Menu
Tax Notes logo

CRS Reports on Senate PAYGO Rule

APR. 20, 2005

RL31943

DATED APR. 20, 2005
DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Authors
    Heniff, Bill, Jr.
  • Institutional Authors
    Congressional Research Service
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2005-8530
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2005 TNT 78-50
Citations: RL31943

 

Budget Enforcement Procedures:

 

Senate's Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

 

 

Updated April 20, 2005

 

 

Bill Heniff Jr.

 

Analyst in American National Government

 

Government and Finance Division

 

 

Budget Enforcement Procedures:

 

Senate's Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

 

 

Summary

The Senate's "pay-as-you-go," or PAYGO, rule generally prohibits the consideration of direct spending and revenue legislation that is projected to increase (or cause) an on-budget deficit in any one of three time periods: the first year, the first five years, and the second five years, covered by the most recently adopted budget resolution. Any increase in direct spending or reduction in revenues resulting from such legislation must be offset by an equivalent amount of direct spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of the two. Without an offset, such legislation would require the approval of at least 60 Senators to waive the rule and be considered on the Senate floor.

The Senate's PAYGO rule does not apply to direct spending or revenues generated under existing law; it applies only to legislation considered by the Senate. Consequently, direct spending may increase and revenues may decline in any fiscal year due to factors beyond the control of the PAYGO rule.

The Senate's PAYGO rule differs from the statutory PAYGO requirement, established by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, in that it is enforced by a point of order during consideration of legislation instead of by sequestration after legislation is enacted into law. In addition, the Senate's PAYGO rule has a 10-year time frame whereas the statutory PAYGO requirement covers, through FY2006, the effects of legislation enacted before the end of FY2002.

The Senate's PAYGO rule originated in a budget resolution in 1993 and has been modified and extended four times in subsequent budget resolutions and once in a Senate simple resolution. Most recently, the Senate modified and extended the rule through September 30, 2008, by agreeing to the FY2004 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 95, 108th Congress). Under the Senate's PAYGO rule in its current form, the spending and revenue policy changes assumed in the most recently adopted budget resolution are exempt from the rule's provisions.

Beginning in 1993, six points of order under the Senate's PAYGO rule have been raised against an entire bill or an amendment. Of these six points of order, four were sustained and two fell upon the adoption of a waiver motion.

This report will be updated as developments warrant.

                            Contents

 

 

 Introduction

 

 Legislative History of the Senate's PAYGO Rule

 

      Different Formulations of the Senate's PAYGO Rule

 

      Action in the 107th Congress

 

      Action in the 108th Congress

 

      Action in the 109th Congress

 

 Current Features of the Senate's PAYGO Rule

 

 Points of Order and Waiver Motions Under the Senate's PAYGO Rule

 

 

 Appendix A. Text of the Senate's Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

 

 

 List of Tables

 

 

 Table 1. Actions Under the Senate's PAYGO Rule, Calendar Years 1993-

 

 2004

 

Budget Enforcement Procedures:

 

Senate's Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

 

 

Introduction

The Senate's "pay-as-you-go," or PAYGO, rule generally prohibits the consideration of direct spending and revenue legislation that is projected to increase (or cause) an on-budget deficit over a 10-year period.1 Any increase in direct spending or reduction in revenues resulting from such legislation must be offset by an equivalent amount of direct spending cuts, tax increases, or a combination of the two. Without an offset, such legislation would require the approval of at least 60 Senators to waive the rule and be considered on the Senate floor.

Direct spending is provided in substantive law, and funds such mandatory items as Medicare, unemployment compensation, and retirement programs. It is distinguished from discretionary spending, which is controlled through the annual appropriations process.

The Senate's PAYGO rule does not apply to direct spending or revenues generated under existing law; it applies only to legislation considered by the Senate. Consequently, direct spending may increase and revenues may decline in any fiscal year due to factors beyond the control of the PAYGO rule.

A similar statutory PAYGO requirement, as well as limits on discretionary spending, was established by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (BEA, Title XIII of P.L. 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) and was extended twice, in 1993 and 1997.2 Under the statutory PAYGO requirement, the net effect of new direct spending and revenue legislation enacted for a fiscal year could not cause a positive balance (reflecting an increase in the on-budget deficit or a reduction in the on-budget surplus) on a multiyear PAYGO "scorecard." For each fiscal year, this scorecard maintained the balances of the accumulated budgetary effects of laws enacted during the session and prior years. The statutory PAYGO requirement was enforced by sequestration, which involved automatic, largely across-the-board spending cuts in non-exempt programs.3 This statutory PAYGO requirement, however, expired at the end of FY2002 (i.e., September 30, 2002).4

The Senate's PAYGO rule differs from the statutory PAYGO requirement in that it is enforced by a point of order during consideration of legislation instead of by sequestration after legislation is enacted into law. In addition, the Senate's PAYGO rule has a 10-year time frame whereas the statutory PAYGO requirement covered, through FY2006, the effects of legislation enacted before the end of FY2002.

