Hearing of the Committee on Rules
"Biennial Budgeting: A Tool for Improving Government Fiscal Management and Oversight"
Member of the Committee on Rules
Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank you for holding this hearing to start a more formal dialogue on the issue of biennial budgeting. This is an issue that I have long supported, and which I believe has significant support among the membership in the House. I know that out of the many budget process reforms this committee has considered, the one that seems to resonate most among our Republican colleagues is a two-year budget process.
From my perspective, the greatest value to be found in biennial budgeting is the time that we could save and devote to other worthwhile legislative initiatives or programmatic oversight. As my colleagues know, the annual budget process begins at the beginning of February with the submission of the President's budget and does not end until September 30th, if we actually complete our work by the end of the fiscal year. Unfortunately, we often do not meet that goal, and the budget process drags on through October and the months beyond. Then Congress goes home for the holidays only to return to the beginning of a new budget cycle. The countless hours spent on the budget, from analysis, to committee hearings, to floor consideration is really overwhelming. If we had a budget-free year during each Congress, we could spend this time making sure the programs we are funding actually work. Our focus could shift from solutions that call for spending more or cutting funds to reforms based on the management and design of programs. I think it is telling that in fiscal year 2000, $121 billion in appropriations were provided to 137 programs whose authorizations had expired. We simply do not have the time to analyze and update programs to ensure they are effective.
In my State of Ohio, biennial budgeting has been in place for many years. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Governor of Ohio, Bob Taft, who explains the benefits of Ohio's two-year process. (I would like to submit Governor Taft's letter for the record.) The first point he makes is that the biennial budget process allows more time for consideration of other important policy issues and oversight. The State also has found that less budget staff is required, agencies benefit from long-term planning, and new programs are given a chance to work and produce results before the administrators are asking for more money. As one of the larger states that have implemented a two-year budget process, I hope we can take some lessons from Ohio's experience.
Again, let me thank the Chairman and his staff for organizing this hearing. I look forward to the testimony of my colleagues who have put much time and effort into advancing this cause.