DOCSLIB.ORG

Committee Print Committee on the Budget House of Representatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Committee Print Committee on the Budget House of Representatives 1 115TH CONGRESS " ! PRINT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115–15 COMMITTEE PRINT COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS REFORM DECEMBER 19, 2018.—COMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION AND ORDERED TO BE PRINTED VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6012 Sfmt 6012 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER seneagle LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER with BU00-A363290 1 115TH CONGRESS " ! PRINT 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115–15 COMMITTEE PRINT COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS REFORM DECEMBER 19, 2018.—COMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE OF THE UNION AND ORDERED TO BE PRINTED U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE ★33–612 WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER seneagle VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5012 Sfmt 5012 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER C O N T E N T S Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3 REPORT OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS REFORM .................................................................................................. 5 THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS REFORM BILL TEXT ............................................................................................... 15 VOTES OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS REFORM .................................................................................................. 39 APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 53 HEARINGS OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE .................................................... 55 Introduction ................................................................................................... 61 April 17, 2018—Organizational Meeting Followed By Hearing on Op- portunities to Significantly Improve the Federal Budget Process ........ 65 May 9, 2018—Bipartisanship in Budgeting ................................................ 139 May 24, 2018—The Budget Resolution-Content, Timeliness, and En- forcement .................................................................................................... 207 June 27, 2018—Members’ Day: How to Significantly Reform the Budget and Appropriations Process ...................................................................... 301 July 12, 2018—Opportunities to Improve the Appropriations Process .... 479 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE BRIEFING MATERIALS PREPARED FOR THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ............................................................................... 539 CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE BRIEFING MATERIALS PREPARED FOR THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ........................................................................ 547 H.R. 7191 .............................................................................................................. 569 PRESS RELEASE ACCOMPANYING THE INTRODUCTION OF H.R. 7191 ................. 591 (III) VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER 115TH CONGRESS PRINT " ! 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115–15 COMMITTEE PRINT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS REFORM DECEMBER 19, 2018.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6659 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6659 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER INTRODUCTION Dear Colleague: In the Second Session of the 115th Congress, I was honored to Co-Chair the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform. As members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Article I entrusts in each of us the power of the purse. This is an awesome responsibility that I, and I know each of you, take very seriously. We owe it to the American people to have a process that works, and that was the goal of the Joint Select Committee—to produce recommendations to reform the federal budget and appro- priations process. As you know, our Joint Select Committee produced a bipartisan, bicameral consensus package of reforms in advance of our statutory deadline of November 30, 2018. During our markup, amendments were subjected to a supermajority threshold to ensure those that passed reflected a true consensus of the panel. Some amendments passed unanimously. During the final debate on the bill, many members indicated that they had no objection to the package’s un- derlying reforms. However, the bill and report developed over many months of hard work failed to secure the necessary supermajority of votes to pass under our Joint Select Committee’s rules. Despite the unfortunate outcome of the Joint Select Committee’s work, there is no refuting that the federal budget process is broken. It is vital that Congress continues these efforts to reform the budg- et and appropriations process this year, next year, and in the years beyond. I have assembled in this Budget Committee print all the relevant materials to this year’s work. I urge all members to review this information. In this Committee print, you will find: • The report of the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Ap- propriations Process Reform; • The Co-chair’s mark, as amended, and voted on, by the Joint Select Committee; • The votes of the Joint Select Committee; • Hearing transcripts of the Joint Select Committee’s five public hearings; • Congressional Budget Office briefing materials prepared for the Joint Select Committee; • Congressional Research Service briefing materials prepared for the Joint Select Committee; (3) VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER 4 • H.R. 7191—a bill introduced in the House by myself and Rep- resentative Yarmuth, a