H.R.3787 - Emergency Spending Accountability Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3787, the Emergency Spending Accountability Act, aims to require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to offset emergency spending through sequestration. This means that for any spending designated as 'emergency spending,' the OMB director would need to issue orders to reduce budgetary resources in subsequent fiscal years to offset the initial spending.
The bill outlines a process for sequestration, including notifications to Congress and application rules, while also exempting certain programs like Social Security, National Defense, Veterans Affairs programs, and Medicare.
It also mandates detailed justifications for emergency spending in reported measures and other measures considered by the House, emphasizing the need to define 'emergency' and 'unanticipated' spending according to existing legislation.
Expected Effects
The primary effect of this bill, if enacted, would be increased fiscal accountability for emergency spending. It would force Congress and the OMB to find offsetting spending cuts or revenue increases to balance emergency expenditures.
This could lead to more careful consideration of what qualifies as an 'emergency' and potentially reduce the overall amount of spending designated as such.
However, it could also lead to cuts in other important programs to offset emergency spending, depending on how the sequestration is implemented.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Fiscal Discipline: The bill promotes fiscal responsibility by requiring offsets for emergency spending.
- Greater Transparency: The requirement for detailed justifications for emergency spending enhances transparency.
- Potential Reduction in Deficit Spending: By mandating sequestration, the bill could lead to a reduction in overall deficit spending.
- More Careful Allocation of Resources: The bill may encourage Congress to prioritize spending and avoid unnecessary emergency designations.
- Focus on True Emergencies: The bill reinforces the definition of 'emergency' and 'unanticipated' spending.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential Cuts to Essential Programs: Sequestration could lead to cuts in important programs to offset emergency spending.
- Reduced Flexibility in Responding to Crises: The bill may limit the government's ability to respond quickly and effectively to unforeseen crises.
- Implementation Challenges: Determining which programs to cut and how to implement sequestration could be politically challenging.
- Unintended Consequences: The bill could have unintended consequences, such as hindering economic growth or harming vulnerable populations.
- Exemptions May Skew Priorities: The exemptions for certain programs (e.g., National Defense) could lead to disproportionate cuts in other areas.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill aligns with Congress's power of the purse, as outlined in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which states that 'No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.' The bill seeks to regulate how appropriations are made and spent, particularly in the context of emergency spending.
Furthermore, the bill's emphasis on accountability and justification for spending aligns with the principle of responsible governance, which is implicit in the Constitution's preamble, aiming to 'promote the general Welfare.'
However, the bill's potential impact on specific programs and its delegation of authority to the OMB Director could raise questions about the separation of powers, depending on how it is implemented.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).