Hearing of the Committee on Rules
"Biennial Budgeting: A Tool for Improving Government Fiscal Management and Oversight"
Ranking Member, Committee on Rules
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding hearings on this proposal.
I know we have some long-term proponents of biennial budgeting on the schedule but I expect we will again hear some words of caution about the idea.
I want to remind my colleagues of a few points:
The evidence, and common sense, tells us that there will be more supplementals under a biennial system than an annual one. That is obviously not a good thing, Mr. Chairman.
In my opinion, switching to a biennial system will make it harder to reach agreement on the budget in a timely fashion for two reasons: first, the agreement has to cover a longer period - namely an entire Congress, and second, without the need to turn quickly to next year's budget, it is more likely that difficult issues will slip over into the next year.
Most years we spend less than 1/5 of our time on budget-related measures. Authorization bills are not crowded off the schedule; they are more likely to falter over policy disputes, not lack of time. And good oversight is a challenge no matter how much time we have.
The fact is biennial budgeting does not lead to more or better legislative oversight.
Connecticut converted to a biennial budget in 1993 to improve oversight and program review. According to the general accounting office, state officials acknowledge that there has been no improvement in either of these areas.
Biennial budgeting actually weakens oversight in two ways: (1) it removes one year of appropriations committee program review and (2) it shortens the leash on executive branch officials .
I hear some of my colleagues cavalierly say: "the current system hasn't worked so well, let's just try something else." I am surprised to hear my conservative colleagues embrace radical change without considering the consequences.
But if my friends are dead set on going ahead with this proposal, I urge them to go slowly. Do not ask a brand new president to initiate a brand new process. Do not put the entire federal budget on your untested biennial system all at once. Some parts of the federal budget will be better suited to a biennial process. Some will not.
This is what Arizona did when it moved incrementally to biennial budgeting over many years, starting with the portion of their budget that was most stable. And, keep in mind, what some states call biennial budgeting wouldn't be recognized in other states. Each year Ohio works on a two-year plan for half the budget. One year, they decide on a two-year operating budget; the next year, they decide on the capital budget.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it is a mistake to move in this direction but, if you insist on changing for change's sake, let us find the way to get there that does the least damage.
