Budget Enforcement Procedures: The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

June 2, 2003 – November 17, 2021 RL31943

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule
Updated November 17, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL31943

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

Summary
The Senate pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, rule prohibits consideration of legislation that is projected
to increase on-budget deficits in any of the following four fiscal-year periods: (1) the current
year; (2) the budget year; (3) the six years beginning with the current year; and (4) the 11 years
also beginning with the current year. The rule applies to legislation estimated to affect direct
spending (commonly referred to as mandatory spending) and revenues. It does not apply to
spending provided and controlled through the annual appropriations process (i.e., discretionary
spending).
The rule general y requires that any legislation estimated to increase direct spending or reduce
revenues must be offset so that the legislation does not increase the on-budget deficit. The
offsetting provisions must be estimated to reduce direct spending, increase revenues, or a
combination of the two. Without such offsetting provisions, the legislation would require the
support of at least 60 Senators to waive the rule and be considered on the Senate floor.
The Senate first established the PAYGO rule in the FY1994 budget resolution in 1993. As
original y established, the rule prohibited the consideration of any direct spending and revenue
legislation that was projected to increase the deficit over a 10-year period. The Senate has
modified and extended the rule seven times in subsequent budget resolutions and once in a Senate
simple resolution. Most recently, in the FY2018 budget resolution, the Senate modified the rule to
add two additional periods (the current fiscal year and the budget year) to the existing periods (the
six-year and 11-year periods) for which legislation may not increase the projected on-budget
deficit.
Since 1993, when the rule was established, through November 5, 2021, the PAYGO rule has been
used to prevent the consideration of 46 amendments. During the same period, the Senate voted to
waive the PAYGO rule 18 times, al owing consideration of the matter: six times in relation to a
measure, 11 times in relation to an amendment (eight of these amendments were full-text
substitutes to a bil ), and once in relation to the disposition of a House amendment.
This report was first issued in 2003 and has been updated periodical y since then. This update
adds information on points of order raised under the rule since the beginning of 2018 and includes
minor revisions to the previous version (dated January 9, 2018).
This report wil continue to be updated as developments warrant.
Congressional Research Service

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

Introduction
The Senate pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, rule prohibits consideration of legislation that is projected
to increase on-budget deficits in any of the following four fiscal-year periods: (1) the current
year; (2) the budget year; (3) the six years beginning with the current year; and (4) the 11 years
also beginning with the current year.1 The rule applies to legislation estimated to affect direct
spending and revenues. It does not apply to discretionary spending.
Direct spending, also referred to as mandatory spending, is provided or controlled by laws other
than appropriations acts, general y continues without any annual legislative action, and provides
spending authority for such programs as Medicare, unemployment compensation, and federal
retirement programs.2 It is distinguished from discretionary spending, which is controlled through
the annual appropriations process. Furthermore, direct spending is under the jurisdiction of the
respective authorizing committees, while discretionary spending is under the jurisdiction of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations. Revenues, which are under the jurisdiction of the Senate
Committee on Finance, are the funds collected from the public primarily as a result of the federal
government’s exercise of its sovereign powers.3 They consist of receipts from individual income
taxes, social insurance taxes (or payroll taxes, such as Social Security and Medicare taxes),
corporate income taxes, excise taxes, duties, gifts, and miscel aneous receipts.
The rule general y requires that any legislation estimated to increase direct spending or reduce
revenues must be offset so that the legislation does not increase the on-budget deficit. The
offsetting provisions must be estimated to reduce direct spending, increase revenues, or a
combination of the two. Without such offsetting provisions, the legislation would require the
support of at least 60 Senators to waive the rule and be considered on the Senate floor.
The Senate 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 PAYGO rule exists alongside a similar PAYGO requirement in statute. Like the
Senate rule, the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 (Title I of P.L. 111-139, 124 Stat. 8-29),
enacted on February 12, 2010, is intended to discourage or prevent Congress from taking certain
legislative action that would increase the on-budget deficit.4 It general y requires that legislation
affecting direct spending or revenues not increase the deficit over the six-year and 11-year time
periods, as in the Senate rule.5

1 T he on-budget deficit excludes the receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance T rust
Fund, the Federal Disability Insurance T rust Fund, and the Postal Service Fund.
2 T he rule refers to direct spending “as that term is defined by, and interpreted fo r purposes of, the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (T itle II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.),” as amended. Section
250(c)(8) of the act states that “‘direct spending’ means—(A) budget authority provided by law other than
appropriations acts; (B) entitlement authority; and (C) the food stamp program.”
3 Other legislative committees may have jurisdiction over legislation affecting a small portion of revenues.
4 For more detailed information on the statutory requirement, see CRS Report R41157, The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010: Sum m ary and Legislative History.
5 While the Statutory PAYGO Act requires the calculation of budgetary effects of legislation over five -year and 10-
year periods, it also requires that any budgetary effects in the current year shall be tr eated as though they occurred in
the budget year (i.e., the first year of the five-year and 10-year periods), effectively applying the requirement over six -
year and 11-year periods.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 23 Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

While the Senate PAYGO rule and the statutory requirement are similar, they are different in
significant ways relating to when and how they are enforced. The Senate rule applies the PAYGO
requirement during the consideration of legislation on the Senate floor, general y applies to each
measure individual y, and is enforced by a point of order. The Statutory PAYGO Act, in contrast,
applies the requirement to legislation after it has been enacted, applies to the net effect of al
legislation enacted during a session of Congress, and is enforced by sequestration—the
cancel ation of budgetary resources provided by laws affecting direct spending—to eliminate any
increase in the deficit resulting from the enactment of legislation.
This report explains the current features of the Senate PAYGO rule, reviews Senate procedural
actions under the rule, and describes its legislative history, including key changes to the rule since
it was established in 1993.
Current Features of the Senate PAYGO Rule
The current Senate PAYGO rule prohibits the consideration of direct spending or revenue
legislation that is projected to increase or cause an on-budget deficit in any of the following four
time periods: (1) the current fiscal year; (2) the budget year; (3) the six-year period consisting of
the current fiscal year, the budget year, and the 4 ensuing fiscal years; or (4) the 11-year period
consisting of the current year, the budget year, and the ensuing nine fiscal years.6 The rule
general y requires that each measure (including amendments) affecting direct spending and
revenues not increase the on-budget deficit in any of the four time periods specified.7 That is, to
comply with the rule, each measure projected to increase direct spending or reduce revenues must
also include changes to existing law that would result in a reduction in direct spending, an
increase in revenues, or both by at least equivalent amounts. The full text of the Senate PAYGO
rule in its current form is provided in the Appendix.
The Senate PAYGO rule provides for a “pay-as-you-go ledger” to record any projected deficit
reduction resulting from legislation (except reconciliation legislation) enacted since the beginning
of the calendar year and not accounted for in the baseline, as defined by the rule. This is
presumably intended to provide some flexibility to the bil -by-bil application of the requirement.
A measure projected to increase the on-budget deficit may use any deficit reduction balance on
this ledger as an offset to comply with the PAYGO rule.
The rule specifies that the levels of new direct spending and revenues for a fiscal year must be
determined on the basis of estimates made by the Senate Budget Committee (SBC).8 General y,

