Hearing of the
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
on Biennial Budgeting
Thank you, Chairman Pryce and full committee Chairman Dreier, for the opportunity to address the committee today. We have an opportunity in the 107th Congress to enact a historic, bipartisan and meaningful reform to the federal budget process, and I am pleased that you both are working so hard to bring this reform to passage.
Madame Chairman, biennial budgeting is a genuinely bipartisan effort to bring greater fiscal responsibility to the government of the United States of America. It is significant that Republicans, Democrats and Independents in Congress, representing states that practice biennial budgeting as well as states that do not, support this reform. My home state of Minnesota uses a biennial budget, and before coming to Congress in 1995 I served in the Minnesota State Legislature for twenty years. There I served through ten full biennial budget cycles, and since coming to the U.S. Congress I have already served through six full annual cycles. From that experience I believe that budgeting for two years at a time, rather than repeating the budget process every single year, is a more efficient and more thoughtful process for everyone involved.
I think we can agree that biennial budgeting is not going to make the headlines on the evening news, and some people ask why the Congress should be concerned with an issue that seems at first to be of interest to nobody but accountants or budget officials. However, the basic idea of biennial budgeting is quite simple. Right now, the U.S. Congress plans the budget for the federal government on an annual basis, one year at a time. Rep. Bass and I, along with many in this room and in both chambers of Congress, believe the federal government should instead plan its budget every two years.
Every year the Congress spends an enormous amount of time and energy doing the most basic of its functions: funding the federal government for another year. Every year the thirteen annual funding bills become targets for political debates that delay their progress, no matter how many state and local governments and non-governmental organizations rely on the timely appropriation of those funds. And every September and October the 535 Members of Congress spend too many late nights cutting last-minute deals to keep the government from shutting down while the public reacts angrily to many of the provisions of the final appropriations measures. There must be a better way.
In a biennial budget system, Congress would plan the federal budget for two years at a time. In even-numbered years, Congress would plan and distribute funds for the following two fiscal years. In odd-numbered years, Congress would be free to spend its time on authorization and oversight. However, it is important to keep in mind that if unanticipated funding needs do arise during the second year, Congress could still pass supplemental appropriations bills.
The purpose of this reform is twofold. First, with half as much time spent on appropriations, Congress will be able to improve its critical oversight and authorization processes. Second, planning a budget each two years will facilitate wiser spending choices, resulting in better use of each taxpayer dollar. More long-term planning will make it easier for Congress to prevent unnecessary or wasteful spending.
I would note that many budget experts and advocates of good government support this budget reform. Biennial budgeting has the support of state governors and budget officials; President George W. Bush and former Presidents Clinton, Reagan and George Bush Sr.; Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels and former OMB Director Jacob Lew; budget groups including the Concord Coalition, Taxpayers for Common Sense and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Furthermore, the most recent Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress recommended that we adopt a biennial federal budget.
Madame Chairman, we should simply consider the way that America's families and businesses plan their own budgets. Successful families and businesses have long-term business plans, and the federal government would be wise to institute more long-term thinking in its own budget process.
I have heard many strong arguments from my friends on the other side of this issue. While we may disagree on the merits of biennial budgeting, I know we all share the common goal of improving the oversight process and reducing wasteful spending. Thank you.
