{
  "id": "RL31478",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL31478",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 305280,
      "date": "2002-07-01",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:07:39.480941",
      "title": "Federal Budget Process Reform: Analysis of Five Reform Issues",
      "summary": "This report examines several budget process reform options that have received prominent\ncongressional consideration in recent years: an extension of the Budget Enforcement Act; a joint\nbudget resolution; an emergency reserve fund; an automatic continuing resolution; and biennial\nbudgeting. For each reform option, the analysis includes a summary of the procedural issues related\nto the reform option, the arguments that have been raised for and against the proposal, and the\nlegislative history of past proposals.\n First, key enforcement procedures under the Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990 expire\nat the end of FY2002 (i.e., September 30, 2002). These include the statutory caps on discretionary\nspending and the \"pay-as-you-go\" (PAYGO) requirement for direct spending and revenue legislation. \nPossible considerations related to an extension of these budget enforcement procedures include the\ntime frame covered, possible categories for caps on discretionary spending, the types of automatic\nor permissible adjustments to the caps, and the application of the PAYGO requirement.\n Second, a joint budget resolution would require the President's signature, thereby formally and\ndirectly involving the President in congressional deliberations on the budget early in the process. \nUnder the existing budget process, there is a concurrent resolution on the budget that represents an\nagreement between the House and Senate concerning overall budget policy. It is not presented to\nthe President for his signature, and thus does not become law.\n Third, proposals for an emergency reserve fund are intended to change the way Congress and\nthe President budget for emergencies and other unanticipated situations. Instead of appropriating\nfunds for such situations as the need arises, emergency reserve fund proposals would require\nCongress and the President to set aside money for such purposes in the budget, with the\nappropriation of such funds tied to meeting specific criteria of what constitutes an emergency.\n Fourth, an automatic continuing resolution would provide an automatic source of funding for\ndiscretionary activities in the event one or more regular appropriations acts are not enacted by the\nstart of a new fiscal year. This reform proposal is intended to prevent a shutdown of the federal\ngovernment due to the expiration of funding.\n Finally, biennial budgeting proposals would change the budget cycle to 2 years from one year. \nThis reform has been discussed as a way of promoting better management of both Congress's and\nthe administration's budgetary workload. Biennial budgeting proposals could involve multiyear\nauthorizations, 2-year budget resolutions, 2-year appropriations, or some combination of the three.\n This report will be updated to reflect changes in congressional concerns or actions.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL31478",
          "sha1": "bcb86e477786c0503333015409b94a1a3c1a90b8",
          "filename": "files/20020701_RL31478_bcb86e477786c0503333015409b94a1a3c1a90b8.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL31478",
          "sha1": "16a5746e255d3073f40e34bcebab380b39f4b46c",
          "filename": "files/20020701_RL31478_16a5746e255d3073f40e34bcebab380b39f4b46c.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations"
  ]
}