6 T he “budget year” refers to the fiscal year that begins on October 1 of the calendar year in which the session of
Congress begins. T he “current fiscal year” is the fiscal year that immediately precedes the “budget year.” Between
October and December of any given year, the requirement would cover five - and 10-year periods instead of the six- and
11-year periods.
7 T he rule defines direct spending legislation as “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion [such as a motion to
concur with a House amendment], or conference report that affects direct spending as that term is defi ned by ... the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.” Section 250(c)(8) of the Deficit Control Act states that
“‘direct spending’ means—(A) budget authority provided by law other than appropriations acts; (B) entitlement
authority; and (C) the food stamp program.” While no specific provision of the rule defines revenue legislation, the rule
would presumably apply to any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that affects revenues, as
defined in the text above. T he rule explicitly excludes any direct spending and revenue provision in a concurrent
resolution on the budget or that affects “the full funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance guarantee
commitment in effect on” November 5, 1990.
8 T his requirement is consistent with other budget -related rules. Specifically, estimates by the SBC must also be used to
determine any violations of the rules associated with the budget resolution (see Section 312 of the Budget Act).
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 8 link to page 8 Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

the estimates used by the SBC would be based on the cost estimates prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and, for revenue legislation, the Joint Committee on
Taxation (JCT), but the SBC has the authority to make its own estimates, which may vary from
the CBO and JCT estimates. The rule also specifies that the estimates used in determining
whether a measure increases the on-budget deficit, and thus violates the PAYGO requirement,
must use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most recently adopted budget resolution.
Congress usual y uses the baseline provided by CBO. In producing its baseline estimates, CBO
projects revenue, spending, and deficit or surplus levels under existing law (i.e., assuming no
legislative changes). For fiscal years not covered by the current budget resolution, the estimates
must be calculated using the rules set forth in “subsections (b) through (d)” of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (see 2 U.S.C. 907(b)-(d)).9
The Senate PAYGO rule may be waived or set aside by unanimous consent. A motion to waive
the rule, or to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the presiding officer on the point of order, requires
an affirmative vote of three-fifths of Senators, duly chosen and sworn (i.e., 60 Senators if no more
than one vacancy). Note that like any other Senate rule, the Senate PAYGO rule is not self-
enforcing. A Senator must raise a point of order under the rule to prevent the consideration of
legislation that violates the rule. It is possible, therefore, for the Senate to consider and pass
legislation if it does not adhere to the PAYGO rule even if no waiver motion is agreed to so long
as a point of order is not raised.
Final y, the current Senate PAYGO rule has no expiration date.
Procedural Actions Under the Senate PAYGO Rule
The Senate PAYGO rule, when it has been enforced through a point of order, has general y been
successful in preventing the consideration of matters projected to increase the deficit: Most
motions to waive the rule have been rejected. Since 1993, when the rule was established, the
PAYGO rule has been used to prevent the consideration of 46 amendments.10 In that time, a total
of 63 points of order under the PAYGO rule were raised (see Table 1). In most cases, a motion to
waive the PAYGO point of order was made.11 The Senate voted to waive the PAYGO rule 18
times, al owing consideration of the matter: six times in relation to a measure, 11 times in relation
to an amendment (eight of these amendments were full-text substitutes to a bil ), and once in
relation to the disposition of a House amendment. The Senate rejected the remaining 40 motions,
and in each case, the point of order was sustained, preventing consideration of the matter.
Although the Senate PAYGO point of order, when raised, has general y been successful, the rule
has not completely prevented the Senate from considering and passing legislation that was
projected to increase the deficit or reduce the surplus during the period the rule has been in effect.
In addition to directly waiving the PAYGO rule, as noted above, the Senate has considered and
passed such legislation (1) by fitting legislation within the available on-budget surplus or
assuming a deficit increase in the budget resolution in accordance with the provisions of the

9 Section 257 of the Deficit Control Act sets forth certain assumptions regarding direct spending and revenues (as well
as discretionary spending) in calculating baseline projections.
10 T hrough November 5, 2021.
11 As indicated in Table 1, in four instances, a motion to waive the point of order was not made. In addition, two
separate waiver motions were made relating to the point of order raised against H.R. 3167 (103rd Congress). T he 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. T he Senate subsequently approved the waiver motion by a 61 -
39 vote, and the point of order against H.R. 3167 fell.
Congressional Research Service

3

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

PAYGO rule as adopted in the FY2002 and FY2004 budget resolutions, respectively;12 (2) by
al owing for adjustments to the Senate PAYGO ledger to accommodate the budgetary effects of
certain legislation, most recently reconciliation legislation that complies with directives in the
budget resolution;13 (3) by designating the spending or revenue provisions as emergency
requirements;14 and (4) by not raising the point of order to enforce the rule (in cases for which
available cost estimates projected a net budgetary impact that would increase the deficit).15

