[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 112 (Monday, August 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Page S9674]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S9674]]
              A BIENNIAL BUDGET FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, all of us have been various places during 
the recess. I have been back in Wyoming listening to people and to a 
number of things that people are concerned about. We are back now, 
basically, to spend this month, I suppose, almost totally immersed in 
the appropriations process, which we must do. I have been interested 
for some time in making some changes in that process. It seems to me 
now to be appropriate, perhaps, while we are into it, to talk about the 
possibility of changing a bit.
  What are some of the things we are going to have confronting us now? 
First of all, we have talked about appropriations, in most years, for 
about 40 percent of the time. About 40 percent of the time the Senate 
and House spends in session is spent on appropriations. During this 
last period of time, we will be confronted with trying to move quickly 
to complete that work, which has to be completed, of course, for the 
Government to go on. And that is OK. But as part of that, we will see a 
great deal of nongermane amendments being put onto appropriations 
bills, which really have nothing to do with appropriations. They are 
put on there partly because the year is nearly over, and if they are 
going to happen, they have to happen now.
  Often it is easier to move an appropriations bill with an amendment 
than it is a freestanding bill. We will be confronted again, I suspect, 
by the administration threatening, where they don't agree with the 
Congress on the payments in certain areas and appropriations for 
certain areas, that they will close down the Government and blame the 
Congress. We have to guard against that. It is not the intention of the 
Congress to close down the Government--nor was it several years ago. 
But that is the pressure that is used. So what could we do to change 
that?
  It seems to me that we ought to consider going into a biennial budget 
process--a process in which every 2 years we would spend our time on 
the budget. We would budget for a biennial time and have the remainder 
of the time to do the other business of the Congress. I am persuaded 
that the Congress spends too much time on budget issues.
  One of the really important things, after the budget is completed, is 
for the Congress to ensure that those programs that have been funded 
and the money that has been spent is spent as efficiently as possible, 
spent in the way in which the appropriation was designed and for the 
purpose for which it was designed. That doesn't always happen. So 
oversight, it seems to me, is certainly one of the more important 
things Congress has to do. We have relatively little time to do that.
  We don't always complete our work. Since 1997, we have had 60 
continuing resolutions. That means that we didn't complete the 
appropriations and that we simply continued what had been done in the 
past. As I mentioned before, we have devoted roughly 40 percent of our 
time to budget resolutions, reconciliation and appropriations. We have 
too many repetitive votes on the same issues. There are lots of things 
for the Congress to do and lots of things that the Congress has a 
responsibility to do. Many of them, I think, are neglected because we 
spend too much time each year on appropriations.
  There is not enough time for vigorous oversight. We continue to let 
inefficient and inappropriate programs continue. One of the other 
things that brings it to mind--and I am sure the Presiding Officer had 
the same experience at home--is when you hear about all these programs 
being operated in quite a different fashion than was the concept of the 
legislation, and that is part of our responsibility in Congress.
  In the last Congress, I introduced a bill that creates a 2-year 
authorization for appropriations and budget resolutions--partly, I 
suppose, because of my experience in the Wyoming legislature in which 
we operated with biennial sessions. Most States operate with biennial 
appropriations, as a matter of fact. One of the arguments against it, 
however, is that some of the States are going to annual appropriations. 
I will tell you why. They are going to annual appropriations to be 
consistent with the Federal Government, and there is so much Federal 
funding, it is difficult. If the Federal Government would do it, I 
think you would find these States going back to it, and it would 
eliminate some of the redundancy in budgeting and help to reduce the 
size of Government, and I think it would help put a bridle on unchecked 
Government spending. It would encourage agencies and executive branch 
agencies to plan for longer in the future. And I think it is difficult 
for an agency to have to plan one year at a time when they are doing 
longer term projects. They can be useful for them as well. They could 
help Government do it with Federal grantees to do it.

  The author of the bill, Senator Domenici, has introduced bipartisan 
legislation with the bipartisan support of 35 of our colleagues. It 
passed the Budget Committee and the Governmental Affairs Committee, and 
is pending on the Senate calendar.
  Bipartisan support has been expressed by Senator Lott, Senator 
Daschle, leaders of both sides of the Senate, and Vice President Gore 
and the OMB Director have all expressed support for biannual budgets. A 
limited time has elapsed. I suspect it is unlikely that it will pass, 
which is part of what I am talking about. Now we are jammed in here for 
4 weeks. The leader spoke this morning about how difficult it will be 
to do all of the things that have to be done. As I recall, the budget 
is supposed to have been pretty well done by now. It is supposed to 
move along on a schedule. We, of course, seldom, if ever, live by that 
schedule. So we are in our annual sprint to avoid a Government 
shutdown.
  I urge my colleagues to consider some reform of legislation that 
would change what we do. I think there is great merit in doing it. It 
is not a new idea. Certainly it is not a cure-all of all Federal 
Government ills. But it is a process that perhaps would be helpful.
  Processes are hard to change in this institution. And I respect that. 
There should be a reason to change things. I am a little discouraged 
when you talk about making things work a little better when the 
response often is, ``Well, we have always done it that way.'' That is 
not a very good response.
  I think we could save time. I think we could save money. I think we 
could manage better. I think we could allow ourselves to do the things 
that we need to do.
  I suspect, frankly, that one of the reasons there is opposition is 
that those people and the appropriators have a little more power to 
exert each year rather than every other year by being on this committee 
and helping to decide where money is spent. That is one of the realisms 
of it. On the other hand, there are a lot more people who are not on 
the appropriations committee than there are on the committee. So that 
should not keep us from doing it.
  This, as I said, would not be a panacea but certainly would be a step 
in the right direction of what we seem to constantly talk about, and I 
hope constantly seek; that is, a more efficient operation, a more 
effective operation by spending less taxpayers' money. It seems to me 
that this is one of the ways to do that.
  I hope we consider it. If we don't get it done this time, we ought to 
bring it up early in the next session. We ought to bring it before both 
the House and the Senate and streamline the way we appropriate the 
funds for the programs in Congress.
  Mr. President, I thank you. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, Thank you.

                          ____________________