The Mid-Session Review of the Presidents Budget: Timing Issues

The Mid-Session Review of the
President’s Budget: Timing Issues
Updated August 19, 2008
Robert Keith
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division



The Mid-Session Review of the
President’s Budget: Timing Issues
Summary
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 established for the first time the
requirement that the President annually submit a budget to Congress. Under current
law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)), the President is required to submit his annual budget on or
after the first Monday in January, but no later than the first Monday in February.
For nearly half a century after the 1921 act took effect, Presidents submitted
their annual budgets to Congress toward the beginning of the session but were not
required to update the budget submissions later in the session. As the federal budget
became larger, more complex, and more dynamic, Congress felt a greater need for
more extensive and updated budgetary information from the President.
Section 221(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requires the
President to submit to Congress an update of his budget in the middle of the
legislative session. The requirement, which was first effective in 1972, is codified
at 31 U.S.C. 1106. The update commonly is referred to as the mid-session review,
but sometimes is referred to as the supplemental summary of the budget. It often is
printed as a House document.
During the more than 30 years that the President has been required to submit a
mid-session review of his budget, controversy has surfaced occasionally regarding
the timing of its submission to Congress. From time to time, Members of Congress
have asserted that the President has submitted the mid-session review in a tardy
manner in order to gain a political or legislative advantage over Congress. In one
instance, some Members attributed an accelerated submission of the mid-session
review to the same motivation.
This report provides information on the timing of submission of the mid-session
review for FY1980-FY2009, a 30-year period that covers all or part of the
administrations of five Presidents, applying to the last two years of the Carter
Administration, and the full terms of the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and
George W. Bush Administrations. Each of the Presidents submitted at least one mid-
session review on time and at least one late.
During the 30-year period, the mid-session review was submitted, on average,
about two weeks (12.3 days) late. In 13 of the 30 years, the mid-session review was
submitted on time. Ten of the 13 timely submissions were made on, or within four
days of, the July 15 deadline. In two of the three remaining instances, for FY2000
and FY2001, the mid-session review was submitted in late June; for FY1999, it was
submitted on May 26, 1998 — 50 days ahead of the deadline.
In 17 of the 30 years, the submission of the mid-session review was tardy, with
delays ranging from one day to 52 days. When a tardy submission occurred, on
average it involved a delay of about three weeks (21.7 days). This report will be
updated as developments warrant.



Contents
Background ..................................................1
Origin of the Mid-Session Review................................1
Subsequent Modifications.......................................2
Timing of Submission: FY1980-FY2009...........................3
Circumstances of Delayed Submission.............................5
President Reagan: FY1985-FY1988...........................5
President Clinton: FY1994..................................6
President Clinton: FY1998..................................7
President George W. Bush: FY2002...........................7
Circumstances of Accelerated Submission..........................8
Appendix A. Statutory Requirement for a Mid-Session Review of the
President’s Budget (31 U.S.C. 1106)...............................9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Number of Days Mid-Session Review Submitted Before (-) or
After (+) July 15 Deadline (FY1980-FY2009).......................5
List of Tables
Table 1. Dates of Submission of the Mid-Session Review: FY1980-FY2009..3



The Mid-Session Review of the
President’s Budget: Timing Issues
Background
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (P.L. 67-13) established for the first
time the requirement that the President annually submit a budget to Congress. The
President’s budget, referred to officially as the Budget of the United States
Government, consists of estimates of spending, revenues, borrowing, and debt; policy
and legislative recommendations; detailed estimates of the financial operations of
federal agencies and programs; and other information supporting the President’s
recommendations. Initially, the 1921 act required the President to include in his
budget information for the upcoming fiscal year, as well as for the most recently
completed and current fiscal years.
Under the 1921 act, the deadline for submission was set as “the first day of each
regular session” of Congress. The deadline was changed in 1950, 1985, and 1990,
but always required that the budget be submitted either in January or February.
Under current law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)), the President is required to submit his annual
budget on or after the first Monday in January, but no later than the first Monday in
February. Budgets during the administrations of Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and
Hoover were submitted in December; during the administrations of President
Franklin D. Roosevelt and subsequent Presidents, budgets were submitted in January
or February.
As soon as the President’s budget is received, the House and Senate begin
working on the annual appropriations bills, revenue measures, and other budgetary
legislation. The aim of the two chambers is to complete legislative action on the
budget by the beginning of the fiscal year later in the session, but sometimes such
action is not completed until weeks or months after the fiscal year has begun.
Origin of the Mid-Session Review
For nearly half a century after the 1921 act took effect, Presidents submitted
their annual budgets to Congress in toward the beginning of the session but were not
required to update the budget submissions later in the session. As the federal budget
became larger, more complex, and more dynamic, Congress felt a greater need for
more extensive and updated budgetary information from the President. This view
was expressed by the House Rules Committee in its report on the Legislative
Reorganization Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-510):