12 For example, in 2001, the Senate considered and passed the Economic Growth and T ax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001 (P.L. 107-16)—which the JCT projected would reduce revenues by $1.26 trillion over the 11 -year period of
FY2001-FY2011—without violating the PAYGO rule, because it did not increase the on-budget deficit . See CBO, Pay-
As-You-Go Estimat e, H.R. 1836, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 , as cleared by the
Congress on May 26, 2001, June 4, 2001. In addition, in 2003, the Senate considered and passed the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 ( P.L. 108-173)—which CBO projected would
increase direct spending by $395 billion over the 10 -year period of FY2004-FY2013—without violating the PAYGO
rule, because the deficit increase was assumed in the budget resolution . See CBO, Letter to Honorable William “ Bill”
M. T homas, chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Estim ate of Effect on Direct Spending and Revenues of
Conference Agreem ent on H.R. 1 [Medicare Prescription Drug, Im provem ent, and Modernization Act of 2003] ,
November 20, 2003.
13 T he following budget resolutions included one or more provisions to allow for such adjustments: (1) S.Con.Res. 13,
FY2010 budget resolution (Section 301, which still required the specified legislation to not increase the deficit over the
11-year period); (2) S.Con.Res. 11, FY2016 budget resolution (Section 4303, which still required the specified
legislation to not increase the deficit over the 11 -year period); (3) S.Con.Res. 3, FY2017 budget resolution (Sections
3001 and 3002, which combined appear to limit any net increase in the deficit by $2 billion over the 11 -year period);
(4) H.Con.Res. 71, FY2018 budget resolution (Section 3003, relating to reconciliation legislation, and several other
“reserve funds” that still required that the specified legislation not increase the deficit over the 11 -year period); (5)
S.Con.Res. 5, the FY2021 budget resolution (Section 3001(b), relating to reconciliation legislation, and several other
“reserve funds” that effectively exempted the specified legislation from the current year and budget year requirement
but not the six-year and 11-year requirement); and (6) S.Con.Res. 14, FY2022 budget resolution (Section 3002(a),
relating to reconciliation legislation, and several other “reserve funds” that effectively exempted the specified
legislation from either the current and budget year requirement or also the six -year requirement but not the 11-year
requirement).
14 For example, in 2009, the Senate considered the conference report on H.R. 1, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, which contained an emergency designation and thereby exempted the spending and revenue
provisions from counting for purposes of the PAYGO rule. According to CBO, the conference report on H.R. 1 was
projected to increase the on-budget deficit by $805 billion over the FY2009 -FY2014 period and $789 billion over the
FY2009-FY2019 period. See CBO, Letter to Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives,
Estim ated Cost of the Conference Agreem ent for H.R. 1, the Am erican Recovery and Reinvestm ent Act of 2009, as
posted on the Web site of the House Com m ittee on Rules, February 13, 2009. T he emergency designation was itself
subject to a point of order and was waived. See Congressional Record, vol. 155, part 3 (February 13, 2009), p. 4269.
15 For example, on September 18, 2007, the Senate passed S. 558, the Mental Health Parity Act of 2007, with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute by unanimous consent. According to CBO, the bill as reported by the Senate
Committee on Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions was projected to increase the on -budget deficit by $930 million
over the FY2008-FY2012 period and $2,760 million over the FY2008 -FY2017 period. See CBO, S. 558, Mental
Health Parity Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the Senate Com m ittee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions on
February 14, 2007, March 20, 2007.
Congressional Research Service

4

Table 1. Points of Order and Waiver Motions Under the Senate PAYGO Rule
Disposition of
Date
Object of Point of Order
Waiver Motion
Point of Order
10-26-1993
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (H.R. 3167)—
Rejected, 59-38
Fel on reconsidered
Measure.
vote on waiver motion
(see next item)
10-27-1993
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (H.R. 3167)—
Approved, 61-39
Fel
Measure.
10-27-1993
Emergency Unemployment Compensation (H.R. 3167)—
Rejected, 36-61
Sustained
Bumpers modified amendment S.Amdt. 1084, to repeal the retroactive income, estate, and gift tax increase
and compensate for the lost revenue by terminating the Space Station program.
12-01-1994
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (also referred to as General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade or GATT)
Approved, 68-32
Fel
(H.R. 5110)—
Measure.
09-11-1996
Treasury/Postal Service Appropriations, 1997 (H.R. 3756)—
Rejected, 51-48
Sustained
Wyden-Kennedy S.Amdt. 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.
05-07-1998
IRS Reform (H.R. 2676)—
Rejected, 37-60
Sustained
Coverdel S.Amdt. 2353, to prohibit the use of random audits.
07-28-1998
Treasury/Postal Service Appropriations, 1999 (S. 2312)—
Rejected, 49-49
Sustained
Hutchinson S.Amdt. 3249, to terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
01-22-2003
Omnibus Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2)—
Rejected, 45-49
Sustained
Reed S.Amdt. 40, to expand the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002.
01-23-2003
Omnibus Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2)—
Rejected, 41-56
Sustained
Clinton S.Amdt. 89, to improve health care under the Medicare and Medicaid programs.
03-11-2003
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (S. 3)—
Rejected, 49-47
Sustained
Murray S.Amdt. 258, to improve the availability of contraceptives for women.
CRS-5

Disposition of
Date
Object of Point of Order
Waiver Motion
Point of Order
07-10-2003
State Department Authorization (S. 925)—
Rejected, 48-48
Sustained
Murray S.Amdt. 1170 (to S.Amdt. 1136), to provide additional weeks of temporary extended
unemployment compensation for individuals who have exhausted such compensation and to make extended
unemployment benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act temporarily available for employees
with less than 10 years of service.
03-25-2004
Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997)—
Rejected, 46-53
Sustained
Murray S.Amdt. 2859, to provide for domestic violence prevention.
05-04-2004
Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act (S. 1637)—
Rejected, 54-45
Sustained
Wyden modified S.Amdt. 3109, to provide trade adjustment assistance for service workers.
05-11-2004
Jumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) Act (S. 1637)—
Rejected, 59-40
Sustained
Cantwel -Voinovich S.Amdt. 3114, to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act
of 2002.
12-08-2006
Tax Extenders—House Message
Approved, 67-21
Fel
Frist motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6111, to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the Tax Court may review claims for equitable innocent
spouse relief and to suspend the running on the period of limitations while such claims are pending.
01-25-2007
Fair Minimum Wage (H.R. 2)—
Rejected, 47-48
Sustained
Enzi (for Ensign) S.Amdt. 154 (to S.Amdt. 100), to improve access to affordable health care.
01-25-2007
Fair Minimum Wage (H.R. 2)—
Rejected, 42-51
Sustained
Bunning S.Amdt. 119 (to S.Amdt. 100), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 1993
income tax increase on Social Security benefits.
01-25-2007
Fair Minimum Wage (H.R. 2)—
Rejected, 43-50
Sustained
Smith S.Amdt. 113 (to S.Amdt. 100), to make permanent certain education-related tax incentives.
01-31-2007
Fair Minimum Wage (H.R. 2)—
Rejected, 46-50
Sustained
Kyl S.Amdt. 115 (to S.Amdt. 100), to extend through December 31, 2008, the depreciation treatment of
leasehold, restaurant, and retail space improvements.
04-19-2007
Court Security Improvement Act (S. 378)—
[none]
Sustained
Ensign S.Amdt. 897, to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the appointment of additional
Federal circuit judges, to divide the Ninth Judicial Circuit of the United States into two circuits.
06-06-2007
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 1348)—
Rejected, 53-44
Sustained
Menendez S.Amdt. 1194 (to S.Amdt. 1150), to modify the deadline for the family backlog reduction.
CRS-6

