Hearings of the
House Committee on Rules
H.R. 853, The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1999
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for allowing me to testify today on H.R. 853. I want to commend my colleagues, Mr. Nussle and Mr. Cardin, for their efforts in crafting this bill, and wish to commend the Committee for holding hearings on this important legislation.
I would like to begin my remarks today by reaffirming that this bill is truly a product of bipartisanship. While there are items in the bill that I might change (and I am sure my colleagues can say the same) if offering the bill myself, this is a bill that deserves support, as well as swift passage by the House of Representatives.
The bill has many strengths, as my colleagues have outlined in their testimony. Rather than duplicate their statements, I would like to comment on a few provisions that I find particularly important. The first that I would like to highlight is the emergency spending provision.
Unfortunately, the current emergency designation has become a way for Congress to skirt the discretionary caps and disregard the Pay-As-You-Go (PAY-Go) Rules. These important enforcement tools, along with a strong economy, have put a federal budget surplus within reach. H.R. 853 offers a needed solution to budget-busting supplemental appropriations bills that undermine budget discipline. While much of the recent emergency appropriations bills have gone to fund legitimate emergencies, Congress is often tempted to throw in spending that ought to be allocated in regular appropriations bills. By creating an emergency reserve account, H.R. 863 would force Congress to stop misusing the emergency spending designation by using a cap based on the five-year rolling average for emergency spending.
Another important component of H.R. 853 is the shift to “accrual” accounting for certain federal insurance programs. While some Administration officials have expressed mild reservations about the implementation of this provision, I believe it is an important step in the right direction. Current estimates about the liabilities of these programs are unrealistic, and this is a needed change to the budget process. I believe it is far better to use an imprecise estimate of the right concept than a solid estimate of the wrong one.
I will admit that I am a bit concerned about the relaxation of the PAY-Go Rules with regard to on-budget surpluses under the bill. I appreciate the need for tax cuts. Indeed, the Blue Dog budget which I helped write outlined a plan that would have required some loosening of the PAY-Go Rules. It would be my preference, however, to retain this budget enforcement provision for half of the on-budget surpluses, relaxing the PAY-Go Rules to use only half of the on-budget surplus for tax cuts or spending, with the other half used to reduce the debt. But I recognize–and want to commend the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Task Force for–the spirit of compromise and bipartisanship that went into this bill. I am not willing to temper my support for the bill as a result of my doubts about this one provision, because I am certain that most of the bill’s cosponsors have made modest concessions on ideas that are equally important to them. I believe this productive climate has resulted in a solid, meaningful measure that deserves wide support.
In closing, I would like to again thank the Committee for its consideration of the bill, and thank Congressman Goss for his leadership on this legislation in the past months. I look forward to working with you all in the future.
