Bill · S. 181· Senate(119-S-181)
A bill to require agencies submit zero-based budgets.
- Introduced
- 1/22/2025
- Last activity
- 1/22/2025 — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Sponsored by
- James Risch
- Cosponsors
- - 7 - 0
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill requires federal agencies to submit zero-based budgets. A zero-based budget involves managers examining current objectives, operations, and costs while considering alternative ways to carry out activities. These managers must also rank different programs or activities by their importance. Every sixth year, agencies must submit these budgets to the Office of Management and Budget and specific congressional committees. Additionally, most agencies must recommend program cuts or reductions. These recommendations must total at least a 2-percent reduction from the previous year's discretionary spending.
Yes· 3 of 4
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?+5
The bill requires agencies to recommend specific program cuts or reductions in discretionary spending.
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?+4
The bill introduces a zero-based budgeting process that requires managers to systematically examine costs and prioritize activities.
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?+3
The bill mandates that agencies recommend program cuts or reductions totaling at least 2-percent of the previous year's discretionary spending.
The opposite· 3 of 4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?-3
Program reductions could disproportionately affect public assistance programs that serve low-income minority populations.
Would middle-income households be better off under this?-2
Mandatory reductions in discretionary spending may impact public services utilized by middle-income families.
Would people in cities be better off under this?-2
Reductions in agency discretionary spending could impact urban-focused public programs and services.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Systematic Budget Analysis: Managers are required to examine current objectives, operations, and costs to support decision making (Section 1(a)(2)(A)). This could lead to a more thorough understanding of how agency funds are being used.
-
Program Prioritization: Agencies must consider alternative ways of carrying out programs and rank them by order of importance (Section 1(a)(2)(B) and (C)). This process could help ensure that the most important activities receive necessary resources.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Mandatory Funding Reductions: Except for the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration, agencies must recommend cuts or reductions to programs (Section 1(c)). This could result in the reduction of various programs or activities due to the requirement of a reduction of not less than 2-percent from the previous year's discretionary spending (Section 1(c)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Economy And Finance
- Reduces Government Spending+5Improves Fiscal Responsibility+4Reduces National Debt+3
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Good For Low Income Households-3Good For Middle Class Households-2Good For Urban Residents-2
- Governance And Ideology
- Improves Government Transparency+2
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Reduces Military Spending-1
- 8/4/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/22/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
Mike CrapoRepublican · Idaho
Ted CruzRepublican · Texas
Cynthia LummisRepublican · Wyoming
David McCormickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Pete RickettsRepublican · Nebraska
Rick ScottRepublican · Florida
Tim SheehyRepublican · Montana