Disposition of
Date
Object of Point of Order
Waiver Motion
Point of Order
06-06-2007
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (S. 1348)—
Rejected, 44-53
Sustained
Salazar (for Clinton) further modified S.Amdt. 1183 (to S.Amdt. 1150), to reclassify the spouses and minor
children of lawful permanent residents as immediate relatives.
06-20-2007
Clean Energy Act (H.R. 6)—
Rejected, 36-56
Sustained
Gregg S.Amdt. 1718 (to S.Amdt. 1704), to strike the provision extending the additional duty on ethanol.
06-20-2007
Clean Energy Act (H.R. 6)—
Rejected, 31-63
Sustained
Inhofe S.Amdt. 1666 (to S.Amdt. 1502), to ensure agricultural equity with respect to the renewable fuels
standard.
06-21-2007
Clean Energy Act (H.R. 6)—
Rejected, 38-55
Sustained
Kyl/Lott modified S.Amdt. 1733 (to S.Amdt. 1704), to provide a condition precedent for the effective date
of the revenue raisers.
08-02-2007
State Children’s Health Insurance Program Amendment Act (H.R. 976)—
Rejected, 47-52
Sustained
Baucus (for Specter) S.Amdt. 2557 (to S.Amdt. 2530), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
reset the rate of tax under the alternative minimum tax at 24%.
08-02-2007
State Children’s Health Insurance Program Amendment Act (H.R. 976)—
Rejected, 39-60
Sustained
Grassley (for Graham) modified S.Amdt. 2558 (to S.Amdt. 2530), to sunset the increase in the tax on
tobacco products on September 30, 2012.
08-02-2007
State Children’s Health Insurance Program Amendment Act (H.R. 976)—
Rejected, 49-50
Sustained
Grassley (for Kyl) S.Amdt. 2562 (to S.Amdt. 2530), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
and modify the 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements and qualified
restaurant improvements and to provide a 15-year straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to
retail space.
04-03-2008
Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221)—
Rejected, 44-40
Sustained
Murray S.Amdt. 4397 (to S.Amdt. 4387), to increase the funding for housing counseling resources, to
condition Senate consideration of any tax cut reconciliation legislation on previous enactment of legislation to
provide an outpatient prescription drug benefit under the Medicare program that is consistent with Medicare
reform.
04-03-2008
Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221)—
Rejected, 41-44
Sustained
Kyl S.Amdt. 4407 (to S.Amdt. 4387), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust for inflation
the dol ar limitation for the principal residence gain exclusion.
05-08-2008
Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act (S. 2284)—
Approved, 70-26
Fel
Dodd/Shelby S.Amdt. 4707, in the nature of a substitute.
CRS-7

link to page 14
Disposition of
Date
Object of Point of Order
Waiver Motion
Point of Order
06-19-2008
American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (H.R. 3221)—
Rejected, 21-69
Sustained
Bond S.Amdt. 4985 (to S.Amdt. 4983), to strike provisions relating to the HOPE for Homeowners
Program.
09-23-2008
Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 (H.R. 6049)—
Approved, 84-11
Fel
Baucus S.Amdt. 5635, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions.
02-03-2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1)—
Approved, 71-26
Fel
Mikulski/Brownback S.Amdt. 104 (to S.Amdt. 98), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to al ow an
above-the-line deduction against individual income tax for interest on indebtedness and for State sales and
excise taxes with respect to the purchase of certain motor vehicles.
02-03-2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1)—
Rejected, 42-55
Sustained
Boxer S.Amdt. 112 (to S.Amdt. 98), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to al ow the deduction
for dividends received from control ed foreign corporations for an additional year.
02-04-2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1)—
Rejected, 36-61
Sustained
Grassley (for DeMint) S.Amdt. 168 (to S.Amdt. 98), in the nature of a substitute.
02-04-2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1)—
Rejected, 37-60
Sustaineda
Cornyn S.Amdt. 277 (to S.Amdt. 98), to reduce income taxes for al working taxpayers.
02-04-2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1)—
Rejected, 39-57
Sustained
Bunning S.Amdt. 242 (to S.Amdt. 98), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend for 2009
the 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits.
02-06-2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1)—
Approved, 80-16
Fel
Cantwel Further Modified S.Amdt. 274 (S.Amdt. 98), to improve provisions relating to energy tax
incentives and provisions relating manufacturing tax incentives for energy property.
02-06-2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1)—
Rejected, 35-61
Sustained
Thune S.Amdt. 538 (to S.Amdt. 98), to replace al spending and tax provisions with a direct rebate to al
Americans filing a tax return.
02-10-2009
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1)—
Approved, 61-37
Fel
Reid (for Col ins/Nelson (NE)) S.Amdt. 570, in the nature of a substitute.
05-06-2009
Helping Families Save Their Homes Act (S. 896)—
Rejected, 50-46
Sustained
Coburn S.Amdt. 1042 (to S.Amdt. 1040), to establish a pilot program for the expedited disposal of Federal
real property.
CRS-8

Disposition of
Date
Object of Point of Order
Waiver Motion
Point of Order
08-06-2009
CAR Save Program Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 3435)—
Rejected, 41-56
Sustained
Coburn S.Amdt. 2304, to provide assistance to charities and families in need.
08-06-2009
CAR Save Program Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 3435)—
Rejected, 47-50
Sustained
Isakson S.Amdt. 2306, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an income tax credit for
certain home purchases, and to transfer to the Treasury unobligated funds made available by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the amount of the reduction in revenue resulting from such credit.
02-24-2010
Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (H.R. 2847)—
Approved, 70-28
Fel
Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the amendment of the Senate to the bil , with
Reid S.Amdt. 3310 (to the House Amendment to the Senate Amendment), in the nature of a substitute.
03-03-2010
Tax Extenders Act (H.R. 4213)—
[none]
Sustained
Burr S.Amdt. 3390 (to S.Amdt. 3336), to provide an emergency benefit of $250 to seniors, veterans, and
persons with disabilities in 2010 to compensate for the lack of cost-of-living adjustment for such year, to
provide an offset using unobligated stimulus funds.
03-03-2010
Tax Extenders Act (H.R. 4213)—
[none]
Sustained
Reid (for Sanders) Modified S.Amdt. 3353 (to S.Amdt. 3336), to provide an emergency benefit of $250 to
seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities in 2010 to compensate for the lack of cost-of-living adjustment
for such year.
03-04-2010
Tax Extenders Act (H.R. 4213)—
[none]
Sustained
Brown (MA) S.Amdt. 3391 (to S.Amdt. 3336), to provide for a 6-month employee payrol tax rate cut.
03-04-2010
Tax Extenders Act (H.R. 4213)—
Rejected, 22-78
Sustained
Burr S.Amdt. 3389 (to S.Amdt. 3336), to provide Federal reimbursement to State and local Governments
for a limited sales, use, and retailers’ occupation tax holiday, and to offset the cost of such reimbursements.
03-09-2010
Tax Extenders Act (H.R. 4213)—
Rejected, 55-45
Sustained
Reid (for Murray/Kerry) Further Modified S.Amdt. 3356 (to S.Amdt. 3336), to extend the TANF Emergency
Fund through fiscal year 2011 and to provide funding for summer employment for youth.
04-24-2012
21st Century Postal Service Act of 2012 (S. 1789)—
Approved, 62-37
Fel
Reid (for Lieberman) Modified S.Amdt. 2000, in the nature of a substitute.
06-26-2013
Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S. 744)—
Approved, 68-30
Fel
Measure and amendments.
01-29-2014
Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (S. 1926)—
Approved, 64-35
Fel
Measure.
CRS-9