The Senate's PAYGO rule, like many other budget enforcement procedures, expired on September 30, 2002.5 On October 16, however, the Senate agreed to restore and extend the PAYGO point of order through April 15, 2003. Subsequently, prior to its expiration, the Senate agreed to extend the rule through September 30, 2008.

This report describes the legislative history of the Senate's PAYGO rule, explains its current features, and reviews Senate actions under the rule.6

Legislative History of the Senate's PAYGO Rule

The Senate's PAYGO rule originated in a budget resolution in 1993 and has been modified and extended four times in subsequent budget resolutions and once in a Senate simple resolution.7

Different Formulations of the Senate's PAYGO Rule. In 1993, the Senate created the PAYGO rule as a provision in the FY1994 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 64) for the purpose of preventing the deficit reduction expected to be achieved in a subsequent reconciliation bill from being used to offset the costs of any new direct spending or revenue legislation.8 Section 12(c) of H.Con.Res. 64 prohibited the consideration of any direct spending and revenue legislation that would increase the deficit in the FY1994 budget resolution for any fiscal year through FY1998 or would increase the deficit for any other fiscal year through FY2003. In this initial form, the Senate's PAYGO rule had no expiration date.

Since establishing the PAYGO rule in 1993, the Senate has modified and extended it several times. First, Section 23 of H.Con.Res. 218, the FY1995 budget resolution, modified the PAYGO rule to require direct spending and revenue legislation to be deficit neutral for any one of the three time periods contained in the current PAYGO rule: (1) the first fiscal year covered by the most recently adopted budget resolution; (2) the first five fiscal years covered by the budget resolution; and (3) the next five fiscal years after that.9 In addition, the modification provided that direct spending and revenue legislation would violate the rule only if it increased the deficit individually and also increased the deficit when combined with any legislation enacted since the enactment of the previous year's reconciliation legislation (i.e., the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993). This modification to the rule basically permitted the use of any deficit reduction provided in other legislation to be used as an offset for any subsequent deficit increasing legislation. The 1994 modification also added an expiration date of September 30, 1998.

Second, Section 202 of H.Con.Res. 67, the FY1996 budget resolution, reaffirmed the existing PAYGO rule language and extended its expiration date to September 30, 2002.10

Third, Section 207 of H.Con.Res. 68, the FY2000 budget resolution, modified the PAYGO rule to allow on-budget surpluses to be used to offset tax reductions or spending increases.11 After decades of on-budget deficits, the federal government recorded a small on-budget surplus for FY1999. At that time, baseline budget projections showed on-budget surpluses increasing each year well into the future.12 This modification, therefore, basically reflected the change in the federal government's budget outlook.

In 2002, the rule was allowed to expire on September 30.13 Two weeks later, however, on October 16, 2002, the Senate adopted S.Res. 304, restoring and extending the PAYGO rule through April 15, 2003. S.Res. 304 retained the basic formulation of the rule with one addition. It was expanded to cover any direct spending or revenues included in appropriations acts, effectively curtailing the use of such measures potentially to evade the rule (due to expired discretionary spending limits and the absence of a budget resolution for FY2003).

Lastly, Section 505 of H.Con.Res. 95, the FY2004 budget resolution, modified the rule to what is now its current form (explained in "Current Features of the Senate's PAYGO Rule" section, below).14 It also extended the rule through September 30, 2008.

