John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, who has led the way in this quest for health care reform and tirelessly, persistently, she has brought us to this moment of the decision, the gentlewoman from California, the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, to supplement my remarks about statutory PAYGO, I would like to include in the Record the attached section of the bill. Madam Speaker, at the outset of the 1990s, the Congress passed the Budget Enforcement Act for a simple purpose: to ensure that the Budget Summit Agreement we just passed was actually carried out. Among its provisions was a new rule called PAYGO, pay-as-you-go. I can remember how our critics disdained our resort to budget process instead of making hard substantive decisions. They said we were dodging the hard choices, choices we had to make if we were going to wipe out the deficit. But by the end of the 1990s, the budget was in surplus for the first time in 30 years, and it was clear that for the budget process, rules we would put in place like PAYGO played a big part in our fiscal success. Republicans were in the majority in 2002 when the Budget Enforcement Act expired, and they chose not to reinstate PAYGO because they knew it would impede passage of their tax-cutting agenda. Without these process rules in place, the budget plunged from a surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $413 billion in the year 2004. When Democrats took back the House, we made PAYGO a rule of the House the first day we convened the 110th Congress. The Obama administration, the current Congress have inherited an economy in crisis and a colossal deficit, swollen by recession and recovery measures both. As these measures pull us out of recession, we should turn our attention on our longer-term fiscal fate. Statutory PAYGO works. It's proven to work. It reins in new entitlement spending. It reins in tax cuts as well. Both tend to be long lasting, easy to pass, hard to repeal. By insisting on offsets and insisting on deficit neutrality, PAYGO buffers the bottom line, and Lord knows it needs it now. Its terms are complex, but at its core is a commonsense rule that everyone can understand: When you are in a hole, stop digging. Statutory PAYGO was first put in place with bipartisan support, renewed on a bipartisan basis in 1997. When the House passed it in July, the rule PAYGO, two dozen Republicans joined 241 Democrats in voting for it. We recall and invite you to cast another vote today for statutory for fiscal responsibility. Vote for statutory PAYGO. It will help us reduce the deficit, both short-term and long-term. And while it can't solve all of our problems--it's no panacea--it does represent one solid step forward towards getting things back on the path of fiscal sustainability and fiscal responsibility. Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Budget Committee I am submitting for the Record a section-by-section analysis of the Statutory Pay-As- You-Go Act of 2010 that the House is considering today as part of the Senate amendments to H.J. Res. 45. The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes points of order in the House of Representatives only to the extent that it does so explicitly. Section-by-Section Analysis of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 Section 1--Short Title: The title of this Act is the ``Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.'' Section 2--Purpose: The purpose of the Statutory Pay-As- You-Go Act (PAYGO) of 2010 is to reestablish a statutory procedure to enforce a rule of budget neutrality on new revenue and direct spending legislation. Section 3--Definitions and Applications: Section 3 sets forth definitions of terms used in the PAYGO statute. Many terms are defined by cross-references to the standard definitions used in other budget laws, including the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA) of 1985. Terms that are of particular importance include: Budgetary effects. Budgetary effects are defined as the amount by which PAYGO legislation changes mandatory outlays or revenues relative to the baseline. The budgetary effects of changes in tax or mandatory spending law are measured relative to what revenues or mandatory spending would otherwise have been if not for the legislation, as measured by the baseline (as defined in section 257 of BBEDCA). Off-budget effects (i.e., Social Security trust funds and the Postal Service fund) and debt service are not counted as budgetary effects. ``Mandatory spending'' and ``direct spending'' (the term used in the statutory language) are synonymous. PAYGO legislation/PAYGO Act. Legislation, or provisions thereof, that increases or reduces revenues, or increases or reduces the cost of mandatory programs, is called PAYGO legislation or a PAYGO Act. In this Act, the terms are used interchangeably. PAYGO legislation is subject to statutory

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under sections 421(a)(4) and 423(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget aggregates and allocations for certain House committees for fiscal year 2010 and the period of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. These adjustments respond to House consideration of the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 3326, Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. Section 1011 of the House amendment includes funding for Medicare improvements. The House amendment also designates certain funding for overseas deployments and other activities pursuant to S. Con. Res. 13. Corresponding tables are 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. Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar at 226- 7200.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 325 of S. Con. Res. 13, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, I hereby submit for printing 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. 4213, the Tax Extenders Act of 2009. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I am proud to claim Freightliner Custom Chassis Corporation (FCCC) as a corporate constituent. On October 29, 2009, Freightliner hosted a plant-wide celebration to announce that its facility in Gaffney, South Carolina is now operating as a Zero-Waste- to-Landfill manufacturing plant. FCCC has been working diligently for years to achieve this goal, which underscores its strong commitment to a better environment. Freightliner is the first company in the trucking industry to achieve Zero-Waste-to-Landfill status. Before undertaking this initiative, FCCC disposed of some 250,000 pounds of solid waste every month. It now disposes of zero pounds. FCCC's parent company, Daimler Trucks North America LLC, began the Zero-Waste-to-Landfill program as a means of reducing the carbon footprint of its manufacturing facilities. FCCC's facility in Gaffney was selected as the pilot site beginning in September 2007 and will now serve as an example for other facilities to emulate. FCCC's move to the forefront environmentally reflects well on it, and shows that other manufacturers can do the same.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the House to the death of a remarkable woman. On November 29, Mrs. Nettie DuRant Dickson of Darlington, South Carolina, died at the age of 106. Remarkable not only for her age, but for a life full of accomplishment, Mrs. Dickson and her late husband, William James Dickson, owned the Darlington Hardware. Mrs. Dickson was a member of the Darlington Presbyterian Church and active for years with the American Legion Auxiliary. In the past few years she resided at the Methodist Manor in Florence, South Carolina and then at Agape Senior Care in Irmo, South Carolina. One of twelve children, Nettie DuRant Dickson is survived by sibling Marion DuRant, daughters Elizabeth Betty DuPre and Jeanette D. Renfrow, numerous nieces and nephews, four grandsons, and three great-grandsons. In the end, what counts most is not how long we lived, but how well. On both counts, Nettie DuRant Dickson lived a good and fruitful life.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. 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. SPRATT

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.

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.

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

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