Very often, as the appropriations process moves forward, conditions relating to
the President’s budget change. Frequently, Members are not fully informed
about such changes and what effect they will have on the total Budget. No
official Executive pronouncements are made subsequent to the Budget
submission; no supplementary budgetary information is presented; no firm
foundation except the January Budget is available in the Congress. This inexact,
imprecise, and haphazard system must be substantially improved if the Congress
is to analyze effectively the President’s program and, with any degree of
accuracy, forecast the expenditure and revenue levels of the National1
Government.
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 made several changes in the federal
budget process in response to Congress’s need for more budgetary information from
the President, chiefly by requiring that his budget cover not just the upcoming fiscal
year but the four ensuing fiscal years.
In addition, Section 221(b) of the act requires the President to submit to
Congress an update of his budget in the middle of the legislative session. The
requirement, which was first effective in 1972, is codified at 31 U.S.C. 1106 (see the
Appendix for the current text of the statutory requirement). The update commonly
is referred to as the mid-session review, but sometimes is referred to as the
supplemental summary of the budget. It often is printed as a House document.
Subsequent Modifications
Congress and the President have made two changes since 1970 pertinent to the
requirement for a mid-session review. First, in conjunction with a change in the start
of the fiscal year from July 1 to October 1, made by the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (P.L. 93-344), the deadline for submission of the mid-session review was2
changed from June 1 to July 15.
The second change pertained to the budget enforcement procedures established
on a temporary basis by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (Title II of P.L. 99-177), commonly referred to as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
Act. Under Section 241 of the act, the President was required in the preparation of
his annual budget to adhere to statutory deficit targets that were enforced by
sequestration. Section 242 of the act (99 Stat. 1063) extended the same constraint
to the preparation of the mid-session review. The restriction expired at the end of
FY1995, along with the deficit targets themselves.


1 H.Rept. 91-1215, to accompany H.R. 17654 (in U.S. Code Congressional and
Administrative News, 91st Cong., 2nd sess. (1970), vol. 3, p. 4427).
2 Section 501 (88 Stat. 321) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-344) changed
the start of the fiscal year to October 1. Section 602 (88 Stat. 324) of the act changed the
deadline for submission of the mid-session review to July 15. These two provisions, among
others, were codified in Title 31 (Money and Finance) of the United States Code by P.L. 97-
258, signed into law on September 13, 1982. In 1990, new Sections 501 and 602 (dealing
with credit reform and spending allocations) were added to the Congressional Budget Act.

Timing of Submission: FY1980-FY2009
During the more than 30 years that the President has been required to submit a
mid-session review of his budget, controversy has surfaced occasionally regarding
the timing of its submission to Congress. From time to time, Members of Congress
have asserted that the President has submitted the mid-session review in a tardy
manner in order to gain a political or legislative advantage over Congress. In one
instance, some Members attributed an accelerated submission of the mid-session
review to the same motivation.
Table 1 provides information on the timing of submission of the mid-session
review for FY1980-FY2009. During the 30 years covered by this period, the mid-
session review was submitted, on average, about two weeks (12.3 days) late.
The 30-year period identified in Table 1 covers all or part of the administrations
of five Presidents, applying to the last two years of the Carter Administration, and
the full terms of the Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush
Administrations. Each of the Presidents submitted at least one mid-session review
on time and at least one late.
Table 1. Dates of Submission of the Mid-Session Review:
FY1980-FY2009
FiscalDate ofOnNo. ofDaysPresidentHouse Document
Year Subm i ssi on Ti m e ? Lat e Num b e r Dat e
1980 07-12-1979 Yes 0 Carter 96-163 07-16-1979
1981 07-21-1980 No 6 Carter 96-344 07-22-1980
1982 07-15-1981 Yes 0 Reagan 97-73 07-15-1981
1983 07-30-1982 No 15 Reagan 97-220 08-02-1982
1984 07-25-1983 No 10 Reagan 98-87 07-26-1983
1985 08-15-1984 No 31 Reagan 98-251 09-05-1984
1986 08-30-1985 No 46 Reagan 99-99 09-04-1985
1987 08-06-1986 No 22 Reagan 99-254 08-06-1986
1988 08-17-1987 No 33 Reagan 100-99 09-09-1987
1989 07-28-1988 No 13 Reagan 100-217 07-28-1988
199007-18-1989No3Bush (41)101-8607-21-1989
199107-16-1990aYesa0Bush (41)101-21707-18-1990
199207-15-1991Yes0Bush (41)102-11507-17-1991

