Washington, DC — Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13) issued the following the statement regarding H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009. The Congresswoman voted against the bill, which passed the House by a vote of 265-166.

Madame Speaker:

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2920, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2009.  While this legislation is well meaning, it would remove power from Congress for spending and give even more authority to the Executive Branch. It would not reduce spending or reduce the deficit; it removes the important role of the House Budget Committee and House Appropriations Committee in determining spending for the citizens and vital needs of the United States. Finally, Congress now has strong provisions ensuring that the budget is balanced.  All we need to do is our job. 

Why are we here?  In 1990, Congress passed the bi-partisan Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. This law included a version of “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGO) requirement for new laws affecting mandatory spending and revenues, as well as annual limits on discretionary spending.  This law expired in 2002.  However, both the House and Senate have enforced PAYGO requirements through our own respective rules.

As a Member of the Appropriations Committee in both the U.S. House of Representatives and in the State of Michigan, I am used to making difficult decisions. The Appropriations Committee has to balance its budget, and it has to pass its legislation on time in order for the nation to function. Since the Democrats have been in the majority, earmarks—which account for one percent of the budget—have been reduced in both number and total. Discretionary spending has gone down. The Democratic leadership has mandated more disclosure, more openness, and more transparency to the Appropriations process. 

The bill removes power from Congress for spending and gives it to the Executive Branch. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) states that “the legislation would shift some control over the budget process from the Congress to the executive branch in ways that could effectively require lawmakers to vote on legislation without a clear indication of the potential impact of their decisions on the triggering of a future sequestration.” Congress alone has the Constitutional authority to protect and spend the people’s purse—not the Executive branch.   

The bill would not reduce spending nor reduce the deficit. If the PAYGO system provided for by the bill was used in place of the current congressional rules, CBO projects that the legislation’s enactment could lead to larger future deficits. Compared with current PAYGO rules, CBO contends that the bill could lead to higher spending or lower revenues in future years by incorporating certain increases in spending and reductions in revenues into the baseline for budget enforcement purposes. According to CBO, the legislation could increase deficits through three different budgetary mechanisms—the proposed temporary rule to score certain changes in spending and revenues relative to “current policy” rather than current law, the bill’s modification of the baseline’s treatment of some expiring mandatory programs, and the bill’s proposed new system for scoring legislation to convert discretionary programs to mandatory ones.

The bill removes the important role of the House Budget Committee and House Appropriations Committee in determining spending for our constituents. By mandating across-the-board cuts, the bill removes the role of both the Budget Committee and Appropriations Committee to make precise, detailed revenue reductions or program changes.  Mandatory across-the-board spending cuts and sequestration sounds good, but mandating that all programs take a cut, inevitably hurts worthwhile, meaningful programs. This is the role of the authorizing and Appropriations Committees in Congress. This is the reason why Members of Congress are elected—to make difficult, tough decisions. As a Member of the House Appropriations Committee, this is what we do all of the time.

The bill is not as strong as current PAYGO rules in Congress today. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill could “enhance overall budget enforcement,” but only if combined with the Congress' existing PAYGO rules. If the PAYGO system provided for by the bill was used in place of the current congressional rules, CBO projects that the legislation’s enactment could lead to larger future deficits. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the bill could “enhance overall budget enforcement,” but only if combined with the Congress' existing PAYGO rules. If the PAYGO system provided for by the bill was used in place of the current congressional rules, CBO projects that the legislation's enactment could lead to larger future deficits.

The bill’s mandatory across-the-board spending cut mechanism that is supposed to deter deficits is impractical. CBO believes that, under the bill, the power of mandatory cuts as a deterrent would be weakened for two reasons. First, the PAYGO scorecard would be based on the average annual budgetary effects of legislation over a 10-year period rather than “year-by-year effects.” Second, the sequestration mechanism would expire after FY 2014. According to CBO, those two factors would require less budgetary discipline than a requirement to fully offset increases in spending on a year-by-year basis or to continue the sequestration enforcement mechanism indefinitely.

Congress should not abdicate its role. We are all elected by the people of our congressional districts to do a tough job. Those same people can judge by our record how well we have served and represented them. I welcome the challenge that comes with balancing the budget. I refuse to balance the budget by further eliminating or reducing programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Food Stamps, or the hundreds of other domestic programs that help women, children, senior citizens, and families survive. Congress needs to retain control of the people’s purse and not give the executive branch even more authority. We must make the difficult decisions on both revenue and spending cuts and increases and follow Congress’ current, stronger PAYGO rules. 

During a time when our country and my home state of Michigan is witnessing record unemployment, business losses, and home foreclosures, it is time for elected leaders to do our job—lead.  This legislation, while well meaning, abdicates the role of Congress and does not protect meaningful programs for children, women, and families.