Hearing of the Committee on Rules
"Biennial Budgeting: A Tool for Improving Government Fiscal Management and Oversight"
I wish to begin by thanking the Chairman and the Committee for the opportunity to speak today in favor of biennial budgeting. The Chairman and many Members here today and scheduled to speak in future hearings have been tireless leaders in this reform effort, and I am honored to be in your company.
The attention drawn this year to the budget caps, election-year partisanship during appropriations, and budget process reform offers an historic opportunity for the House to support biennial budgeting. The strong, bipartisan majority that cosponsored the sense of the House resolution introduced by Chairman Dreier last year to call for passing legislation this year shows how near we are to enacting this long-overdue reform.
As a New Hampshire resident and a former member of the state’s House and Senate, I know first hand the advantages of biennial budgeting. New Hampshire uses a biennial budget because it is a more efficient and less cumbersome process. In our experience, it reduces spending and leaves more time in the off-years for oversight of programs. The result is a smaller, leaner, more responsive and more efficient government. All Americans deserve the benefits that would result from biennial budgeting at the federal level.
Elections and appropriations don’t mix to make good government. Despite the admirable leadership of the current Chairman of the Appropriations Committee and other Members, as a rule, election year train wrecks consume valuable legislative time and too often result in last-minute, bloated appropriations. Resolving the bulk of budget and appropriations decisions in the First Session of every Congress would solve this problem.
Budgeting and appropriating for two fiscal years at a time better exposes year-to-year funding changes to scrutiny and requires more prudent funding decisions. By eliminating repetitive and time-consuming appropriations work, Congress as a whole and even the appropriations subcommittees would be able to focus on more oversight of programs. This would also contribute to more appropriate funding decisions in biennial appropriation bills and any necessary supplemental/recision legislation.
As with oversight, biennial budgeting would allow more time for needed authorization legislation. In addition, the overwhelming appropriations work load every year has upset the intended balance in the role of authorizations and appropriations. Biennial budgeting would help restore the importance of the authorization process.
Preparing for annual appropriations is as much or more of a drain on time and resources for federal agencies as it is for Congress. Biennial budgeting would increase agency efficiency and provide them with more stable and predictable budgets. In addition, Congress would be able to exercise better oversight over them.
As recently as WWII, all but four states had biennial budgeting. The growing dependence on annually-appropriated big-government programs, however, helped moved many to change to annual cycles. Although this trend has reversed in recent years (today, 21 states have biennial budgets and two others have a mixed cycle), biennial budgeting at the federal level would help states return to this common sense process. Even if states retain annual cycles, they will benefit from more stable and predictable federal funding.
Last fall I introduced H.R. 2985, the Budget Responsibility and Efficiency Act. This legislation, which already has nearly 40 cosponsors, would enact biennial budget and appropriations cycles consisting of two distinct fiscal years, beginning with FY02-FY03; require, with certain exceptions, that authorization bills cover at least two fiscal years; and conform the Government Performance and Results Act to biennial cycles. Budget and regular appropriations legislation would be enacted during the First Session, leaving the Second Session largely free for authorizations and more oversight. Unlike some other approaches to biennial budgeting, however, it would allow full flexibility in considering authorization or revenue legislation during the First Session as necessary.
To average Americans, budget reform always sounds like a boring, inside the beltway concern. But with biennial budgeting, Americans would receive better government service, better value for taxpayer dollars, and a renewed confidence in the ability of Congress and the President to serve their constituents in a less partisan, more thoughtful and responsive manner
Better congressional oversight will reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs and improve the overall performance of federal agencies. More deliberative budget planning, largely removed from election year partisanship, will better allocate federal funding where it is truly needed. Reducing the time-consuming burdens of the budget process will free time and energy of federal agencies to devote toward serving American citizens, and allow Members of Congress more time to devote to the interests of their constituents.
From more efficiency to less money spent on just preparing annual budgets, the same factors that will produce better government service will help ensure that the tax dollars paid by Americans will be spent wisely and effectively. By ensuring that tax dollars are spent wisely and effectively, Congress will be able to return unnecessary taxes to hard-working Americans.
Bringing greater efficiency, accountability, and effectiveness to government programs can only help restore public trust in and respect for government. Americans would feel a renewed confidence in the ability of Congress and the President to serve their constituents in a less partisan, more thoughtful and responsive manner.
In conclusion, biennial budgeting is reform whose time has come. I applaud the bipartisan efforts of those Members who have worked so hard to bring this reform about, not only during the past few months, but for many years. I look forward to helping bring these efforts to fruition.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.