Joint Select Committee Member and Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee; and • The press release to accompany the introduction of H.R. 7191. It is my sincere hope that this important work will continue in the 116th Congress on a bipartisan and bicameral basis. I believe Members of Congress, Executive Branch officials, outside budget experts and academics, as well as engaged citizens, will find this material useful for future reform efforts. I would like to thank the Members of the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform, our hardworking staffs, particularly Dan Keniry, David Reich, and Mary Popadiuk, as well as the House Rules Committee staff, Bob Weinhagen and Tom Cassidy in the Office of Legislative Counsel, budget experts at the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office—particularly Mark Hadley and Teri Gullo—and House Par- liamentarian Tom Wickham and his office, for the year of dedica- tion. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Dan Keniry, Staff Director of the House Budget Committee or Mary Popadiuk, General Counsel of the House Budg- et Committee at (202) 226–7270. Steve Womack Chairman Committee on the Budget VerDate Mar 15 2010 12:42 Sep 16, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 C:\USERS\BPIKE\DESKTOP\33612.TXT PIKE BU00-A363290 with DISTILLER REPORT OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS REFORM SUMMARY The Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Proc- ess Reform (JSCBAPR) was established by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA 2018), Public Law 115–123, which was signed into law on February 9, 2018.1 The JSCBAPR was a bipartisan, bi- cameral panel tasked with considering and recommending legisla- tive language to ‘‘significantly reform the budget and appropria- tions process.’’2 The JSCBAPR consisted of 16 members, equally di- vided between the House and Senate. The Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, the House Minority Leader, and the Senate Minority Leader each appointed four members to the com- mittee.3 House Budget Committee Chairman Steve Womack (AR– 3) and House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Nita Lowey (NY–17) served as co-chairs of this panel. History The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Budget Act) was enacted to establish an overall framework for the fairly decentralized process of making budget decisions in Con- gress—a process which involves numerous appropriations, author- izations, and revenue measures under the jurisdiction of various congressional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 110 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 154 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2008 No. 25 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend Monsignor Richard W. O’Keeffe, Im- The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the Monsignor O’Keeffe to the House of maculate Conception Church, Yuma, gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Representatives. Arizona offered the following prayer: BLUMENAUER) come forward and lead Ditat Deus, God Enriches. Those the House in the Pledge of Allegiance. f magnificent words are found on the Mr. BLUMENAUER led the Pledge of seal of the State of Arizona as we cele- Allegiance as follows: ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER brate today our 96th birthday as enter- I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the PRO TEMPORE ing into the States of the United United States of America, and to the Repub- States. And so this morning we thank lic for which it stands, one nation under God, The SPEAKER pro tempore. The God for all those enriched graces that indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Chair will entertain up to 10 further re- He has given to each and every one of f quests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. us. WELCOMING MONSIGNOR RICHARD As we pray here this morning, we ask O’KEEFFE the Lord of all our endeavors to give f The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without our elected Congress men and women objection, the gentleman from Arizona the courage to follow noble aspirations, GO TIGERS, GO (Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget Process 101
    Federal Budget Process 101 The United States Congress holds the purse strings for the nation’s spending and is responsible for producing an annual budget that funds all federal programs. This federal budget process provides Congress with the opportunity to shape our nation’s priorities through the allocation of federal resources. The White House starts the process with the President’s budget proposal, a detailed blueprint and wish list for specific programs. Congress is free to either follow or disregard the President’s budget, but it is a valuable look at upcoming policy priorities from the White House. The budget process also gives advocates the opportunity to make their voice heard on the importance of protecting programs that help end childhood hunger and protect families from hardship and need. Terms To Know Appropriations Process: Congress has the power to fund the federal government through the appropriations process, which sets spending levels for specific programs each year. Mandatory Spending: Making up two-thirds of the federal budget, “mandatory spending” is funding for entitlement programs. Mandatory program funding happens automatically and is not dependent on the annual appropriations process. Instead, this spending depends on the policy structure of the entitlement program and how many people are eligible for the specific program. Examples: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), School meals and Social Security. Discretionary Spending: Making up one-third of the federal budget, “discretionary spending” includes funding for non-entitlement programs. This funding must go through the annual appropriations process and cannot be allocated without Congressional approval. Examples: Head Start, WIC, public health and education programs.