199307-24-1992No9Bush (41)102-36507-24-1992



FiscalDate ofOnNo. ofDaysPresidentHouse Document
Year Subm i ssi on Ti m e ? Lat e Num b e r Dat e

1994 09-01-1993b No b 48 Clinton 103-133 09-0-1993 b


199507-14-1994Yes0Clinton[none] —


199607-28-1995cNoc13Clinton[none]c


1997 07-16-1996 No 1 Clinton 104-247 07-18-1996
1998 09-05-1997 No 52 Clinton 105-129 09-15-1997

199905-26-1998Yes0Clinton[none] —


200006-28-1999Yes0Clinton[none] —


200106-26-2000Yes0Clinton[none] —


200208-22-2001No38Bush (43)[none] —


200307-15-2002Yes0Bush (43)107-24507-16-2002

200407-15-2003Yes0Bush (43)[none] —


200507-30-2004No15Bush (43)[none] —


200607-13-2005Yes0Bush (43)[none] —


200707-11-2006Yes0Bush (43)109-12207-17-2006

200807-11-2007Yes0Bush (43) — —


200907-28-2008No13Bush (43) — —


Average12.3
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service from various sources.
Note: “Bush (41)” refers to President George H.W. Bush, the 41st President, and “Bushrd
(43)” refers to President George W. Bush, the 43 President.
a. In 1990, the July 15 deadline fell on a Sunday; therefore, the report for this year is considered to
have been submitted in a timely manner.
b. “Preliminary materials relating to the mid-session review were submitted on July 15, 1993.
c. “Preliminary materials relating to the mid-session review were submitted on July 14, 1995 and
printed as H. Doc. 104-98 (July 17, 1995).
In 13 of the 30 years, the mid-session review was submitted on time — for fiscal
years 1980, 1982, 1991 (on Monday, July 16), 1992, 1995, 1999-2001, 2003-2004,
and 2006-2008. Ten of the 13 timely submissions were made on, or within four days
of, the July 15 deadline. In two of the three remaining instances, the mid-session
review was submitted in late June (June 28, 1999, for FY2000, and June 26, 2000,
for FY2001); for FY1999, it was submitted on May 26, 1998 — 50 days ahead of the
deadline.



In 17 of the 30 years, the submission of the mid-session review was tardy, with
delays ranging from one day to 52 days. When a tardy submission occurred, on
average it involved a delay of about three weeks (21.7 days).
Figure 1 shows the number of days that the mid-session review was submitted
before or after the July 15 deadline for each year from FY1980-FY2009.
Figure 1. Number of Days Mid-Session Review
Submitted Before (-) or After (+) July 15 Deadline
(FY1980-FY2009)
Circumstances of Delayed Submission
The submission of the mid-session review was noticeably delayed (i.e., for more
than 15 days) in four instances: during a four-year stretch of the Reagan
Administration, covering FY1985-FY1988; for FY1994 and FY1998, under the
Clinton Administration; and for FY2002, under the George W. Bush Administration.
The circumstances surrounding the delayed submissions in these four instances are
discussed in more detail below.
President Reagan: FY1985-FY1988. During the first three years of his
administration, President Reagan submitted the mid-session review either on time or
no more than 15 days late. During the next four years of his administration, however,
growing and persistent deficits made his relationship with Congress on budgetary
matters especially turbulent, marked by delay and gridlock in all phases of legislative
action on the budget. The mid-session reviews for four consecutive years, FY1985-
FY1988, were submitted between 22 and 46 days late.