Action in the 107th Congress. During the 107th Congress, several attempts were made on the Senate floor to extend the PAYGO rule before it was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2002. On June 5, 2002, Senators Judd Gregg and Russell Feingold offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 3687) that would have extended expiring budget enforcement procedures, including the Senate's PAYGO rule, to H.R. 4775, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2002. The amendment fell on a point of order.15 The next day, June 6, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 3764) that would have extended the Senate's PAYGO rule, among other budget enforcement procedures, through FY2007 to H.R. 4775, but that amendment also fell on a point of order.16 Another attempt was made on June 20, 2002, during consideration of S. 2514, the Defense Authorization Act for FY2003. Senator Feingold offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 3915), which was modified by an amendment (S.Amdt. 3916) offered by Senators Harry Reid and Kent Conrad, that also would have extended the expiration date of the Senate's PAYGO rule, among other things, through FY2007. This amendment also fell on a point of order.17

On October 16, 2002, the Senate restored and extended the PAYGO point of order through April 15, 2003.18 The Senate agreed by unanimous consent to S.Res. 304, as amended by the modified amendment offered by Senators Conrad, Pete Domenici, Gregg, and Feingold (S.Amdt. 4886).19

Action in the 108th Congress. During the 108th Congress, in 2003, the Senate modified and extended its PAYGO rule to its current form in the FY2004 budget resolution. The following year, in 2004, the Senate agreed to an amendment restoring the rule to its pre-108th Congress form in the FY2005 budget resolution, but ultimately it did not agree to a conference report to the budget resolution, thereby retaining the PAYGO rule's current form.

On March 14, 2003, the Senate Budget Committee reported S.Con.Res. 23, the FY2004 budget resolution, without written report. The reported resolution modified and extended the Senate's PAYGO rule to what is now its current form, exempting legislation assumed in the budget resolution.20 After six days of consideration, the Senate agreed to S.Con.Res. 23, as amended, on March 26, by a vote of 56-44.21 While the Senate considered and agreed to several amendments to S.Con.Res. 23, none were related to the PAYGO provision. Subsequently, on April 11, the Senate agreed to the conference report on H.Con.Res. 95 (H.Rept. 108-71) by a 51-50 vote.22 Section 505 of the FY2004 budget resolution contained the Senate language without change, which is the current language of the Senate's PAYGO point of order (explained in "Current Features of the Senate's PAYGO Rule" section, below).23

In 2004, during the second session of the 108th Congress, modification of the Senate's PAYGO rule reportedly was a major obstacle to reaching an agreement on the FY2005 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 95). On March 10, during consideration of the FY2005 budget resolution, Senator Russell Feingold offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 2748) that would have restored the Senate's PAYGO rule to its pre-108th Congress form, under which it did not exempt legislation assumed in the budget resolution. The Senate adopted the Feingold amendment by a vote of 51-48.24 On March 12 (legislative day, March 11), the Senate subsequently agreed to S.Con.Res. 95, as amended by the Feingold amendment, among others, by a vote of 51-45 vote.25 The House-passed FY2005 budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 393), agreed to on March 25, however, included no modification to the existing PAYGO rule.

The conference report included a provision (Section 407 of S.Con.Res. 95, H.Rept. 108-498) similar to the Senate language, but it exempted the reconciliation legislation provided for in the budget resolution (Title II) and expired on April 15, 2005. While the House agreed to the conference report to S.Con.Res. 95, the Senate never considered it. The existing PAYGO rule (Section 505 of H.Con.Res. 95, 108th Congress), therefore, continued to remain in effect.

Action in the 109th Congress. During the 109th Congress, the Senate considered and rejected an amendment to the FY2006 budget resolution to modify the existing PAYGO rule. On March 16, 2005, during the consideration of the FY2006 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18), Senator Russell Feingold offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 186) that would have restored the Senate's PAYGO rule to its pre-108th Congress form, under which it did not exempt legislation assumed in the budget resolution. The Senate rejected the Feingold amendment by a vote of 50-50.26 On March 17, the Senate agreed to S.Con.Res. 18, as amended, by a vote of 51-49.27

Current Features of the Senate's PAYGO Rule

The Senate's PAYGO rule prohibits the consideration of direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase or cause an on- budget deficit in any one of three time periods: (1) the first fiscal year covered by the most recently adopted budget resolution; (2) the first five fiscal years covered by the budget resolution; and (3) the next five fiscal years after that. However, under the rule in its current form, legislation implementing the direct spending or revenue policy changes assumed in the most recently adopted budget resolution is exempt from the rule, even though it might be projected to increase or cause an on-budget deficit.28 Reconciliation legislation considered in 2003 (S. 1054 and H.R. 2, 108th Congress), for example, although projected at the time to increase the deficit, did not violate the rule because it was consistent with the reconciliation instructions contained in Title II of H.Con.Res. 95 (108th Congress).

A motion to waive the PAYGO rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the chair on a point of order raised under the rule, requires an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the membership, duly chosen and sworn (i.e., 60 Senators if no seats are vacant).

