Hearing of the
Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
on Biennial Budgeting
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process
The Subcommittee will come to order. Welcome to an original jurisdiction hearing of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process. I am pleased to hold this hearing to examine biennial budgeting, a concept that would bring common sense reform to the current system. As it stands, the annual budget cycle is characterized by time-consuming votes, chaotic late nights, and missed deadlines – and that is just the Congressional budget process. In the executive branch, many of our Federal agencies' most talented managers and analysts spend their energies preparing volumes of budget justifications and responding to the same questions year after year, without ever having the time to champion real reform for the programs they oversee. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office found that in fiscal year 2000, only 5.1 percent of total discretionary spending – or $30 billion of the $584 billion appropriated – followed an unpredictable funding pattern. In other words, the vast majority of discretionary programs follow stable funding patterns and could therefore be appropriated just as effectively for two or more years at a time.
While biennial budgeting is not the panacea for all that ails the Federal government, it does promise to alleviate many of the inefficiencies that currently exist. Biennial budgeting would free up time and resources, thereby ensuring more effective government oversight, enhanced long-term government planning, and ultimately, better use of taxpayer dollars. In practice, biennial budgeting would divide each Congress into a budget year and an authorization year – in that second year, the legislative branch could more effectively use the authorization process to inspect, examine and review the executive branch and its agencies. This increased oversight would, in turn, contribute to more appropriate funding decisions in biennial appropriations bills. Additionally, Congress would not need to resort to making appropriations for programs with expired authorizations – in fiscal year 2001, $112 billion in appropriations were provided for 112 federal programs whose authorizations had expired.
The bipartisan support that biennial budgeting enjoys is evidence enough that this idea deserves serious consideration. In addition, the fact that biennial budgeting has been addressed at more than 40 Congressional or special committee hearings since 1977 shows that this is an idea with popular support.
The focus today on biennial budgeting does not in any way detract from the importance of other budget process reforms, of which the Rules Committee has been supportive. However, if we intend to move budget process reform only if it is offered as a comprehensive package, complete with a red ribbon, then I fear we may be in line to have no reform whatsoever. Additionally, I consider biennial budgeting TO BE comprehensive budget process reform because of its potential to improve government fiscal management, boost programmatic oversight, and improve budget stability and predictability.
Finally, I would like to note that in my home state of Ohio, the biennial budget process has served us well for many years. Having a biennial budget allows legislators and managers more time for oversight and consideration of other important policy issues. The State has also found that fewer budget staff are required, better long-term agency planning is possible, and more time is available for new programs to produce results before agency administrators ask for more money. I hope we can take some lessons from Ohio's experience.
I would like to thank everyone for being here today. I look forward to receiving testimony from our witnesses on both sides of the issue. The list of witnesses includes distinguished Members of Congress who have experience with and interest in biennial budgeting, Director Mitch Daniels from the Office of Management and Budget, and representatives of two well-known budget reform organizations, the Concord Coalition and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