On September 29, 1987, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Title I of P.L. 100-119) was enacted, which in part
amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Title II
of P.L. 99-177) to modify the sequestration process. A requirement was added that
the President include in the mid-session review preliminary sequestration estimates
as well as the economic and technical assumptions that would be used in the initial
sequestration report for the fiscal year due in August. The joint explanatory
statement accompanying the conference report on the 1987 act noted:
For FY 1989 and beyond, the President’s July 15 mid-session budget report must
provide an estimate of the deficit excess and net deficit reduction computed using
the economic and technical assumptions that he will use in the initial
sequestration report for that fiscal year. It is imperative that the Director of
OMB actually deliver this mid-session report by July 15. When he issues the
initial sequestration report, he is required to use those same economic and3
technical assumptions.
The increased significance given to the mid-session review by virtue of this
change in the sequestration process probably accounts in part for the improved record
of submission beginning with FY1989. President Reagan’s mid-session review for
that year was only 13 days late. The improved record of submission continued for
all four years of the George H. W. Bush Administration, covering FY1990-FY1993.
The requirement under the 1985 Balanced Budget Act was effective for three
years (FY1989-FY1991), but was terminated under revisions made by the Budget4
Enforcement Act (BEA) of 1990. President George H.W. Bush used the mid-
session review for FY1992 and FY1993, at his own initiative, as a vehicle for
apprising Congress of the status of legislation under two new enforcement tools
established by the BEA of 1990 — discretionary spending limits and a pay-as-you-go
(PAYGO) requirement covering revenues and mandatory spending.
President Clinton: FY1994. On July 15, 1993, the Clinton Administration
notified Congress that it would delay the submission of the mid-session review for
FY1994 so that it would reflect the impact of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act (OBRA) of 1993, which was then pending before the House and Senate. On that
date, the Administration provided preliminary mid-session estimates of the deficit.
President Clinton signed OBRA of 1993 into law on August 10 (as P.L. 103-66) and
transmitted the mid-session review for FY1994 to Congress on September 1, 48 days
late.
President Clinton’s action stirred controversy in Congress because some
Members wanted an updated assessment of the budgetary situation before voting on
the conference report on OBRA of 1993. On July 20, 1993, the Senate tabled an


3 See p. 53 of H.Rept. 100-313 (September 21, 1987), Increasing the Statutory Limit on the
Public Debt.
4 The BEA of 1990 is Title XIII of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L.

101-508, signed into law on November 5, 1990).



amendment (by a vote of 56 to 43) offered by Senator Pete Domenici to H.R. 25, the
Hatch Act Reform Amendments.5 Senator Domenici’s amendment stated:
It is the sense of the Senate that the President should submit the supplementary
budget as required by law no later than July 16 and the requisite information
therein required, but in no event later than July 26, 1993.
Senator Larry Craig discussed various patterns in the timing of submission of
the mid-session review during years in which the House and Senate considered
reconciliation legislation.6
President Clinton used the mid-session review for FY1994 in part to recount the
actions that led to the enactment of OBRA of 1993 and to discuss the features of that
act. He used the mid-session review for FY1995 and subsequent years to discuss the
status of legislation under the discretionary spending limits and the PAYGO
requirement.
President Clinton: FY1998. As had been the case for FY1994, the
submission of the mid-session review for FY1998 was delayed until after Congress
completed action on reconciliation legislation. The delay in this case, until
September 5, 1997, was the longest incurred during the 26-year period — 52 days.
Unlike the experience for FY1994, however, the delay was not accompanied by
controversy.
In May 1997, the Clinton Administration and congressional leaders reached
agreement on a plan to balance the budget by FY2002. On July 31 and August 5,
President Clinton signed into law the two reconciliation acts that implemented most
of the balanced-budget policies. The delayed issuance of the mid-session review for
FY1998 allowed President Clinton to render a final accounting with respect to the
budgetary impact of the two measures, which amounted to $247 billion in savings
over five years (yielding an estimated surplus of $63 billion for FY2002).
President George W. Bush: FY2002. The issuance of the mid-session
review again was associated with controversy in 2001, although probably more for
its contents than the timing of its release. President George W. Bush submitted his
transition budget for FY2002 to Congress on April 9. His budget recommended,
among other things, that Congress enact a 10-year tax cut of about $1.6 trillion while
at the same time preserving the entire surplus in the Social Security trust funds.
In May, Congress adopted the budget resolution for FY2002 (H.Con.Res. 83),
affirming its commitment to a somewhat smaller tax cut (about $1.35 billion) and to
preserving the Social Security surplus. The on-budget surplus, which excludes the
transactions of the Social Security trust funds, was estimated at that time to be about


5 The final disposition of Domenici Modified Amendment No. 597 is found in the
Congressional Record of July 20, 1993, at pages S8920-8924 and S8951. Senator Domenici
offered and then modified the amendment on July 15 (see the Congressional Record of that
date at pages S8795 and S8808, respectively).
6 See his remarks in the Congressional Record of August 5, 1993, at pages S10523-S10529.