The full text of the Senate's PAYGO rule in its current form is provided in Appendix A. As noted above, under the recent extension, the current rule is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008.

Points of Order and Waiver Motions Under the Senate's PAYGO Rule

Beginning in 1993, six points of order have been raised under the Senate's PAYGO rule (see Table 1). Of these six points of order, two were raised against entire bills and the remaining four were raised against amendments. The two points of order against entire bills fell upon the adoption of a waiver motion, thus allowing consideration of the bills to proceed. All four points of order against amendments were sustained and thus the amendments fell.

A total of seven waiver motions under the PAYGO rule have been made in relation to the six points of order. Two waiver motions were successful, while five were rejected. Two separate waiver motions were made relating to the point of order raised against H.R. 3167 (103rd Congress). As indicated in Table 1, the first waiver was rejected on a 59-38 vote on October 26, 1993. The next day, however, the Senate agreed to a motion to reconsider the vote on this waiver motion by voice vote. The Senate, subsequently, approved the waiver motion by a 61-39 vote, and the point of order against H.R. 3167 fell.

Like any other Senate rule, the Senate's PAYGO rule is not self-enforcing. A Senator must raise a point of order under the rule in order to prevent the consideration of legislation that violates the rule. During the period the rule has been in effect, the Senate has at times considered legislation significantly increasing direct spending or decreasing revenues without interference from the Senate's PAYGO rule, either because a point of order was not raised or, following the changes in the FY2002 and FY2004 budget resolutions, because the legislation fit within the available on-budget surpluses or was assumed in the budget resolution.

 Table 1. Actions Under the Senate's PAYGO Rule, Calendar Years

 

 1993-2004

 

 

 Date

 

 

 Object of Point of Order

 

 

 Waiver Motion

 

 

 Disposition of Point of Order

 

 _____________________________________________________________________________

 

 Date

 

      10/26/1993

 

 

 Object of Point of Order

 

      Emergency Unemployment Compensation (H.R. 3167) -- To

 

 extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, and to

 

 establish a system of worker profiling.

 

 

 Waiver Motion

 

      Rejected, 59-38

 

 

 Disposition of Point of Order

 

      Fell on reconsidered vote on waiver motion (see next item)

 

 

 Date

 

      10/27/1993

 

 

 Object of Point of Order

 

      Emergency Unemployment Compensation (H.R. 3167) -- To

 

 extend the emergency unemployment compensation program, and to

 

 establish a system of worker profiling.

 

 

 Waiver Motion

 

      Approved, 61-39

 

 

 Disposition of Point of Order

 

      Fell

 

 

 Date

 

      10/27/1993

 

 

 Object of Point of Order

 

      Emergency Unemployment Compensation (H.R. 3167) --

 

 Bumpers modified amendment no. 1084, to repeal the retroactive

 

 income, estate, and gift tax increase and compensate for the lost

 

 revenue by terminating the Space Station program.

 

 

 Waiver Motion

 

      Rejected, 36-61

 

 

 Disposition of Point of Order

 

      Sustained

 

 

 Date

 

      12/01/1994

 

 

 Object of Point of Order

 

      GATT (H.R. 5110) -- To approve and implement the trade

 

 agreements concluded in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade

 

 negotiations.

 

 

 Waiver Motion

 

      Approved, 68-32

 

 

 Disposition of Point of Order

 

      Fell

 

 

 Date

 

      09/11/1996

 

 

 Object of Point of Order

 

      Treasury/Postal Service Appropriations, 1997 (H.R. 3756)

 

 -- Wyden-Kennedy amendment no. 5206 (to committee amendment beginning

 

 on page 16, line 16, through page 17, line 2), to prohibit the

 

 restriction of certain types of medical communications between a

 

 health care provider and a patient.

 

 

 Waiver Motion

 

      Rejected, 51-48

 

 

 Disposition of Point of Order

 

      Sustained

 

 

 Date

 

      05/07/1998

 

 

 Object of Point of Order

 

      IRS Reform (H.R. 2676) -- Coverdell amendment no. 2353,

 

 to prohibit the use of random audits.

 

 

 Waiver Motion

 

      Rejected, 37-60

 

 

 Disposition of Point of Order

 

      Sustained

 

 

 Date

 

      07/28/1998

 

 

 Object of Point of Order

 

      Treasury/Postal Service Appropriations, 1999 (S. 2312) --

 

 Hutchinson amendment no. 3249, to terminate the Internal Revenue Code

 

 of 1986.

