Lubbock Times

Last week, H.R. 8195, the “Strengthening Administrative PAYGO (SAP) Act of 2024,” was reported by the House Budget Committee to the House with a favorable recommendation by a vote of 16-9. Sponsored by Oversight Task Force Chair Jack Bergman (R-MI) and Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), the SAP Act aims to provide transparency on unchecked administrative spending by ensuring the Executive Branch is held accountable when issuing costly executive actions.

The SAP Act has garnered support from various stakeholders. Below are some statements from supporters:

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB):

The SAP Act “would strengthen Administrative PAYGO... [and] could [even] prevent trillions of dollars of future borrowing.” CRFB also noted that “the [Biden] Administration has increased ten-year deficits by at least $480 billion from actions finalized after Administrative PAYGO was [in effect] … and has proposed several hundred billion dollars [in rules not finalized].”

The American Action Forum:

“Enacting the bill would strengthen Congress’ power of the purse. With the Administration eyeing billions of dollars of student debt cancellation and other measures through executive action, congressional oversight of such actions is perhaps more important now than ever to prevent billions or even trillions of dollars of future borrowing.”

Americans for Prosperity:

“The Strengthening Administrative PAYGO Act of 2024 would take useful steps toward Congress reclaiming its prudential and constitutional role as the principal policy-making body of the federal government. It would require the Office of Management and Budget to explain how and why it proposes deviations from the spending baseline.”

National Taxpayers Union:

“The Strengthening Administrative PAYGO Act includes several helpful provisions. It eliminates the provision’s sunset date and makes it more difficult for OMB to abuse the waiver process to bypass the requirement for spending offsets. The act would provide a much-needed check on deficit increases resulting from executive branch actions that increase federal spending beyond what Congress has authorized.”

Foundation for Government Accountability:

“These provisions are, unfortunately, an absolute necessity because of the Biden Administration’s clear misinterpretation of both the meaning and intent of the law. The Biden Administration’s Office of Management and Budget has yet to implement the full scope of Administrative PAYGO, instead abusing its waiver authority to continue spending taxpayer dollars outside Congress’s purview. This was not the goal of legislation, as you know. Furthermore, these waivers are intentionally obfuscated within the Federal Register, hindering Congress’s ability to conduct proper oversight. These misinterpretations—unintentional or otherwise—are fully clarified with the SAP Act.”

The Economic Policy Innovation Center:

“The Strengthening Administrative PAYGO Act of 2024 would help ensure that… [offsetting increases in spending] is carried out by Federal departments and agencies. With the nation quickly running out of fiscal space, we simply cannot allow meaningful spending restraints like Administrative PAYGO to be disregarded. Thank you for your thoughtful leadership on this issue of vital national importance.”

The Cato Institute:

“The Strengthening Administrative PAYGO Act of 2024 (H.R.8195), introduced by Jack Bergman (R-MI) and Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-TX), would clarify and strengthen requirements that Administration offset costs new executive actions increasing mandatory spending by more than $1 billion over 10 years or $100 million annually. Reining in excessive executive spending is one essential step putting US back on responsible fiscal path.”

Rep.David Schweikert (R-AZ) – Vice Chair Joint Economic Committee:

“The Strengthening Administrative PAYGO (SAP) Act 2024 essential maintaining fiscal discipline ensuring long-term adherence budget neutrality principles bill promotes transparency accountability requiring Director OMB submit waiver determinations detailed estimates budgetary effects covered actions Budget Committee.”

___