[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 110 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[House]
[Page H8412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 PAYGO

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, this week 
the House will debate legislation and give the principle of pay-as-you-
go, or PAYGO, the force of law. Quite simply, supporting PAYGO means 
that we agree to pay for what we buy; and it can be one of the most 
important actions we take for fiscal discipline in this Congress. PAYGO 
is essential because America faces unprecedented debt and a fiscal year 
2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion. A New York Times analysis found that 90 
percent of that deficit is attributable to the economic downturn, Bush 
administration policies, and the extension of those policies. However 
we got into this hole, it's imperative that we find a way out of it. 
PAYGO is not a cure-all, not a solution entirely to our deficits. But 
it is an important and valuable start, and it is a proven first step to 
deficit reduction.
  In the 1990s, the Clinton administration turned record deficits, 
accumulated by the two previous Republican administrations, into record 
surplus; and the PAYGO rule, supported on a bipartisan basis by 
Republicans and Democrats, was a key part in that fiscal 
transformation. As President Obama has recognized, and I quote, ``It is 
no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved to record 
surpluses in the 1990s and that when this rule was abandoned, we 
returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt.''
  Today we can once again use PAYGO to begin rolling back the dangerous 
fiscal situation that confronts us. Under statutory PAYGO, Congress 
will be required to find savings to balance the dollars we spend. On 
the one hand, it will constrain unnecessary spending and subsidies. On 
the other, it will force those in favor of tax cuts to explain exactly 
what they want to go without in return. In other words, pay for them. 
Of course none of those choices are easy, but it is exactly the 
avoidance of hard choices that saddles our children and grandchildren 
with the debt that confronts us. In addition, deficit reduction will 
mean fewer interest payments on our debt which, in turn, will help us 
make sustainable entitlements in the priorities that matter most to the 
American people, including education, clean energy and health care.
  The PAYGO law would apply to new policies that reduce revenue or 
expand entitlement spending. It will exempt extensions of current 
policy on the alternative minimum tax, the estate tax and middle-income 
tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and Medicare payments to doctors. Some 
would criticize these exemptions, but I see them as an important way of 
keeping PAYGO credible and enforceable. It is clear that there is 
bipartisan support in Congress for extending those policies without 
offsets. Now, very frankly, I would vote for offsets; but we have seen 
that that does not happen in the United States Senate; and there is an 
inclination not to do it here. A PAYGO bill that does not exempt them 
would have to be waived again and again, turning the cause of fiscal 
discipline into an empty promise.
  I find it much more sensible to make a fiscal discipline promise we 
can keep. I would also note that the exemptions in the House 
legislation are narrower than those sent to us in the President's 
original proposal. Most notably, they only apply to the middle-class 
tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 and not to tax cuts generally.
  Mr. Speaker, pay as you go cannot remove us from our deficit hole in 
a single stroke, nor will it. That will take much hard work. PAYGO is 
not enough in and of itself, but it is absolutely necessary because it 
keeps us from digging the hole any deeper. It is tested and proven. We 
adopted this policy in a bipartisan way in 1990. We reaffirmed that 
policy in a bipartisan vote in 1997, with Speaker Gingrich and 
President Clinton reaching agreement on that proposition. Yes, it's 
tested and proven, as I said. I hope that all of my colleagues, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, will support it when it comes to the 
House floor later this week.

                          ____________________