Disposition of
Date
Object of Point of Order
Waiver Motion
Point of Order
03-31-2014
Protecting Access to Medicare Act (H.R. 4302)—
Approved, 64-35
Fel
Measure.
07-17-2014
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (S. 2244)—
Rejected, 48-49
Sustained
Coburn S.Amdt. 3549, to al ow the Secretary to extend the deadline for col ecting terrorism loss risk-
spreading premiums if the mandatory recoupment is more than $1,000,000,000.
04-14-2015
Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2)—
Rejected, 50-50
Sustained
Bennet S.Amdt. 1115, to protect and retain our Children’s Health Insurance Program for 4 years (PRO-
CHIP).
04-14-2015
Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2)—
Rejected, 43-57
Sustained
Murray S.Amdt. 1117, to improve women’s access to quality health care.
04-14-2015
Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (H.R. 2)—
Rejected, 58-42
Sustained
Cardin S.Amdt. 1119, to repeal the therapy cap and provide for medical review of outpatient therapy
services.
09-14-2016
Water Resources Development Act (S. 2848)—
Approved, 85-12
Fel
McConnel (for Inhofe) S.Amdt. 4979, in the nature of a substitute.
03-14-2018
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155)—
Approved, 67-31
Fel
Measure.
03-21-2018
Al ow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (H.R. 1865)—
Rejected, 21-78
Sustained
Wyden S.Amdt. 2213, to provide additional funding to the Department of Justice to combat the online
facilitation of sex trafficking.
06-18-2018
National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5515)—
Approved, 81-14
Fel
Inhofe/McCain S.Amdt. 2282, in the nature of a substitute.
06-15-2020
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modernize and improve the Internal Revenue Service ( H.R.
Approved, 68-30
Fel
1957)—
McConnel (for Gardner) S.Amdt. 1617, in the nature of a substitute (Great American Outdoors Act).
06-08-2021
United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 (S. 1260)—
Approved, 72-28
Fel
Schumer S.Amdt. 1502, in the nature of a substitute.
Source: Congressional Record, especial y the Daily Digest section, various years, searched through Congress.gov.
Note: Information is current through November 5, 2021.
CRS-10

a. On the fol owing day, February 5, 2009, Senator Baucus stated that the amendment did not violate the PAYGO rule and that the point of order was mistakenly made.
He further stated that because the vote on the motion to waive the point of order was rejected by a vote of 37-60, the effect of the point of order would not have
changed the outcome; that is, the amendment would have been rejected. Congressional Record (daily edition) February 5, 2009, p. S1617.
CRS-11

link to page 16 Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

Legislative History of the Senate PAYGO Rule
The Senate established the PAYGO rule in the FY1994 budget resolution in 1993. It has been
modified and extended seven times in subsequent budget resolutions and once in a Senate simple
resolution.16 Moreover, other proposed modifications to the Senate PAYGO rule have been
considered, especial y during the consideration of the budget resolution.
Key Changes to the Senate PAYGO Rule
In 1993, the Senate established the PAYGO rule as a provision in the FY1994 budget resolution
(H.Con.Res. 64, 103rd Congress) for the purpose of preventing the deficit reduction expected to
be achieved in a subsequent reconciliation bil from being used to offset the costs of any new
direct spending or revenue legislation.17 Section 12(c) of H.Con.Res. 64 prohibited the
consideration of any direct spending and revenue legislation that would increase the deficit
assumed in the FY1994 budget resolution for any fiscal year through FY1998 or increase the
deficit for any other fiscal year through FY2003. In this initial form, the Senate PAYGO rule had
no expiration date.
The changes in the rule since 1993 have occurred for several reasons, including to establish,
extend, and repeal the expiration date; to al ow on-budget surpluses to offset revenue reductions
and direct spending increases; and to exempt increases in the deficit assumed in the budget
resolution. The key changes are summarized in Table 2.
In 1994, a year after establishing the PAYGO rule, the Senate modified the rule to prohibit the
consideration of direct spending and revenue legislation that would increase the deficit in any of
the following 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.18 In addition, the modification provided that direct spending and
revenue legislation would violate the rule only if it increased the deficit individual y 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,
P.L. 103-66). This modification to the rule basical y permitted the use of any deficit reduction
provided in other legislation as an offset for any subsequent deficit increasing legislation. The
1994 modification also added an expiration date of September 30, 1998.
In 1995, the Senate modified the PAYGO rule to al ow only deficit reduction resulting from
legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year as an offset for subsequent legislation
in order to comply with the rule.19 The rule, however, expressly prohibited the use of the deficit

16 Such procedural provisions may be included in a budget resolution under the authority provided by Section
301(b)(4), the “ elastic clause” of the Budget Act. T his section gives Congress the option to include in a budget
resolution other matters and procedures consistent with the purposes of the Budget Act.
17 See U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, 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. T he 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.
18 Section 23 of H.Con.Res. 218 (103rd Congress). See U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, 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. 18-19 (legislative text) and pp. 54-56 (joint explanatory statement).
19 Section 202 of H.Con.Res. 67 (104th Congress). See U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, Concurrent
Congressional Research Service