$30 billion for FY2001 and $48 billion for FY2002. These amounts represented the
resources that could be allocated during the remainder of the session for additional
defense spending and other budget priorities (principally under “reserve fund”
procedures) without violating the pledge to preserve the Social Security surplus.
Following the adoption of the budget resolution, the House and Senate agreed
to a revenue reconciliation measure providing the recommended level of tax cuts;
President Bush signed it into law on June 7 (as P.L. 107-16). During the remainder
of June and into July, the House and Senate focused on the consideration of the
regular appropriations bills.
The FY2002 mid-session review was issued on August 22 (38 days late), while
the House and Senate were in recess. It indicated that, owing largely to unexpected
weakness in the economy, the estimates of the on-budget surpluses for FY2001 and
FY2002 had dropped to $1 billion for each year.7 Accordingly, the amount available
for allocation to defense spending and other priorities had been reduced significantly.
The returning House and Senate faced the prospect of completing action on the
regular appropriations measures for FY2002 with less than a month before the
beginning of the fiscal year (on October 1) and under much tighter budgetary
constraints than had previously been assumed.
Circumstances of Accelerated Submission
In 1998, President Clinton submitted the mid-session review for FY1999 nearly
two months (50 days) early — on May 26. In February 1998, the President’s budget
for FY1999 estimated a $10 billion deficit for the current year, FY1998. The mid-
session review revised this estimate to a surplus of $39 billion. The President’s
reestimate for FY1998 (and subsequent years) paralleled significantly improved
reestimates made by the Congressional Budget Office and private forecasters.
The prospect of the first surplus in nearly three decades, and growing surpluses
in the following years, sparked congressional interest in acting on sizeable tax-cut
legislation during the session. President Clinton argued instead that the budget
surpluses should be “reserved” until changes could be made in the Social Security
program to strengthen its long-term financial soundness.
According to some Members of Congress, the issuance of the mid-session
review may have been accelerated to strengthen the President’s hand. Had the
President waited until the July 15 deadline, they assert, the surplus estimates might
have been much higher, fueling even greater interest in the tax-cut proposals to which
he objected.


7 The Congressional Budget Office issued The Budget and Economic Outlook: An Update
on August 28, indicating that the on-budget surplus for FY2002 had fallen to $2 billion (and
had become an on-budget deficit of $9 billion for FY2001).

Appendix A. Statutory Requirement for a
Mid-Session Review of the President’s Budget
(31 U.S.C. 1106)
Sec. 1106. Supplemental budget estimates and changes. —
(a) Before July 16 of each year, the President shall submit to Congress a
supplemental summary of the budget for the fiscal year for which the budget is
submitted under section 1105(a) of this title. The summary shall include —
(1) for that fiscal year —
(A) substantial changes in or reappraisals of estimates of
expenditures and receipts;
(B) substantial obligations imposed on the budget after its
submission;
(C) current information on matters referred to in section 1105(a)(8)
and (9)(B) and (C) of this title;
and (D) additional information the President decides is advisable to
provide Congress with complete and current information about the budget
and current estimates of the functions, obligations, requirements, and
financial condition of the United States Government;
(2) for the 4 fiscal years following the fiscal year for which the budget is
submitted, information on estimated expenditures for programs authorized to
continue in future years, or that are considered mandatory, under law; and
(3) for future fiscal years, information on estimated expenditures of
balances carried over from the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted.
(b) Before July 16 of each year, the President shall submit to Congress a
statement of changes in budget authority requested, estimated budget outlays, and
estimated receipts for the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted (including
prior changes proposed for the executive branch of the Government) that the
President decides are necessary and appropriate based on current information. The
statement shall include the effect of those changes on the information submitted
under section 1105(a)(1)-(14) and (b) of this title and shall include supporting
information as practicable. The statement submitted before July 16 may be included
in the information submitted under subsection (a)(1) of this section.
(c) Subsection (f) of section 1105 shall apply to revisions and supplemental
summaries submitted under this section to the same extent that such subsection
applies to the budget submitted under section 1105(a) to which such revisions and
summaries relate