[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 198 (Monday, December 17, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7648-S7649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
The Budget and Appropriations Process Reform
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, earlier this month, Congress sent the
President another continuing resolution to allow more time to resolve
the partisan impasse that has us on the brink of a government shutdown
once again. A continuing resolution just allows agencies to continue to
spend money without knowing how much they actually get to spend.
The current episode is yet another example of the breakdown of what
should be the basic nuts and bolts of government--keeping the
government open and funded. In other words, they have been spending
money since last October without knowing how much money they get to
spend. So I come to the floor today to talk about the need to reform
our broken budget and appropriations process and to lay out a few ideas
I have for how to do that.
As chairman of the Budget Committee, I have worked on budget
appropriations and process reform for several years and always believed
that changes need to be guided by two core principles. The first
principle is that reforms should end brinksmanship and the threat of
government shutdowns; and No. 2, reforms should guide us to create
enforceable plans to stop the outrageous growth of our Federal debt,
which is approaching $22 trillion.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal debt held by
the public, as a percentage of our economy, is at the highest level
since shortly after World War II. That debt is expected to rise sharply
over the next 30 years if current laws generally remain unchanged.
Quite simply, our budget problems are too severe to be put off any
longer. Yet our dysfunctional budget and appropriations process is
making it harder for Congress to tackle our pressing fiscal challenges.
To start, one easy thing we could do to improve the process is to
change the names of the Budget and Appropriations Committees to better
reflect each committee's function.
The Budget Committee, which is tasked with crafting an annual fiscal
framework to guide Congress, really should be called the Debt Control
Committee. The Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for
making the actual decisions about how money is spent each year, should
be renamed the Budget and Appropriations Committee.
Too often, when we come up against appropriations deadlines, as we
are now, press reports declare that Congress has to pass the budget to
avoid a shutdown. Not true. The budget passed a long time ago. In
reality, the budget reflects the start of the process, and
appropriations reflects the end. Changing these committees' names would
more clearly delineate their actual responsibilities and thereby make
it easier for them to be carried out and understood by the public.
A second important change would be to finally admit that Congress is
not capable of sending 12 appropriations bills to the President before
the September 30 end of the fiscal year each year. The current process
leaves Congress in a nearly perpetual quest to develop and pass 12
funding bills for the next fiscal year to avoid a funding lapse. Yet
the sheer size and complexity of the Federal budget and appropriations
process virtually guarantee that Congress will not consider all the
appropriations bills individually each year. In the last 40 years, we
have succeeded only four times in passing all of the appropriations
bills on time. Let me repeat that. In the last 40 years, we have
succeeded only four times in passing all of the appropriations bills on
time.
Our inability to pass appropriations bills on the current schedule
has made reliance on continuing resolutions a routine part of the
process, and it comes with a cost. The Department of Defense has
operated under a continuing resolution for an average of 81 days per
year; that is almost 3 months per year since 2001, with a particularly
bad spate since 2009, in which we averaged 134 days per year. That is
almost 4\1/2\ months of not knowing how much they are going to get to
spend, let alone planning for the future.
Earlier this year, the Secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer,
identified $4 billion in waste owing to the lack of financial stability
resulting from these continuing resolutions--this lack of knowing how
much to spend. He said:
Since 2001, we have put $4 billion in the trash can, poured
lighter fluid on top of it, and burned it. . . . It's enough
money that it can buy us the additional capacity and
capability that we need. Instead, the $4 billion of taxpayer
money has been lost because of inefficiencies [caused by]
continuing resolutions.
While it is true that this year we were able to pass and get signed
five appropriation bills prior to September 30--remarkably, an
improvement from recent years--that still leaves seven bills yet to be
enacted.
To address this problem, I have proposed moving to a biennial system
and halving the number of appropriations
[[Page S7649]]
bills considered each year so that six would be considered in the first
session of Congress and six would be considered in the second--each of
them, of course, for 2 years to allow for more planning. By providing a
more realistic and attainable schedule, we could allow for a more
thoughtful process for considering individual bills. We would free up
more time for oversight of Federal spending. We would actually get to
look at some of the details of the dollars we are spending, and we
would reduce the likelihood of continuing resolutions and large, year-
end spending bills--with everything attached to it--that are
inefficient and too often loaded with waste. We could also give
agencies the certainty they need to plan and make wise decisions
regarding how to implement funding.
But successful and timely enactment of the appropriations bills is
only part of the solution. We also need to look at the mandatory side
of the ledger and programs that don't have adequate revenue to maintain
obligations--the ones we don't ever get to make a decision on. Any new
mandatory programs should be self-financing or offset by the
elimination of existing programs that we would continue to fund. In
other words, nothing should be mandatory if it doesn't have a stream of
money big enough to pay for it.
We also need to look at ending the spending bias that begins with a
current baseline--current amount of spending--and automatically adjusts
for inflation.
To address the long-term structural deficit problems, we need to
create enforceable spending targets that are monitored and enforced
annually to make sure lawmakers stay focused on deficit reduction and
achieving a suitable Federal budget. The newly revamped Debt Control
Committee should be empowered to establish its targets and enforce
spending constraints. For example, if we followed my penny plan and cut
spending by 1 cent out of every dollar each year for the next 5 years,
we could balance the budget.
Once enforceable targets are agreed upon, we should conform the debt
limit to them. I know that dealing with the debt limit in a responsible
manner is a priority for many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. I am ready to work with them on it.
We are not talking about sequester here; I am suggesting precision
cuts on the low priorities. First of all, sequester happened late in
the year, so there wasn't much money left to take the money out of,
which made it a much larger reduction from those spending bills. They
also picked the projects they thought would be most noticeable and cut
those, realizing that the American public would rise up in arms and
make sure that it was reinstated, and that happened. They always picked
the most visible and the most painful.
What we have to do is get to precision cuts in the things we haven't
even looked at. I have a list of how many things we haven't looked at.
Some programs haven't been looked at since 1983, but they continue to
get an annual inflation increase anyway--sometimes greater than the
annual increase.
Each of the above suggestions would improve our process, help us
control spending, and meet our constitutional obligations. I plan to
pursue them in the next Congress and look forward to working with my
colleagues on these and other ideas.
However, while reforms are needed, the reality is there will never be
a perfect process, and no reform by itself could force the hard
decisions that are needed. What we need is leadership and a commitment
from both sides to work together to do what we know needs to be done to
confront these challenges.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on these critical
challenges in the next Congress.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I start my remarks, in case they
go beyond the time for a vote, I ask unanimous consent to finish my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.