Budget Process Enhancement Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 3, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to enforce fiscal discipline and timely budget processes by altering baseline calculations and imposing financial penalties on legislative and executive officials for non-compliance with budget deadlines.
What it actually does
This bill makes two primary changes to federal budget law and process. First, it modifies the calculation of the federal budget baseline by removing adjustments for inflation and excluding resources designated as emergency requirements or provided in supplemental appropriation laws. Second, it establishes mechanisms to withhold the salaries of Members of Congress if their respective House fails to agree to a budget resolution by April 15, 2025, and to withhold the salaries of key Office of Management and Budget (OMB) officials if the President's budget is not submitted to Congress on time.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill will enhance fiscal responsibility by eliminating artificial spending increases built into the baseline and will incentivize Congress and the Executive Branch to adhere to statutory budget deadlines. They contend that these measures will lead to more transparent budgeting, curb automatic growth in government spending, and improve overall government accountability and efficiency.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that removing inflation adjustments from the budget baseline is unrealistic and could lead to underfunding essential government services, effectively mandating real-dollar cuts over time. They may also contend that withholding salaries for Members of Congress could be seen as a political stunt, potentially raising constitutional concerns regarding compensation, and that such measures may not genuinely improve budget outcomes.
The bill is concise and its provisions are relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a quick but informed read.
Section 101, Title I
Changes in the Baseline
This provision amends Section 257(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. It removes future inflation adjustments and resources designated as emergency requirements or provided in supplemental appropriation laws from the calculation of the federal budget baseline. It explicitly states that no adjustment shall be made for inflation or any other factor when projecting the baseline for future fiscal years.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision promotes fiscal realism by preventing automatic spending increases based on inflation, forcing Congress to make explicit decisions about funding levels rather than relying on an inflated baseline. It aims to curb automatic growth in government spending and encourage more disciplined budgeting.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that removing inflation adjustments from the baseline is unrealistic and effectively mandates real-dollar cuts to agency budgets over time, potentially impairing government functions and services, especially during periods of high inflation. They contend it could lead to underfunding essential programs.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for greater fiscal discipline and reduced automatic spending growth against the practical need for government agencies to maintain purchasing power and deliver services effectively in an inflationary environment.
Section 201, Title II
Holding Salaries of Members of Congress in Escrow Upon Failure to Agree to Budget Resolution
This section mandates that if a House of Congress fails to agree to a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2026 by April 15, 2025, the salaries of its Members will be deposited into an escrow account. These funds will only be released to the Members once their respective House agrees to the budget resolution or on the last day of the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, whichever comes first. This applies to Delegates and Resident Commissioners as well.
Section 202, Title II
Determination of Compliance with Statutory Requirement to Submit the President's Budget
This provision requires the Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM IG) to make an annual determination, within three days after the President's budget is due, whether the Director of OMB and the President have complied with the statutory requirement to submit the President's budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The OPM IG must then provide a written notification of this determination to the Chairs of the Budget and Appropriations Committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Section 203, Title II
No Pay Upon Failure to Timely Submit the President's Budget to Congress
This section prohibits the use of federal funds for the pay of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Deputy Director of OMB, and the Deputy Director for Management of OMB during any period when the OPM Inspector General determines there was non-compliance with the statutory requirement to submit the President's budget. Crucially, it also specifies that these officials may not receive retroactive pay for any such period of non-compliance.
This subsection amends Section 257(c)(1) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 by striking existing language and inserting new text. The new text specifies that the budget baseline calculation will exclude resources designated as an emergency requirement and any resources provided in supplemental appropriation laws.
Section 101(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice for amending existing statutes. However, the full implications of excluding emergency and supplemental funding from the baseline might not be immediately obvious without detailed knowledge of budget scoring conventions.
Case for: Proponents would argue this prevents the baseline from being artificially inflated by one-time emergency or supplemental spending, promoting a more accurate and fiscally conservative projection of ongoing government costs. It forces Congress to make explicit decisions about funding such needs rather than having them automatically factored into future spending projections.
Case against: Opponents might contend that excluding these resources from the baseline could make it more challenging to address future emergencies or unforeseen needs, as the baseline would not reflect the historical reality of such spending. This could lead to underfunding of critical responses or increased political battles over essential supplemental appropriations.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant long-term impact on federal spending projections, the funding of future emergency responses, and the overall size of the federal budget baseline.