Federal Budget Process Structural Reform Hearing

FEDERAL BUDGET PROCESS STRUCTURAL REFORM HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 19, 2001 Serial No. 107–14 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget ( Available on the Internet: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/house04.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74–174 DTP WASHINGTON : 2002 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:56 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\107-14\HBU200.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: HBUDGET1 COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET JIM NUSSLE, Iowa, Chairman JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire JOHN M. SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina, Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington Vice Chairman BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire KEN BENTSEN, Texas GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota JIM DAVIS, Florida VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee EVA M. CLAYTON, North Carolina MAC THORNBERRY, Texas DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JIM RYUN, Kansas GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin MAC COLLINS, Georgia BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia GARY G. MILLER, California DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon PAT TOOMEY, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin WES WATKINS, Oklahoma CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York DOC HASTINGS, Washington DENNIS MOORE, Kansas JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MICHAEL M. HONDA, California RAY LAHOOD, Illinois JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL III, Pennsylvania KAY GRANGER, Texas RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey EDWARD SCHROCK, Virginia JIM MATHESON, Utah JOHN CULBERSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida ADAM PUTNAM, Florida MARK KIRK, Illinois PROFESSIONAL STAFF RICH MEADE, Chief of Staff THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel (II) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:56 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\107-14\HBU200.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: HBUDGET1 C O N T E N T S Page Hearing held in Washington, DC, July 19, 2001 .................................................. 1 Statement of: Bill Frenzel, Co-Chairman, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget . 48 Hon. Robert L. Livingston, Member of Congress (retired) ............................ 52 Robert D. Reischauer, President, the Urban Institute .................................. 56 Barry B. Anderson, Deputy Director for Federal Budget Analysis, General Accounting Office .......................................................................................... 78 Hon. Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ....................................................................................................... 84 Susan J. Irving, Director for Federal Budget Analysis, General Account- ing Office ........................................................................................................ 87 Prepared statement of: Chairman Nussle .............................................................................................. 2 Hon. Charles F. Bass, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Hampshire ............................................................................................ 3 Mr. Frenzel ....................................................................................................... 49 Mr. Livingston .................................................................................................. 54 Mr. Reischauer .................................................................................................. 58 Mr. Anderson .................................................................................................... 80 Ms. Irving .......................................................................................................... 89 Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: ‘‘Recommendations for Re- form’’ .............................................................................................................. 108 (III) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:56 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\107-14\HBU200.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: HBUDGET1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:56 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\107-14\HBU200.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: HBUDGET1 FEDERAL BUDGET PROCESS STRUCTURAL REFORM THURSDY, JULY 19, 2001 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:25 a.m. in room 210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jim Nussle (chairman of the committee) presiding. Members present: Representatives Nussle, Sununu, Gutknecht, Toomey, Culberson, Granger, Spratt, McDermott, Thompson, Bent- sen, Price, Clement, Moran, and Moore. Chairman NUSSLE. Good morning. This is the full committee hearing on the budget with regard to the Federal budget process structural reform. We have three panels today to discuss the very exciting topic of budget process reform. I know it’s exciting because the world press is here, led by Bud Newman, and waiting with bated breath for exactly what we will decide and what we will discuss here with regard to budget process reform. Obviously, I am saying that tongue in cheek, because for many people the process of the budget is probably one of the most frus- trating, least understood, easily disregarded and driest topics that you can possibly want to know about. But I can tell by the Mem- bers that are present here today, as well as the interest on the part of our panelists, that there are quite a few people who are interested in the way the process of our budget works—in some in- stances, does not work. For the past 15 years, Congress has made a few attempts to improve the process with limits on spending and other budgetary controls, but there are still weaknesses that remain within this process. Some of the most common criticisms that you hear about the budget process are inherent weaknesses within the Congressional budget controls, the ‘‘emergency’’ loophole that remains within the process, the insufficient attention to long term obligations within the budget, unrealistic spending levels, lack of control over special projects or pork barrel spending—you hear a number of weaknesses and criticisms from just about every corner of the Congress and every corner of the country. Despite widespread complaints about these weaknesses, Con- gress has really had very few opportunities to consider structural reforms. This committee is fulfilling its responsibility to remedy that. It’s up to the Budget Committee, who has primary jurisdic- tion over this issue, to make these decisions and to review this and provide oversight of that process. (1) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:56 Jan 22, 2002 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\DOCS\HEARINGS\107-14\HBU200.000 HBUDGET1 PsN: HBUDGET1 2 Just a couple of weeks ago, we held a hearing, as an example, to examine budgetary enforcement tools such as discretionary spending caps and Pay-As-You-Go rules. Today, we’re hoping to build on that by examining ways that you can improve how we make budget decisions. Our aim today is to identify the basic weaknesses in the current budget process and examine various ways to strengthen and improve it. We’re going to look at some specific structural reforms of the budget process, such as joint budget reso- lution, emergency reserve funds and super-majority requirements for waiving budget rules. We’re also going to look at and assess some of the problems posed by doing what we might refer to as ad hoc reforms that would, for example, change the frequency with which Congress makes budgetary related decisions but not the process by which those decisions were made. I take the job as chairman of this committee very seriously. I know that members, all members on the committee take the role and responsibility of looking at our process very seriously. We are all committed, including Ranking Member Spratt and all the members of this committee, to fixing and repairing the budget process, making it the strongest, most honest, most realistic process that we have possible. I don’t believe that one reform in and of itself can fix what ails us. I think that, I believe the best way to approach these reforms is to look at a number of reforms, try and package them in a realistic vehicle and then attempt to move them through the process. I will report to you that the administration, in its budget submis- sion, as we may remember, in a title in the budget that was probably the easiest to overlook, because most pored over the numbers themselves, the administration is interested in moving budget reforms through the Congress. Having had the opportunity to meet with and work with Senator Domenici during the first part of this year, I know he has been interested in this. And in my recent con- versations with Senator Conrad, he also is aware of and willing to consider reforms in the Senate. So we have some fertile ground. It may not be the most fertile ever, but it’s ground that we have to work with and we should make some attempts. With that, let me turn it to Mr. Price for any comments that he would like to make on behalf of Ranking Member Spratt. [The prepared statement of Chairman Nussle follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JIM NUSSLE, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE COMMITTEE

Load more