James Oberstar: “Mr. Chairman, I read with interest and puzzlement the gentleman's amendment that requires offsetting decreases in…”

“Mr. Chairman, I read with interest and puzzlement the gentleman's amendment that requires offsetting decreases in spending of the Federal Government, such that the net effect of this act does not either increase the Federal deficit nor reduce Federal surplus, of which we do not have one at this point. We have inquired of the Congressional Budget Office about the language of the bill. The legislation before us, H.R. 569, does not include direct spending. The Congressional Budget Office estimates in their statement included in the committee report language: CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would cost about $1.45 billion over the next 5 years, which should be less now with the King amendment, and an additional $0.35 billion after 2012, assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts. Enacting the bill, CBO says, would not affect direct spending or receipts. So I think the gentleman's amendment, while well intentioned, goes beyond the purpose of PAYGO.”