    [Show full text]
  • DOE HEP Budget Planning and Execution
    High Energy Physics Budget Planning and Execution HEPAP Meeting 29 November 2018 Alan Stone Office of High Energy Physics Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy U.S. Long-Term Particle Physics Strategy The global vision presented in the 2014 Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) report was the culmination of years of effort by the U.S. particle physics community 2012 – 2013: Scientific community organized year-long planning exercise (“Snowmass”) 2013 – 2014: U.S. High Energy Physics Advisory Panel convened P5 to develop a plan to be executed over a ten-year timescale in the context of a 20-year global vision for the field P5 report enables discovery science with a balanced program that deeply intertwines U.S. efforts with international partners U.S. particle physics community strongly supports strategy U.S. Administration has supported implementing the P5 strategy through each President’s Budget Request U.S. Congress has supported implementing the P5 strategy through the language and funding levels in appropriations bills International community recognizes strategy through global partnerships 29 November 2018 HEP Budget Planning and Execution 2 U.S. Administration Supports P5 U.S.-CERN Agreement, signed May 6, 2015, in D.C. By U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, CERN Director General Rolf Heuer, and U.S. National Science Foundation France Cordova Aligns European and American long-range strategic plans in particle physics UK-U.S. Science & Technology Agreement, signed Sep 20, 2017, in D.C. By UK Science Minister Jo Johnson and U.S. Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs Judith Garber First major project under this agreement is UK investment of £65 million ($88 million) in LBNF/DUNE DOE-DAE (India) Project Annex II on Neutrino Research signed April 16, 2018, in New Delhi By U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations
    TABLE OF CONTENTS ______________________________________________________________________________ Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 Methodology....................................................................................................................................2 The Violators A. Members of the House.............................................................................................3 I. Vern Buchanan (R-FL) ...............................................................................4 II. Ken Calvert (R-CA).....................................................................................9 III. John Doolittle (R-CA)...............................................................................19 IV. Tom Feeney (R-FL)...................................................................................37 V. Vito Fossella (R-NY).................................................................................47 VI. William Jefferson (D-LA)..........................................................................50 VII. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)...................................................................................62 VIII. Dan Lipinski (D-IL)...................................................................................81 IX. Gary Miller (R-CA)...................................................................................86 X. Alan Mollohan (D-WV).............................................................................96
    [Show full text]
  • Earmarks and the Earmark Process: Frequently Asked Questions
    Earmarks and the Earmark Process: Frequently Asked Questions Updated for the 112th Congress March, 2011 Introduction Rumors of the death of earmarks are premature. Many developments have occurred since publication of Taxpayers for Common Sense’s first Earmarks and the Earmark Process: Frequently Asked Questions in February, 2010. Earmarks continue to be a topic of interest amongst the electorate, and earmarks and the earmark process continue to significantly impact management of taxpayer dollars. And while there is currently a moratorium on earmarks during the 112th Congress, this is only temporary. Many in Congress express a desire to return to the business of earmarking. As the 112th Congress begins, we think it is important to update Congress and the public on the state of earmarking, the progress that has been made, and the requisite challenges that advocates of transparency and accountability continue to face. Therefore Taxpayers for Common Sense has updated its February, 2010 Earmarks and the Earmark Process: Frequently Asked Questions. Much progress in bringing transparency and accountability to the earmark process has occurred, but much more still needs to happen. Reducing the influence of earmarks through the existing moratorium provides an opportunity for better management of taxpayer resources. It creates the opportunity for Congress and the President to design systems that utilize tax dollars for projects based on need rather than political power. The current situation, however, poses challenges as well. The fate of earmarks and the earmarking process is not pre‐determined. Many lawmakers, lobbyists, and local recipients of earmarked dollars have expressed a desire to return to “business‐as‐usual” and are simply waiting for the public to lose interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Ii. History of Omnibus Appropriations
    This publication is dedicated to the many members of Congress and staff who do their best in difficult circumstances, and who want to make it better. ReadtheBill.org Foundation is solely responsible for the content of this report. ReadtheBill.org Foundation seeks only transparent government and does not support or oppose policy on substance. It is the leading national organization promoting transparent legislative process in the U.S. Congress. Founded in January 2006, the ReadtheBill.org family of organizations is non-partisan and philosophically independent from the two major parties. Monsters from Congress a report by Rafael DeGennaro and Rachel Sciabarrasi © ReadtheBill.org Foundation October 2007 This report is available free online at: www.readthebill.org/monsters Paper copies may be purchased from ReadtheBill.org Foundation. Main Office (send correspondence here): Washington, DC: ReadtheBill.org Foundation 325 Pennsylvania Ave., SE P.O. Box 1070 Suite 275 Branford, CT 06405-8070 Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 203-483-0500 Tel: 202-544-2620 We welcome donations to support this and other research and education activities. Donate online at www.readthebill.org or make checks payable to: “ReadtheBill.org Foundation” and send to main office. (Tax-deductible to fullest extent of the law.) Factual corrections and feedback on this report are welcome. Email us at [email protected] or fax us at 203-483-0508 Cover art by Seth Kaplan © 2007 This report was created using free software: the OpenOffice.org Writer program on the Ubuntu Linux operating system. — 2 — MONSTERS FROM CONGRESS Executive Summary The United States operated for almost two centuries without omnibus appropriations bills.