12

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

reduction resulting from reconciliation legislation as an offset. The Senate also extended the
rule’s expiration date to September 30, 2002.
Table 2. Key Changes to the Senate PAYGO Rule
Effective
Expiration
Date
Source of Change
Date
Nature of Change
04-01-1993 Section 12(c) of
None
Rule established.
H.Con.Res. 64 (103rd
Congress), FY1994
budget resolution
05-12-1994 Section 23 of
09-30-1998 Established new applicable time periods for which
H.Con.Res. 218
date added
legislation may not increase the deficit: first fiscal year, total
(103rd Congress),
of first five fiscal years, and total of fol owing five fiscal
FY1995 budget
years.
resolution
06-29-1995 Section 202 of
Extended
Provided that only deficit reduction resulting from
H.Con.Res. 67 (104th
to 09-30-
legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year
Congress), FY1996
2002
(except any reconciliation legislation) could be used as an
budget resolution
offset to comply with the rule.
04-15-1999 Section 207 of
Maintained
Modified rule to permit the use of projected on-budget
H.Con.Res. 68 (106th
09-30-2002 surpluses to offset any revenue reductions or direct
Congress), FY2000
date
spending increases.
budget resolution
10-16-2002 Section 2(b) of S.Res.
Extended
Expanded coverage of rule temporarily to include revenue
304 (107th Congress)
to 04-15-
or direct spending changes in annual appropriations acts
2003
(due to expired discretionary spending limits and absence
of a budget resolution for FY2003).
04-11-2003 Section 505 of
Extended
Modified rule to exempt direct spending and revenue
H.Con.Res. 95 (108th
to 09-30-
changes assumed in the budget resolution.
Congress), FY2004
2008
budget resolution
05-17-2007 Section 201 of
Extended
Eliminated exemption for direct spending and revenue
S.Con.Res. 21 (110th
to 09-30-
changes assumed in the budget resolution. Changed the
Congress), FY2008
2017
applicable time periods for which legislation may not cause
budget resolution
an increase in the on-budget deficit to the fol owing two
time periods: (1) the current fiscal year and the fol owing
five fiscal years, and (2) the current fiscal year and the
fol owing 10 fiscal years.
05-05-2015 Section 3201(b)(1) of
None
Repealed the expiration date.
S.Con.Res. 11 (114th
Congress), FY2016
budget resolution

Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 1996 , conference report to accompany H.Con.Res. 67, 104th Cong., 1st sess.
(Washington: GPO, 1995), pp. 26-27 (legislative text) and p. 91 (joint explanatory statement). Like the original rule
established in 1993, the 1995 rule also contained a provision prev enting 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. However, President Clinton vetoed the subsequent reconciliation legislation (H.R. 2491).
Congressional Research Service

13

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

Effective
Expiration
Date
Source of Change
Date
Nature of Change
10-26-2017 Section 4106 of
None
Added the current fiscal year and the budget year as
H.Con.Res. 71 (115th
applicable time periods for which legislation may not cause
Congress), FY2018
an increase in the on-budget deficit.
budget resolution
After decades of on-budget deficits, the federal government recorded a smal on-budget surplus
for FY1999. Moreover, at the time, baseline budget projections showed on-budget surpluses
increasing each year wel into the future.20 Subsequently, in 1999, the Senate modified the
PAYGO rule to reflect this change in the federal government’s budget outlook by al owing on-
budget surpluses to be used to offset tax reductions or spending increases.21 That is, the rule was
modified to prohibit only direct spending and revenue legislation that was projected to cause an
on-budget deficit (or increase the on-budget deficit) instead of such legislation that was projected
to increase the unified budget deficit. The Senate retained the existing expiration date of
September 30, 2002.
In 2002, the rule was al owed to expire on September 30.22 Two weeks later, however, on October
16, 2002, the Senate adopted S.Res. 304 (107th Congress), restoring and extending the PAYGO
rule through April 15, 2003. S.Res. 304 retained the basic features 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 to potential y evade the rule (due to expired
discretionary spending limits and the absence of a budget resolution for FY2003).
The following year, in 2003, the Senate modified the PAYGO rule to exempt legislation
implementing the direct spending and revenue policy changes assumed in the most recently
adopted budget resolution, even though it might have been projected to increase or cause an on-
budget deficit.23 Reconciliation legislation considered in 2003 (S. 1054 and H.R. 2, 108th
Congress), for example, although projected at the time to increase the on-budget deficit, did not
violate the rule because it was consistent with the reconciliation instructions contained in Title II
of the FY2004 budget resolution.24 The Senate also extended the rule through September 30,
2008.
In 2007, the Senate once again made significant changes to the PAYGO rule.25 It eliminated the
exemption for direct spending and revenue changes assumed in the budget resolution. In addition,

20 See CBO, The Economic and Budget Outlook: Fiscal Years 2000 -2009 (Washington: CBO, 1999), Summary T able
1, p. xiv.
21 Section 207 of H.Con.Res. 68 (106th Congress). See U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, 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. 20-21 (legislative text) and pp. 72-73 (joint explanatory statement). As noted earlier, the
on-budget deficit excludes the Social Security trust fund surpluses and the net cash flow of the U.S. Postal Service.
22 Congress did not complete action on the budget resolution for FY2003. T he Senate Budget Committee reported a
budget resolution for FY2003 (S.Con.Res. 100), but the Senate did not consider it.
23 Section 505 of H.Con.Res. 95 (108th Congress). See U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, 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. 29-30 (legislative text) and pp. 122-123 (joint explanatory statement).
24 For information on the budgetary effects of S. 1054 and H.R. 2, see (1) CBO, cost estimate, S. 1054, Jobs and
Growth T ax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, as reported by the Senate Committee on Finance on May 13, 2003
(May 14, 2003), and (2) CBO, cost estimate, H.R. 2, Jobs and Growth T ax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, as
cleared by the Congress on May 23, 2003 (May 23, 2003).
25 Section 201 of S.Con.Res. 21 (110th Congress). See U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, conference report to accompany S.Con.Res. 21, 110th Cong., 1st sess.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 5 link to page 5 Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

the Senate changed the rule’s applicable time periods to prohibit an on-budget deficit increase in
either of two time periods: (1) the current fiscal year and the following five fiscal years, and (2)
the current fiscal year and the following 10 fiscal years.
The 2007 version of the PAYGO rule largely reflects its current form, with two subsequent
modifications. First, in 2015, the Senate repealed the expiration date; the rule was scheduled to
expire on September 30, 2017.26 Second, in 2017, the Senate added the current fiscal year and the
budget year as applicable time periods for which legislation may not cause an increase in the on-
budget deficit.27
Further information on the PAYGO rule in its current form is provided in the “Current Features of
the Senate PAYGO Rule” section above.
Consideration of Proposed Changes to the Senate PAYGO Rule
The Senate PAYGO rule drew considerable attention on the Senate floor during the previous
decade, in most cases in the context of the budget resolution.
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 Russel Feingold offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 3687) that would have extended
expiring budget enforcement procedures, including the Senate PAYGO rule, to H.R. 4775, the
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2002. The amendment fel on a point of order.28 The next day,
June 6, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 3764) to H.R. 4775
that would have extended the Senate PAYGO rule, among other budget enforcement procedures,
through FY2007, but that amendment also fel on a point of order.29 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 would also have extended
the expiration date of the Senate PAYGO rule, among other things, through FY2007. This
amendment also fel on a point of order.30

