| Printer-Friendly | Search

Hearing of the Committee on Rules

"Biennial Budgeting: A Tool for Improving Government Fiscal Management and Oversight"

Statement of Congressman John Joseph Moakley,
Ranking Member, Committee on Rules

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for continuing these hearings on biennial budgeting.

Although I certainly like the idea of spending less time on the budget, I'm skeptical that would actually happen. I believe we would spend a good bit of time in the off-year, revising the budget resolution and passing more supplementals than we do now. But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose we'd spend only half as much time on budget-related legislation. Is that a good thing?

It appeals to members because agreeing on a budget and working out the appropriations bills are among the hardest, most contentious work we do each year. Each of us has a different set of priorities which is why agreeing on a budget always involves making painful choices. The only way these measures get passed at all is by everyone making compromises. In the end, no one is completely satisfied with the final result. And it's been that way ever since the first congress met in 1789.

It is certainly tempting to think we might be able to skip a year of making hard choices.

But my mother always told me, if something looks too good to be true, it probably is.

It's our constitutional responsibility to make the hard choices. We are paid to make decisions about taxes and spending . we can not - or at least we should not - delegate our duties in the off-year to a control board (as Ohio and some other biennial states do). Nor should we expect unelected executive branch bureaucrats to set fiscal policy for the nation every other year just for the convenience of our avoiding hard work.

The other argument for biennial we most often hear is based how much time is devoted to the budget. We are told that congress spends so much time on budget-related measures, year after year. It crowds out the opportunity to conduct oversight hearings and enact authorization bills.

Mr. Chairman, that is not true.

I asked the congressional research service to determine just what proportion of floor time is devoted to budget-related legislation. They counted the hours spent on all budget resolutions, appropriations bills, reconciliation and tax measures, conference reports and all related rules and motions. They looked at each session from 1991 through 1998. Most years (5 out of 8) we spend less that 1/5 of our time on budget-related measures. The most contentious year, 1995, the year of the shutdown, we still spent less than 1/3 of our time on the budget.

If 4/5 of the time we are normally in session is not enough time to do other legislation, there is something wrong with us, not with the process.

I ask that the CRS memorandum be placed in the record.

So, Mr. Chairman, although the idea of biennial budgeting certainly warrants further study -- I have to say, I don't think it will turn out to warrant the hoopla.

It is congress's job to come up with a budget, no matter how ugly the process. And delegating that responsibility every other year to federal bureaucrats is not what our constituents had in mind when they sent us here. We have the time to do it, we just lack some of the inclination.

Thank you.



Back to Testimony Page