    [Show full text]
  • SINGLE SUBJECT RULES and the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Michael
    SINGLE SUBJECT RULES AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Michael D. Gilbert* Abstract Despite generating thousands of cases on important public issues, the single subject rule remains a source of uncertainty and inconsistency. The root of the problem lies in the inability to define the term “subject” using legal doctrine. This paper reexamines the single subject rule through the lens of public choice theory and finds that its purposes are wrongheaded. Logrolling is not necessarily harmful, and improving political transparency requires legislative compromises to be packaged together rather than spread across multiple acts. Riding is not a form of logrolling but an analytically distinct and more threatening practice. This analysis yields a precise, political definition of “subject” and a new framework for resolving single subject disputes. * Ph.D. candidate, Jurisprudence and Social Policy, University of California, Berkeley. J.D., School of Law, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall), 2005. I owe primary thanks for inspiration and support to Robert Cooter. Thanks also to Anne Joseph, Max Stearns, Matt Stephenson, Adrian Vermeule, Barry Weingast, John Yoo, and other participants in the August 2005 Berkeley Workshop on Constitutional Law and Economics; and Brian Broughman, Malcolm Feeley, Philip Frickey, Rick Hasen, Robert Kagan, Josh Levine, Andrew Morriss, Lisa Schroeer, Martin Shapiro, Stefani Smith, and the Institute for Humane Studies. 803 804 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW [Vol. 67:803 Table of Contents Introduction .............................................. 804 I. Background on the Single Subject Rule ..................... 811 A. A Sketch of the Rule’s History ........................ 811 B. Traditional Purposes of the Rule ....................... 813 C. Rates of Single Subject Adjudication ................... 818 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Full Dissertation with Cites
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Taming the Senate: Party Power and the Rise of Omnibus Appropriations Bills in the U.S. Congress Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1m2287jk Author Hanson, Peter Christopher Publication Date 2010 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Taming the Senate: Party Power and the Rise of Omnibus Appropriations Bills in the U.S. Congress By Peter Christopher Hanson A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Eric Schickler, Chair Professor Robert Van Houweling Professor John Ellwood Fall 2010 Taming the Senate: Party Power and the Rise of Omnibus Appropriations Bills in the U.S. Congress © 2010 by Peter Christopher Hanson Abstract Taming the Senate: Party Power and the Rise of Omnibus Appropriations Bills in the U.S. Congress by Peter Christopher Hanson Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Eric Schickler, Chair Theories of party power in Congress differ on the circumstances under which majority parties have the ability to shift policy outcomes away from the preferences of pivotal voters and toward the majority’s preferred position. The theory of Pivotal Politics states that it is unlikely parties have such power. The theory of Conditional Party Government states that parties can influence policy outcomes when they are ideologically unified, while the Cartel theory suggests that parties can influence outcomes all of the time by controlling the agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Practices
    Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Practices Updated April 19, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R42647 Continuing Resolutions: Overview of Components and Practices Summary The program activities of most federal agencies are generally funded on an annual basis through the enactment of regular appropriations acts. When those annual appropriations acts are not enacted by the beginning of the fiscal year (i.e., by October 1), one or more continuing appropriations acts (commonly known as continuing resolutions or CRs) may be enacted to provide temporary funding to continue certain programs and activities until action on the regular appropriations acts is completed. Congress has included six main components in CRs. First, CRs have provided funding for certain activities (coverage), which are typically specified with reference to the prior fiscal year’s appropriations acts. Second, CRs have provided budget authority for a specified duration of time. This duration may be as short as a single day or as long as the remainder of the fiscal year. Third, CRs have provided funds based on an overall funding rate. Fourth, the use of budget authority provided in the CR has been prohibited for new activities not funded in the previous fiscal year. Fifth, the duration and amount of funds in the CR, and purposes for which they may be used for specified activities, may be adjusted through anomalies. Sixth, legislative provisions—which create, amend, or extend other laws—have been included in some instances. This report provides detailed information on CRs beginning with FY1977, which was the first fiscal year that began on October 1.
    [Show full text]