About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on Unauthorized Appropriations Conducted by the Senate Budget Committee 1 (February 19, 2016)

handle is hein.congrec/cbo2748 and id is 1 raw text is: FE BRUA RY 19, 2016 Answers to Questions for the Record Following a Hearing on Unauthorized Appropriations Conducted by the Senate Budget Committee On February 3, 2016, the Senate Budget Committee convened a hearing at which Keith Hall, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified about appropriations with expired authorizations. After the hearing, Chairman Enzi and Senator Perdue submitted questions for the record. This document provides CBO's answers. Chairman Enzi Question. We know that some programs whose authorization is current do not have specific authorization levels; they are authorized to receive such sums as the appropriators deem appropriate. But by authorizing no specific level of funding, no budgetary guidepost is created for funding decisions. Should we do away with such sums authorization levels? Is a such sums authorization level more useful than having no authorization at all? Answer. A such sums authorization provides no guidance about the amount of funding that may be appropriate, but if it specifies a certain number of years, it at least sets a time horizon for the authorization. An authorizing committee can use a such sums authorization to formally indicate that it does not have a strong basis for providing specific guidance to the appropriations committee about the funding needed for programs for a particular period of time. It may prefer to focus its efforts during the authorization process on addressing policy issues that it directly controls rather than on advising the appropriations committees on dollar amounts. But if a such sums authorization has no time horizon, then when the committee would be expected to revisit the substance of the program or its funding in the future is unclear. (CBO does not make recommendations about what the Congress should do.) Question. Some of the programs in CBO's report have been unauthorized for decades. It is one thing for a program's authorization to expire before it can be renewed, but these programs are persistently unauthorized for long periods of time. Congress has for one reason or another not come to consensus on renewing their charter, and yet never fails to provide them annual funding. Does it make sense to have a period of time after which the ability to fund an expired program without authorization sunsets? Answer. There is certainly value in reassessing spending programs-both mandatory and discretionary-and tax provisions on a regular basis as circumstances change and as more information becomes available about how those programs or provisions are functioning. If, after a certain period of time beyond the expiration of an explicit authorization of appropriation, a discretionary program could no longer be funded through appropriations, more attention would probably be paid to such authorizations. (Again, CBO does not make recommendations about what the Congress should do.)

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most