, under section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit an adjustment to the budget aggregates and the 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2010. Section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13 permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for overseas deployments and other activities when these activities are so designated. Such a designation was included in the bill H.R. 3326 (Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes), as passed by the House. Corresponding tables are attached.

This adjustment is filed for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this adjusted allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Mr. Speaker, under section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit an adjustment to the budget aggregates and the 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2010. Section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13 permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for overseas deployments and other activities when these activities are so designated. Such a designation is included in the bill H.R. 3326 (Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes). Corresponding tables are attached.

This adjustment is filed for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this adjusted allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Madam Speaker, under sections 442(a) and (b) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit a revised 302(a) allocation for the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2010. Section 422(a) of S. Con. Res. 13 directs the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for certain program integrity initiatives if such an initiative is included in an appropriations bill. The bill H.R. 3293 (Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes) includes appropriations for certain such initiatives in accordance with S. Con. Res. 13. Section 422(b) of S. Con. Res. 13 permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program under specified conditions. H.R. 3293 meets the requirements of section 422(b) of S. Con. Res. 13. A table is attached.

This adjustment is filed for the purposes of section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this adjusted allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS--APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATION

[In millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

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 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the committee, Mr. Doggett.

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd).

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), the vice chairman of our committee.

We have one more speaker, and then I will close.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. 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 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----

I will.

It is similar to the PAYGO rule here.

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.

That loads some cumbersome conditions on the House or the Senate if we find ourselves faced with economic reversal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baron Hill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield to the Speaker of the House, the gentlewoman from California, Madam Speaker (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

I plan to use the time left, and Mr. Hoyer will speak as well and share part of the time.

If I may inquire of the Chair, how much time is remaining?

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. 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.

I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, under section 422(a)(2) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revised 302(a) allocations for the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Section 422(a)(2) of S. Con. Res. 13 directs the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for certain program integrity initiatives when these initiatives are included in an appropriations bill. The bill H.R. 3170 (Making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes) includes an appropriation for such an initiative in accordance with S. Con. Res. 13. A corresponding table is attached.

This adjustment is filed for the purposes of section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this adjusted allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.

Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar.

Madam Speaker, under section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit an adjustment to the budget allocations for the Committee on Appropriations for each of the fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Section 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13 permits the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust discretionary spending limits for overseas deployments and other activities when these activities are so designated. Such a designation is included in the bill H.R. 3082, Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. A corresponding table is attached.

This adjustment is filed for the purposes of section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. For the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, this adjusted allocation is to be considered as an allocation included in the budget resolution, pursuant to section 427(b) of S. Con. Res. 13.