Hearings of the
House Committee on Rules
H.R. 853, The Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act of 1999
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Rules Committee regarding a budget reform proposal that I have supported for many years. I have recently reintroduced a bill, H.R. 232, the Biennial Budget Act of 1999, which would establish a two-year federal budget and appropriations cycle. This reform of our annual budget and appropriations process is intended to reduce the repetitive annual budget votes and improve the entire budget process by allowing more time for long-term planning and for careful oversight of government spending.
Specifically, H.R. 232 would require that the first session of every Congress be devoted to decision-making on budget and appropriations issues. The President would begin the process by submitting a two-year budget proposal at the beginning of each Congress. Congress would then have to adopt two-year budget resolution, two-year appropriations bills and a reconciliation bill, if called for by the budget resolution, during the first session of each Congress. The President's budget and the Congressional budget resolution would cover the two years of the biennium and planning levels for two additional years.
The second session of Congress would be devoted to the consideration of multi-year authorization bills and to the oversight, both by authorizers and by appropriators, of the many programs funded in the federal budget.
Why do we need this legislation? The passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made certain that Congress was much more directly involved in the many fiscal decisions that must be made at the federal level of government. The current annual process has resulted in much more time being spent each year on repetitive budget votes. In the 1960s and 1970s, budget-related votes comprised just over 40 percent of all votes. By 1996, budget votes totaled about 70 percent of all votes.
This has resulted in less time being available for in-depth oversight of federal programs and it has also led to delays in completing the funding bills on time. Only twice since the enactment of the 1974 Budget Act has Congress completed the thirteen individual appropriations bills on time. One such occasion was in 1988, the second year of the 1987 two-year Budget Summit Agreement. The thirteen appropriations bills that funded the fiscal year 1989 budget were enacted before the October 1, 1988 deadline. Although it was the second year of the agreement that allowed for on-time passage of the funding bills, I believe that it does make a case that if we have some relief from the annual repetitive decision-making on budget issues, Congress will be in a better position to complete funding legislation on time.
We need more time for effective oversight of the programs we fund. I would like to spend more time to ensure that the agencies funded by the Subcommittee that I chair put in place quality management procedures. Every year we must hurry through hearings with each agency in the Spring which limits the time we can delve into issues and practices that should receive more attention. I would like to join my colleagues on the authorizing committees to work more closely with the various federal agencies to ensure that they are managed well and serve the American people effectively. I believe a two-year budget cycle that frees up the second year of the budget cycle for such in-depth oversight would produce a better-run and more effective federal government.
I urge you to study further the concept of a two-year federal budget because I believe it would reduce the repetitive number of annual budget votes we must now take; it would allow Congress to engage in some longer-term planning; it would improve our systematic oversight of federal agencies and programs; and it would provide the agencies and the states and localities with more stability and predictability in federal spending.
Some of you will argue that the federal government should not move to a two-year budget cycle because States seem to be moving away from two-year budgeting. But I would argue that many States may have moved away from two-year budgeting because of the complexities and uncertainties that our current annual federal budget process has caused them in their own budget processes.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you the common sense reform of moving the federal budget to a two-year cycle.
