Should Congressional Budget Insertions Be Allowed?

COMMENTARY

By Hector A. Barrios, CenPEG Senior Fellow and Trustee

October 15, 2025

Introduction

Every year, the branches of government – Executive, Congress, Judiciary and Constitutional Commissions -- prepare their respective operating and capital plans for the next year. These plans embody what they want to achieve (objectives), how they intend to achieve them (operations and projects), and how much they need to implement them. We call the whole thing simply the 'budget.' The consolidation of these budgets, called the NEP (National Expenditures Program), is submitted by the President for appropriation by Congress which has the power of the purse (the power to tax and spend public money.)

The question we would like to tackle in this article is: 'May Congress make insertions into the budget?' To answer that, let us first look at how it is provided for in the Constitution.

Constitutional Context

The power of the purse is part of the separation of powers of government. 'Separation of powers' is a principle of organization just as fundamental as 'unity of command', 'division of labor' and 'authority and responsibility.' As such, it applies to all organizations, but it is especially crucial to political systems like ours where sovereign powers are given to an organization called the 'government.' This delegation of sovereign powers to the government makes it all-powerful, and to avoid the risk of its turning bad and using its powers against its employer, the government is organized in branches with distributed powers to provide checks and balances and prevent collusion. The separation must always be maintained because great danger can come from the government whenever it is breached.

What exactly is the danger? At worst, collusion in government -- in other words, the combining of government powers -- can be used to take over the country. However, it is usually used only for more modest goals, like dipping into public funds, selling off public assets, enjoying licenses, franchises and special privileges, or manipulating elections – in short, to gain wealth, privilege and perpetuity of rule. The last thing they would want is to change the political status quo because with wealth, power and privilege, there's nothing better than to live under the blessings of democracy.

The Separate Powers of the Legislature and the Executive

The Constitution simply states the function of the Legislature as 'the legislative power' (Art. VI, Sec. 1), and that of the Executive as 'the executive power' (Art. VII, Sec.1). It is as if the Constitution expected these terms to be commonly understood.

For purposes of this paper, just to be sure that we are using a common vocabulary, let us turn to some definitions:

• Legislature: law-making branch of a government. (Britannica)

• Law: a rule, usually made by government. (Cambridge Dictionary)

• Executive: branch of government responsible for putting policies or laws into effect. (Oxford Languages)

From these definitions, we can see that planning and implementation of government operations and projects is an executive function.

In A Budget Insertion, What Is Being Inserted: A Law or A Plan?

Since the NEP is a plan, any insertion into it becomes part of the plan. More specifically, the NEP is composed of objectives, planned operations and projects. Thus, any insertion can only add or revise an objective, operation or project. That is planning, not lawmaking.

But what about the fact that the GAA (General Appropriations Act) is a law? Isn't budget insertion part of enacting this law and therefore a lawmaking function? Doesn't the Legislature in effect participate in the planning function by enacting the GAA?

A simple answer is to go to the definition of 'law' – it is a rule. Thus, if what is being inserted is a rule, then that is lawmaking. But if it is a change in objectives, operations or projects, then that is planning.

However, it's worth addressing this question from the constitutional context also, apart from just the legalistic angle. The power of the purse is a check on the executive's power to plan and implement, a guard against potential abuse of the executive power. Congress in its exercise of the power of the purse serves as a guard against potential Executive abuse of its powers, and as such must not partake of the very act it is guarding against.

Further Provisions in the Constitution

Although, the constitutional context is clear enough, the Constitution gave further specification in Art.VI;

• Sec. 25.1: The Congress may not increase the appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the Government as specified in the budget. The form, content and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.

• Sec. 25.5: No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may, by law, be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other items in their respective appropriations.

• One may ask, the concept of separation of powers is quite clear already, so what is the point of this specific prohibition? To understand the need to specify, it will help to see the preceding Art. VI, Sec.24:

*Sec. 24: All appropriations, revenues or tariff bills, bills authorizing the increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

This section talks of amendments by the House and by the Senate, and unless qualified could be interpreted to mean that Senate has the authority to amend the budget. That this authority may apply only to the other bills and measures enumerated in the Section but not to appropriations is quickly clarified by the immediately next Section 25.1.

Apart from the above-mentioned qualification, Sec. 25.1 also guards against the possible interpretation that changes to the NEP may be made by the House or Senate as long as there is no net increase in the overall budget. This refers to changes involving both a deduction and an equal amount of addition, which can happen in the case of realignments, adjustments and amendments.

In other words, Sec. 25.1 is there to make sure we understand that Congress may only disallow but not add, because that is the rationale of the control function – to guard against error or fraud by stopping it, not replanning it.

Misinterpretation of Sec. 25.1

Notwithstanding the simple clarity of the separation of powers and the clear prohibition in Sec. 25.1, lawmakers have been interpreting the amendments mentioned in Sec. 24 as applicable to appropriations, and to interpret the word of 'increase' in Sec. 25.1 to mean 'net increase.'

By virtue of these misinterpretations, they have been helping themselves to changes every year that involve additions to the budget, e.g., realignments, adjustments, amendments and insertions. And as human nature would have it, this practice has grown to billions.

Congress' Role In The Budget

In behalf of the people, Congress gives advice and consent to the Executive.

• It does not give consent to (disallows) plans and projects that are detrimental to the country.

• It advises the Executive to make desirable modifications before consenting to the expenditure (without however taking part in making the modification but leaving it to the Executive.)

Since the NEP is a consolidated national budget, Congress is hardly in a position to give advice and consent on local expenditures and specific projects. Instead, the best application of its wisdom is to provide guidance on matters of national concern such as: taxation limits, debt limits, domestic liquidity, macroeconomic impact, projects of a national scale, regional balance of expenditures.

Our Congress people's preoccupation with projects, instead of major issues, is very hard to take.