 

 

 Waiver Motion

 

      Rejected, 49-49

 

 

 Disposition of Point of Order

 

      Sustained

 

 

 Source: Congressional Record, especially the Daily

 

 Digest section, various years, searched through the Legislative

 

 Information System [http://www.congress.gov

 

FOOTNOTES

 

 

1 The on-budget deficit excludes the Social Security trust fund surpluses and the net cash flow of the U.S. Postal Service.

2 The BEA amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (Title II of P.L. 99-177), commonly known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. The 1993 and 1997 extensions were included in Title XIV of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-66) and the Budget Enforcement Act of 1997 (Title X of P.L. 105- 33), respectively.

3 For further information on the statutory PAYGO requirement, see CRS Report 98-721, Introduction to the Federal Budget Process, by Robert Keith and Allen Schick; and CRS Report RL31194, Pay-As-You-Go Requirement for FY2002: A Procedural Assessment, by Robert Keith.

4 At the end of the 107th Congress, the House and Senate passed and President Bush signed legislation (P.L. 107-312, 116 Stat. 2456) that removed the positive balances on the PAYGO scorecard through FY2006, thereby preventing any future PAYGO sequestration unless the budget enforcement mechanism is restored. For further information, see CRS Report RS21378, Termination of the "Pay-As-You-Go" (PAYGO) Requirement for FY2003 and Later Years, by Robert Keith.

5 The statutory limits on discretionary spending and the statutory PAYGO requirement for direct spending and revenue legislation, first established by the BEA, expired on Sept. 30, 2002, as well. For additional information on the extension of these budget enforcement mechanisms, see the applicable section in CRS Report RL31478, Federal Budget Process Reform: Analysis of Five Reform Issues, by James V. Saturno and Bill Heniff Jr. In addition, the three-fifths vote requirements in the Senate to waive certain points of order under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA, Titles I-IX of P.L. 93-344), as amended, and to sustain an appeal of a ruling of the chair on a point of order under the CBA, expired on Sept. 30, 2002. These supermajority waiver requirements, however, were restored and extended in 2002 through Apr. 15, 2003, and again in 2003 through Sept. 30, 2008, along with the Senate PAYGO point of order.

6 For a discussion of issues related to PAYGO rules, see CRS Report RL32835, PAYGO Rules for Budget Enforcement in the House and Senate, by Robert Keith and Bill Heniff Jr.

7 Such procedural provisions may be included in a budget resolution under the authority provided by Sec. 301(b)(4), the so-called "elastic clause," of the CBA. This section gives Congress the option to include in a budget resolution other matters and procedures consistent with the purposes of the Budget Act.

8 See U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Concurrent Resolution Setting Forth the Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 64, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1993), p. 47. The reconciliation bill enacted later that session, P.L. 103-66 (the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993), was estimated at the time as reducing the deficit by about $500 billion over FY1994- FY1998.

9 See U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1995, conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 218, 103rd Cong., 2nd sess., (Washington: GPO, 1994), pp. 54-56.

10 See U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996, conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 67, 104th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 91. Like the original rule established in 1993, the 1995 rule contained a provision preventing the deficit reduction expected to be achieved from enactment of a subsequent reconciliation bill from being used to offset the costs of any new direct spending or revenue legislation. The subsequent reconciliation legislation (H.R. 2491), however, was not enacted; it was vetoed by the President.

11 See U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000, conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 68, 106th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1999), pp. 72-73.

12 Congressional Budget Office, The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 2000-2009, (Washington: CBO, 1999), Summary Table 1, p. xiv.

13 Congress did not complete action on an FY2003 budget resolution. The Senate Budget Committee reported a FY2003 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 100), but the Senate did not consider it.

14 See U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 95, 108th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 122-123.

15 The amendment was subject to a point of order under Sec. 306 of the CBA, which prohibits consideration of any measure within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee unless it is reported by the Budget Committee, is discharged from the committee, or is an amendment to such a measure. A motion to waive the point of order requires a three-fifths vote in the Senate. A motion to waive the point of order raised against the amendment was rejected by a 49-49 vote. See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (June 5, 2002), pp. S5004-S5015.

16 On June 6, 2002, cloture was invoked on H.R. 4775. Under cloture, a point of order may be raised against nongermane amendments. The chair ruled that Senator Daschle's amendment was not germane to the FY2002 supplemental appropriations act, and the amendment fell. See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (June 5, 2002), pp. S5015-S5018; and Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (June 6, 2002), pp. S5114-S5120.