(Washington: GPO, 2007), pp. 12-13 (legislative text) and pp. 103, 133 (joint explanatory statement).
26 Section 3201(b)(1) of S.Con.Res. 11 (114th Congress). See U.S. Congress, Committee of Conference, Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 20 16, conference report to accompany S.Con.Res. 11, 114th Cong., 1st sess.
(Washington: GPO, 2015), p. 34 (legislative text) and p. 169 (joint explanatory statement).
27 Section 4106 of H.Con.Res. 71 (115th Congress). For a brief description of this change, see U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 20 18, committee print to accompany
S.Con.Res. 25, 115th Cong., 1st sess., October 2017, S.Prt. 115-19 (Washington: GPO, 2017), p. 24.
28 T he amendment was subject to a point of order under Section 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.
29 On June 6, 2002, cloture was invoked on H.R. 4775. Under cloture, a point of order may be raised against
nongermane amendments. T he 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.
30 T he amendment was subject to a point of order under Section 306 of the Budget Act. 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
Congressional Research Service

15

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

Without any successful extension prior to its expiration, the Senate PAYGO rule, like many other
budget enforcement procedures, expired on September 30, 2002.31 Subsequently, on October 16,
2002, the Senate restored and extended the PAYGO point of order through April 15, 2003.32 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).33
Action in the 108th Congress
During the 108th Congress, in 2003, the Senate modified and extended its PAYGO rule 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 version set
forth in the FY2004 budget resolution.
On March 14, 2003, the Senate Budget Committee reported S.Con.Res. 23, the FY2004 budget
resolution, without written report. The reported resolution modified the PAYGO rule to exempt
legislation assumed in the budget resolution and extend it through September 30, 2008.34 After six
days of consideration, the Senate agreed to S.Con.Res. 23, as amended, on March 26, by a vote of
56-44.35 While the Senate considered and agreed to several amendments to S.Con.Res. 23, none
was 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.36 Section 505 of the
FY2004 budget resolution contained the Senate language without change, which exempted
legislation assumed in the budget resolution and extended the rule through September 30, 2008.37

(June 19, 2002), pp. S5762-S5767; and Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (June 20, 2002), pp. S5808 -
S5821.
31 T he statutory limits on discretionary spending and the statutory PAYGO requirement for direct spending and revenue
legislation, first established by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Title XIII of P.L. 101-508, the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 1388 -573-1388-630), expired on September 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. In addition, the three-fifths vote
requirements in the Senate to waive certain points of order under the Budget Act, and to sustain an appeal of a ruling of
the chair on such points of order, expired on September 30, 2002. T hese supermajority waiver requirements were
subsequently restored (see Section 2(a) of S.Res. 304, 107th Congress) and are currently scheduled to expire on
September 30, 2025 (see Section 3201(a)(1) of S.Con.Res. 11, the FY2016 budget resolution, 114th Congress).
32 Under the Congressional Budget Act, April 15 is the target date for Congress to complete action on the annual
budget resolution.
33 See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 148 (October 16, 2002), pp. S10527 -S10531 and S10553. T he
legislation also restored and extended through April 15, 2003, the three-fifths vote requirement for certain waivers of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
34 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, March 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 60 -61.
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 Con gressional Budget Act of 1974.
35 For the Senate consideration and adoption of the FY2004 budget resolution, see Congressional Record, daily edition,
vol. 149 (March 17-21 and 25-26, 2003), pp. S3774-S4268 and S4334-S4422.
36 For the Senate consideration of the conference report to H.Con.Res. 95, the FY2004 budget resolution, see
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 149 (April 11, 2003), pp. S5266 -S5293, S5295-S5316. T he House agreed to
the conference report on April 11 (legislative day April 10).
37 T he joint explanatory statement of the committee of conference on 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.
Congressional Research Service

16

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

In 2004, during the second session of the 108th Congress, modification of the Senate PAYGO rule
was reportedly a major obstacle to reaching an agreement on the FY2005 budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 95).38 On March 10, during consideration of the FY2005 budget resolution, Senator
Feingold offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 2748) that would have restored the Senate 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 51-48.39 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.40 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, 2005.41 While the House agreed to the
conference report to S.Con.Res. 95, the Senate never considered it. The 2003 version of the
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, in the context of considering the budget resolutions for FY2006 and
FY2007, the Senate considered modifications to the PAYGO rule. In each case, an amendment to
the budget resolution would have restored the Senate PAYGO rule to its pre-108th Congress form,
under which it did not exempt legislation assumed in the budget resolution. In each case,
however, the Senate rejected the amendment. As in the previous Congress, therefore, the 2003
version of the PAYGO rule (Section 505 of H.Con.Res. 95, 108th Congress) continued to remain
in effect through the 109th Congress.
On March 16, 2005, during the consideration of the FY2006 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 18),
Senator Feingold offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 186) that proposed to modify the PAYGO rule
by removing the exemption for legislation assumed in the budget resolution. The Senate rejected
the Feingold amendment by a vote of 50-50.42 On March 17, the Senate agreed to S.Con.Res. 18,

38 See, for example, Bud Newman and Heather M. Rothman, “GOP Budget Stalemate over Pay -Go Continues with No
New Offers on T able,” BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, May 5, 2004, p. G-6; and Bud Newman, “House OKs One-
Year Budget Resolution; Plan May Still Lack 50 Votes in Senate,” BNA’s Daily Report for Executives, May 20, 2004,
p. GG-1.
39 For the consideration and adoption of the Feingold amendment, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 150
(March 10, 2004), pp. S2510-S2516, S2518.
40 For the consideration and adoption of the Senate version of the FY2005 budget resolution, see Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 150 (March 8-11, 2004), pp. S2256-S2294, S2377-S2403, S2404-S2423, S2465-S2537,
S2591-S2641, S2643-S2699.
41 T he reconciliation instructions directed the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and
Means to reduce revenues by $22.9 billion and increase direct spending by $4.6 billion (i.e., increasing t he on-budget
deficit by $27.5 billion) over the period covering FY2005 -FY2009.
42 For the consideration and rejection of the Feingold amendment, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 151
(March 16, 2005), pp. S2795-S2806.
Congressional Research Service

17

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

as amended, by a vote of 51-49.43 Subsequently, on April 28, the Senate agreed to the conference
report on S.Con.Res. 18 (H.Rept. 109-62) by a 52-47 vote.44
In 2006, during the consideration of the FY2007 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 83), Senator
Conrad offered an amendment (S.Amdt. 3013) similar to the one offered by Senator Feingold in
the previous year. The Senate rejected the Conrad amendment by a vote of 50-50.45 On March 16,
the Senate agreed to S.Con.Res. 83, as amended, by a vote of 51-49.46 Subsequently, however, the
House and Senate did not take final action to adopt a conference report for the FY2007 budget
resolution in 2006.
Action in the 110th Congress
Even before the 110th Congress began, the new Democratic leadership in both chambers indicated
that it intended to “restore” PAYGO rules.47 Accordingly, the House adopted its own PAYGO rule
as part of its opening-day rules package.48 The Senate, subsequently, modified its PAYGO rule in
the FY2008 budget resolution.
On March 15, 2007, the Senate Budget Committee reported S.Con.Res. 21, the FY2008 budget
resolution, without written report. The reported resolution modified the PAYGO rule by
eliminating the exemption for direct spending and revenue changes assumed in the budget
resolution, general y restoring the rule to its pre-108th Congress form.49 During the four days of
consideration on the floor, the Senate did not consider any amendments proposing to modify the
reported version of the PAYGO rule. Senator Jeff Sessions, however, offered an amendment
(S.Amdt. 466) proposing to exempt legislation “that would provide for the extension of the tax
relief provided in” the reconciliation measures enacted in 2001 (P.L. 107-16), 2003 (P.L. 108-27),

