[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17776-S17777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 1433. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to establish a 
system for defining the scope of energy research and development 
projects, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.


    defining the scope of energy research and development projects 
                              legislation

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at a time in which we are trying to 
reduce the deficit and improve the efficiency of government, we should 
not be funding research and development projects that are ill defined 
and poorly managed because of a lack of direction and purpose. We 
should not be providing Federal dollars to any program in which it is 
not clear how the American public will benefit from its investment. It 
only stands to reason that if the private sector will not fund efforts 
in which there is not some return on its investment, the Federal 
Government should not either.
  Furthermore, we should not be funding efforts that the private sector 
should be funding because of its huge payoff to the private sector and 
minimal payoff to the American public. If there is shared benefits to 
be realized by both, then the effort should be cost shared between the 
two.
  The Department of Energy spends approximately $7 billion a year on 
research and development activities. They cover a wide range of science 
and engineering issues in the energy field. Any savings due to an 
improvement in the efficiency and the effectiveness of the management 
system will amount to several millions of dollars.
  Mr. President, I am introducing a bill that will begin to address 
this issue. The bill will require the Secretary of Energy to establish 
a project definition system for research and development projects in 
which projects costs are expected to exceed $1 million.
  It is expected that by requiring this project definition system prior 
to funding any project, costly revisions in project plans and 
directions may be avoided. The project definition document, the product 
of the project definition system, will provide the foundation by which 
more detailed project plans can be developed. It is expected that this 
system will also further ensure that the Department is not funding 
projects that are not addressing a known problem.
  The bill identifies a number of issues or questions to be resolved 
prior to the funding of a project. Included are such things as project 
cost, duration, future users or beneficiaries, cost sharing, and 
expected outcome.
  However, also included in this list is the criteria to be used to 
determine the end of the project or the end of Government funding. For 
many years, Government-sponsored projects have gone on for years 
without any clear end in sight. They have consumed years of funding 
with little or no benefit for continuation. By having this criteria 
established at the beginning of the project, this practice will be 
stopped. With this stoppage of Government support, any cost-sharing 
partners may continue with the project if they decide to do so.
  Mr. President, I feel this bill takes a step in the right direction 
of ensuring that our public resources are invested wisely and 
responsibly. I feel that if the Department can invest a little more 
time, more money, at the beginning of these expensive research and 
development projects, it can avoid some of the costly type of mistakes 
that it has made in the past--mistakes due to ill-defined projects and 
lack of proper planning.
  I look forward to further discussions with my colleagues on how to 
further improve this bill. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting this bill as we debate the future of the Department of 
Energy and work to eliminate projects that can and should be undertaken 
by the private sector, we should at the very least seek ways to ensure 
a direction and efficiency in the projects we do undertake.
      By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Simpson, 
        Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Cochran):

  S. 1434. A bill to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to 
provide for a 2-year--biennial--budgeting cycle, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1977, 
with instructions that if one committee reports, the other committee 
has 30 days to report or be discharged.


                   THE BIENNIAL BUDGETING ACT OF 1995

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that 
creates a biennial budgeting cycle. It seems to me it is particularly 
appropriate to do that now. We have spent almost this entire year 
dealing with the budget. Surely it has been an unusual budget year in 
that we are attempting to make some changes, fundamental changes, in 
direction. But it is not otherwise unusual. As a matter of fact, since 
1977, there have been 55 continuing resolutions, which would indicate 
we need to change the budgeting process. I am joined in this effort by 
a number of Senators originally and hope to have more: Senator Dole, 
Senator Domenici, Senator Simpson, Senator Kassebaum, Senator 
Faircloth, Senator Thompson and Senator Cochran.
  There are a lot of things we ought to be doing. We ought to be 
dealing with health care. We have not finished that problem. We ought 
to be dealing with regulatory reform. Most everyone agrees with that. 
Telecommunications, where we can deregulate and move forward with the 
things that will create jobs and move us forward. Personally, I believe 
we ought to be doing something with rangeland reform. Some of us live 
in States where 50 to 80 percent of the surface belongs to the Federal 
Government and is managed by the Federal Government. We need to change 
some of those things. Foreign policy--we need to be involved more in 
foreign policy. I think we find ourselves drifting into situations 
where we need to make policy in certain places and the administration 
says, gosh, we do not want to do that until we get an agreement, and 
then, after we have an agreement, it is too late to talk about it. So, 
essentially, the Congress is outside of foreign policy. That is wrong. 
We ought to be talking about endangered species, and a number of things 
that need to be done. 