17 The amendment was subject to a point of order under Section 306 of the CBA. A motion to waive the point of order raised against the amendment was rejected by a 59-40 vote. See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (June 19, 2002), pp. S5762-S5767; and Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (June 20, 2002), pp. S5808-S5821.

18 Under the Congressional Budget Act, April 15 is the target date for Congress to complete action on the annual budget resolution.

19 See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (Oct. 16, 2002), pp. S10527-S10531 and S10553. The legislation also restored and extended through April 15, 2003, the three-fifths vote requirement for certain waivers of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

20 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget FY2004, committee print to accompany S.Con.Res. 23, 108th Cong., 1st sess., S.Prt. 108-19, Mar. 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 60-61.

21 For the Senate consideration and adoption of the FY2004 budget resolution, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (Mar. 17-21 and 25-26, 2003), pp. S3774-S4268 and S4334-S4422.

22 For the Senate consideration of the conference report to H.Con.Res. 95, the FY2004 budget resolution, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (Apr. 11, 2003), pp. S5266-S5293, S5295-S5316.

23 Like the temporary extension agreed to in 2002, the FY2004 budget resolution also contained an extension through September 30, 2008, of the three-fifths vote requirement for certain waivers of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

24 For the consideration and adoption of the Feingold amendment, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (Mar. 10, 2004), pp. S2510-S2516, S2518.

25 For the consideration and adoption of the Senate version of the FY2005 budget resolution, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (Mar. 8-11, 2004), pp. S2256-S2294, S2377-S2403, S2404-S2423, S2465-S2537, S2591-S2641, S2643-S2699.

26 For the consideration and rejection of the Feingold amendment, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (Mar. 16, 2005), pp. S2795-S2806.

27 For the consideration and adoption of the Senate version of the FY2006 budget resolution, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (Mar. 14-17, 2005), pp. S2587-S2641, S2661-S2728, S2759-S2841, S2875-S2897, S2899-S2926, S2929-S2967.

28 The joint explanatory statement in the conference report to accompany the FY2004 budget resolution indicated that the budget resolution assumed direct spending increases and revenue reductions totaling $1,755.957 billion over the period FY2003-FY2013, as reflected on a "PAYGO scorecard." See U.S. Congress, Committee on Conference, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget -- Fiscal Year 2004, conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 95, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-71 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 122-123.

 

END OF FOOTNOTES

 

 

Appendix A. Text of the Senate's

 

Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

 

 

(Section 505 of H.Con.Res. 95, Budget Resolution for FY2004)

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

SEC. 505. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.

(a) POINT OF ORDER. --

(1) IN GENERAL. -- It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit for any one of the three applicable time periods as measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).

(2) APPLICABLE TIME PERIODS. -- For purposes of this subsection, the term "applicable time period" means any 1 of the 3 following periods:

(A) The first year covered by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.

(B) The period of the first 5 fiscal years covered by the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.

(C) The period of the 5 fiscal years following the first 5 fiscal years covered in the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget.

(3) DIRECT-SPENDING LEGISLATION. -- For purposes of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term "direct-spending legislation" means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

(4) EXCLUSION. -- For purposes of this subsection, the terms "direct-spending legislation" and "revenue legislation" do not include -- (A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or (B) any provision of legislation that affects the full funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

(5) BASELINE. -- Estimates prepared pursuant to this section shall --

(A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget as adjusted for any changes in revenues or direct spending assumed by such resolution; and

(B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections (b) through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for fiscal years beyond those covered by that concurrent resolution on the budget.

(6) PRIOR SURPLUS. -- If direct spending or revenue legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when taken together with all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A), except that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in net deficit reduction enacted pursuant to reconciliation instructions since the beginning of that same calendar year shall not be available.

(b) WAIVER. -- This section may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

(c) APPEALS. -- Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

(d) DETERMINATION OF BUDGET LEVELS. -- For purposes of this section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee on the Budget of the Senate.

(e) SUNSET. -- This section shall expire on September 30, 2008.

DOCUMENT ATTRIBUTES
  • Authors
    Heniff, Bill, Jr.
  • Institutional Authors
    Congressional Research Service
  • Subject Area/Tax Topics
  • Jurisdictions
  • Language
    English
  • Tax Analysts Document Number
    Doc 2005-8530
  • Tax Analysts Electronic Citation
    2005 TNT 78-50
Copy RID