Congress is taking a hard look at PAYGO again, which expired at the end of fiscal year 2002, after a decade in which it played a big role in restoring fiscal balance during the 1990s and producing the federal government's first balanced budget in 30 years. In testimony yesterday before the House Budget Committee, CBO Director Peter Orszag addressed "Issues in Reinstating a Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Requirement." Orszag argued that "one-sided" PAYGO -- exempting all revenue changes from a PAYGO requirement while applying such a requirement to mandatory spending changes -- would create substantial incentives to shift policy changes to higher tax expenditures: If the primary objective of a PAYGO requirement is to avoid deterioration in the fiscal outlook, no differential treatment between mandatory spending and revenue changes would seem to be warranted. Including changes in revenue legislation [extension of sunsetting tax cuts] within the PAYGO requirement, however, might [also] make it easier to extend spending programs than to renew expiring tax provisions. Either way, Orszag argued, a statutory PAYGO requirement could bolster fiscal discipline by providing additional enforcement mechanisms, like sequestration, that cannot be embodied in non-self-enforcing House or Senate rules. Given the augumented executive branch authority in powers of sequestration, "lawmakers might reconsider the timelines, roles, and responsibilities of the Budget Committees, CBO, and OMB in order to retain as much responsibility for the process as possible."