[[Page S 17777]]

  Instead, Mr. President, as you know, we spend almost all our time 
deciding on how we are going to fund the Government. Most States--the 
Presiding Officer, I think, in his State of Missouri, served as 
Governor--have biennial budgets. There are a couple of advantages to 
that, certainly. One of them is that it gives a little longer time for 
agencies to plan. Rather than every year, they have more tenure in 
their budgeting. They can plan longer. More important, I think, it 
allows the Congress, then, to have some time to do the other things, 
one of which is oversight of the budget.
  I suspect that the budget debate will not be over in this session of 
Congress until next year. I suspect in less than 2 months we will be 
moving into another budget debate which consumes all of our time. I 
already mentioned that since 1977 we have had 55 continuing 
resolutions. We have had too many repetitive votes. We are back on the 
same thing over and over and over again without any new issue.

  So there has not been, and continues not to be, enough time for 
vigorous oversight. I suspect one of the principal functions of the 
legislative body ought to be oversight of the budgets that they have 
approved to ensure that they are, indeed, being spent as they were 
designed to be spent and to discover how they can be spent more 
efficiently and more effectively. That is one of the things we have had 
very little time to do.
  The provisions of this bill are rather simple. By the way, this is 
not a new idea. This has been introduced a number of times, been 
considered and supported by many Members of this body. It creates a 2-
year authorization of appropriation and budget resolutions so that you 
set it out in a block and say here we are. It is not much more 
difficult to do it for 2 years than 1. You simply have a block of 2 
years in which to do a budget. It is not difficult at all. All 
budgetary activities would take place during the first session of 
Congress. So in the second session you would have a chance to go back 
and provide some oversight to what is being done with the money that 
has been appropriated. Oversight in nonbudgetary matters would be taken 
up in the second session of Congress. There would be an opportunity to 
do the kinds of policy things that the Congress is designed to do in 
addition to spending all of our time funding the Government. Benefits, 
of course, would promote timely action on the budget, and would 
eliminate some of the redundancy. We need to do that. It would provide 
more time for effective oversight in the off years, and it would help 
so that we can reduce the size of Government.
  It would also reduce the number of times where there is potential for 
the kinds of congressional-Presidential conflicts that arise so often 
as in the process now that arises. If would allow the budget to be 
adopted in the first year of the President's term, and in the first 
year of the sessions of Congress so that new Congresses can implement 
their budget, and then have a year for oversight. It would encourage 
longer-term planning in the agencies.
  I think that is one of the keys to reducing the cost of Government. 
There have been very many programs, of course, that need to be 
analyzed, and that have to have applied to them priorities. Things need 
to be done much better--things that could be transferred to local 
governments, and closer to the people. Those things all are often a 
result of oversight.
  There is a good deal of support for this proposition, as there has 
been in the past--Citizens Against Government Waste, the Hudson 
Institute, Concord Coalition, Cato Institute, Committee for Responsible 
Federal Budgeting--a 20-year history of legislative bipartisan support 
in this Congress supported by Presidents Bush and Reagan over the 
years.
  Mr. President, this is obviously not a cure-all. Budgets are 
difficult. The allocation of money to activities is not easy, and it is 
terribly important. But I submit to you that it can be done as well in 
2-year blocks, and the results will be much better. The results will be 
much better for the operations of Congress. The results will be much 
better for the operations of Government.
                                 ______