43 For the consideration and adoption of the Senate version of the FY2006 budget resolution, see Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 151 (March 14-17, 2005), pp. S2587-S2641, S2661-S2728, S2759-S2841, S2875-S2897,
S2899-S2926, S2929-S2967.
44 For the Senate consideration of the conference report to H.Con.Res. 95, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
151 (April 28, 2005), pp. S4481-S4527. T he House agreed to the conference report on April 28 as well. T he joint
explanatory statement of the committee of conference on the FY2006 budget resolution indicated that the budget
resolution assumed direct spending increases and revenue reductions totaling $351.015 billion over the period FY2005 -
FY2015, as reflected on a “ PAYGO scorecard.”
45 For the consideration and rejection of the Conrad amendment, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152
(March 14, 2006), pp. S2056-S2062, S2091-S2092.
46 For the consideration and adoption of the Senate version of the FY2007 budget resolution, see Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 152 (March 13-16, 2006), pp. S1987-S2019, S2054-S2116, S2146-S2184, S2225-S2236,
S2241-S2293.
47 By “restore,” the leadership was referring to the PAYGO rules prior to the modification in 2003: T he pre-2003
PAYGO rule did not exempt direct spending and revenue legislation assumed in the most recently adopted budget
resolution. See, for example, Steven T . Dennis, “Democrats’ First 100 Hours: Costly AMT Rewrite an Opening
Challenge to Anti-Deficit Goals,” CQ Weekly, November 20, 2006, p. 3107.
48 At the time, the House PAYGO rule (Rule XXI, clause 10) prohibit ed the consideration of direct spending and
revenue legislation that was projected to increase the deficit (or reduce the surplus) in either of two time periods: (1) the
six-year period beginning with the current fiscal year, and (2) the 11-year period beginning with the current fiscal year.
For more information on the House PAYGO rule, see CRS Report R41510, Budget Enforcem ent Procedures: House
Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule, by Bill Heniff Jr. T he rule has subsequently been revised to not count any revenue
effects and is now referred to as the CUT GO rule.
49 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on the Budget, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget FY2008, committee print
to accompany S.Con.Res. 21, 110th Cong., 1st sess., S.Prt. 110-19, March 2007 (Washington: GPO, 2007), p. 19. In
addition to eliminating the exemption, the reported budget resolution added the current fiscal year as another time
period requiring deficit neutrality, clarified that any deficit reduction resulting from reconcilia tion legislation could not
be used to offset an on-budget deficit in subsequent legislation, and extended the rule through September 30, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

18

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

and 2006 (P.L. 109-222) from several budget-related points of order, including the modified
PAYGO point of order.50 The Senate rejected the Sessions amendment by a 46-52 vote. On March
23, the Senate agreed to S.Con.Res. 21, as amended, by a 52-47 vote.51
Subsequently, after resolving legislative differences with the House, the Senate agreed to the
conference report to accompany the FY2008 budget resolution (H.Rept. 110-153) by a vote of 52-
40 on May 17.52 The conference agreement included a modified version of the Senate-passed
PAYGO rule. This modified version of the Senate PAYGO rule, which is similar to the current
version, as described above, general y prohibited the consideration of direct spending and revenue
legislation that was projected to increase the on-budget deficit in either of two time periods: (1)
the current fiscal year and the following five fiscal years, or (2) the current fiscal year and the
following 10 fiscal years.

50 See Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (March 20, 2007), p. S3332.
51 For the consideration and adoption of the Senate version of the FY2008 budget resolution, see Congressional
Record, daily edition, vol. 153 (March 20-23, 2007), pp. S3308-S3340, S3452, S3453-S3512, S3545, S3547-S3603,
S3647-S3655, S3659-S3702.
52 For the Senate consideration of the conference report to S.Con.Res. 21, see Congressional Record, daily edition, vol.
153 (May 17, 2007), pp. S6220-S6253.
Congressional Research Service

19

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

Appendix. Text of the Senate Pay-As-You-Go
(PAYGO) Rule
(Section 4106 of H.Con.Res. 71, Budget Resolution for FY2018)
SEC. 4106. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.
(a) Point of Order—
(1) IN GENERAL—It shal 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 of the 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 of—
(A) the period of the current fiscal year;
(B) the period of the budget year;
(C) the period of the current fiscal year, the budget year, and the ensuing 4 fiscal years
following the budget year; or
(D) the period of the current fiscal year, the budget year, and the ensuing 9 fiscal years
following the budget year.
(3) DIRECT-SPENDING LEGISLATION—For purposes of this subsection and except as
provided in paragraph (4), the term ‘direct spending legislation’ means any bil , 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 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.).
(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 November 5, 1990.
(5) BASELINE—Estimates prepared pursuant to this subsection shal —
(A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most recently adopted concurrent
resolution on the budget; 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 (as in effect prior to
September 30, 2002) 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 individual y, it must also increase the on-
budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when taken together with al 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 in any bil pursuant to a reconciliation instruction since the
Congressional Research Service

20

Budget Enforcement Procedures:
The Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule

beginning of that same calendar year shal never be available on the pay-as-you-go ledger and
shal be dedicated only for deficit reduction.
(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals—
(1) 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.
(2) APPEALS—Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the Chair relating to any
provision of this section shal be limited to 1 hour, to be equal y divided between, and
controlled by, the appel ant and the manager of the bil or joint resolution, as the case may be.
An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn,
shal be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised
under this section.
(c) Determination of Budget Levels—For purposes of this section, the levels of new budget
authority, outlays, and revenues for a fiscal year shal be determined on the basis of estimates
made by the Senate Committee on the Budget.

Author Information

Bill Heniff Jr.

Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL31943 · VERSION 16 · UPDATED
21

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Nov. 17, 2021

HTML · PDF

Jan. 9, 2018

HTML · PDF

3% changed

Aug. 4, 2015

HTML · PDF

26% changed

Jan. 12, 2010