Hearings of the
House Committee on Rules
H.R. 853, The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1999
Co-Chairman, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Thank you from myself, and from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, for the opportunity to testify on this important subject. Because I expect to be out of the country at the time of the hearing, this written testimony will have to do for now. However, because I believe the Bill, and the reforms, you are discussing are so important, I will be glad to sit down with you, or any member of this distinguished Committee, to review at length any of these matters at a mutually convenient time.
It is my understanding that your hearing will focus on the reforms contained in HR 853, introduced this year by Mr. Nussle (IA), Mr. Cardin (MD) and Mr. Goss (FL), the latter of whom is the Chairman of your Process Subcommittee, and others, including yourself, Mr. Chairman, and the Chairman of the House Budget Committee. I will also refer to the pioneering work done by Mr. Barton (TX) in HR 2599 (1995). HR 4142 (1996), and HR 2003 (1997), and to some of the ideas of the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, mostly expressed in S 92 and S 93, which has now been divided into a number of other bills.
Following the form of the authors’ Highlights of HR 853, provided by your staff, my comments are as follows:
I. Joint Budget Resolution
Junking the present Concurrent Resolution, and substituting a Joint Resolution which must be signed by the President, is essential to making the Budget Process into a serious exercise. The fact that we now we have two budgets is source of considerable mischief, and of infinite confusion about “baselines”. One single budget is easier for the public to understand. It would create a new level of political accountability sadly lacking in the current process.
It would be easier for the Congress, CBO, OMB and the President to deal with. It should move much of the negotiations which now clog the end-of-the-fiscal-year period up into the end of the second quarter of the year.
The enforceable discretionary caps long sought by Mr. Barton, and supported by Mr Domenici, would become a matter of law with a firewall between defense and non defense spending. We would still strongly prefer a 5 or 6 year extension of the caps in the Joint Resolution.
Reducing the 20 present budget functions to total spending and revenue levels with separations for discretionary and mandatory spending is a useful simplification, similar to the recommendations of S 93.
II. Budgeting for Emergencies
The requirements of HR 853 are essential to bandage one of the worst running sores of the current process. When the Congress and the President wave the magic wand of “emergency” over routine expenditures, they give the process a bad name and weaken public trust and understanding. No language, outside of capital punishment, is strong enough, but this helps.
We still prefer the stronger protections of Mr. Barton’s HR 2599.
III. Enforcement
The strengthened enforcement procedures of HR 853 are the very least that should be considered. Waiver approval, by this Committee, is another good proposal. I pray the Committee will set a strong precedent of gimlet-eyed scrutiny and a willingness to say “No” when it needs to be said.
IV. Increased Accountability
This is another set of useful proposals. The 10 year sunset of new spending proposals is a particularly good.
Because of the Senate’s lack of a germaneness rule and its willingness to amend anything, I am less enthusiastic about having separate votes on the debt. Such votes have the odor of accountability about them, but, in fact, they have not improved fiscal sobriety in budgeting. In my judgement, they simply offer fresh opportunities for mischief.
V. Accrual Budgeting
For non-CPAs, it is often useful to peek into the till, but accrual accounting is the right way to handle the long term insurance programs covered here.
With respect to protection of Social Security, the provisions are important and necessary for public confidence in the American Social Contract. Mr. Barton has expressed similar ideas, and Mr. Domenici’s lock box language is even better.
VI. Reducing the Big Spending Bias
Comparisons with last year’s spending is a huge step forward. The public will understand the comparisons, and love them!
Stop-gap appropriations at last year’s spending levels may be an improvement over the present process. They will protect the Congress from its own folly, but they represent a power shift from the legislative branch to the executive. We prefer the Barton figure of 95%, or lower, rather than the 100% in HR 853. At 100%, we believe that there may be insufficient incentive to negotiate.
The discretionary savings’ lock-box provisions will provide incentives for spending reduction amendments, and may be one of the great “sleeper” provisions of the bill.
VII. Pay-Go in Times of Surplus -
It may accurate to describe our Committee as elderly and unable to think in terms of the modern “surplus” economy. Nevertheless, it makes me nervous to relax any hard-won restrictive rules. This feature may be a reform, but we remain unconvinced of its value. It opens doors we would prefer to keep closed. This feature is may be necessary in this modern era, and is similar to provision prepared by Mr. Barton in his 1998 version which was not formally introduced.
VIII. Other Reforms not in HR 853
- Biennial Budget - Both Mr. Barton and Mr. Domenici favor. Our Committee recommended it to Congress in 1994. You may have to consider it somewhere in the process of reform. But, in my judgement, Biennial budgeting pales in comparison to the many other splendid reforms in HR 853.
-
Enhanced Rescission - Since the Court decision on the Line-Item-Failure, I believe it is now responsible to revisit this subject. The Committee and I have always thought that, at the very least, a vote ought to be required to give a rescission item a proper burial.
-
Entitlement Caps - Neither HR 853 nor Mr. Domenici includes this subject. We still stand with Mr. Barton on his 1995 proposal, but we harbor no illusions that your Committee is going to jump off this cliff.
