[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[House]
[Page H660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               REGARDING A 2-YEAR FEDERAL BUDGET PROCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 19, 1999, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Speaker, on the first day of the 106th Congress I 
introduced H.R. 232, the Biennial Budget Act of 1999. This is an issue 
that I have been working on for the past 10 years, and I think it is 
time that we enact this important reform.
  My legislation, and I might add that the Speaker pro tempore this 
morning has also introduced a similar bill, along with others, 
establishes a 2-year budget and appropriations cycle intended to reduce 
the repetitive annual budget votes. It would also improve the entire 
process by allowing more time for long-term planning and careful 
oversight of government spending.
  The bill converts the annual budget, appropriations and authorization 
process into a 2-year cycle. The first session of Congress would be 
devoted to decisions on budget and appropriations issues. The President 
would start the process by submitting a 2-year budget, which would 
cover the 2 years of the biennium, and planning levels for 2 additional 
years.
  Then Congress would adopt a 2-year budget resolution, a 2-year 
reconciliation bill, if necessary, and 2-year appropriations bills 
during the first session of a Congress. The second year could be used 
to consider multiyear authorization bills and to oversight of Federal 
programs. We do not do enough oversight now. We do not have time with 
an annual budget to really look into programs to see if they are 
working well.
  The current budget process consumes more and more of Congress' time. 
In 1996, budget votes totaled about 70 percent of all votes. It does 
not leave time for many of the other responsibilities of the Congress; 
and, obviously, it leaves less time for systematic oversight.
  Another problem is that we do not get the appropriations bills done 
on time. Only twice since 1974 have we completed action on all of the 
13 appropriations bills on time. Whereas, with a 2-year cycle, we would 
have the opportunity to get this legislation completed and then go into 
the oversight program.
  Now, another benefit would be that federal managers, who are managing 
the taxpayers' funds, would know for 2 years how much they have to 
operate a park or other federal programs, and they could plan more 
wisely and could spend the money more efficiently.
  I believe that the benefits of moving to the 2-year budget cycle 
would be many, including reducing repetitive budget votes, allowing 
Congress to engage in long-term planning and management reforms for 
Federal programs, improving the systematic oversight of current 
government programs, and providing greater stability and predictability 
in Federal spending.
  I would just urge all my colleagues to take a look at H.R. 232 and 
sponsor this bill or some of the others, such as that introduced by our 
Speaker pro tempore today. It is an idea whose time has come, I think, 
as we try to manage the resources of our people and of our Nation more 
efficiently.

                          ____________________