GovernmentExecutive.com

With still no progress on any of the fiscal 2003 appropriations, another continuing resolution had to be put in place last Friday to keep all federal departments and agencies from shutting down.

Unless something way beyond unexpected ("miraculous" might be appropriate) occurs, this CR, which lasts only until Friday, will be followed by yet another.

And rather than just one, the truth is that several more CRs may actually be on the way. Most of the government may be operating under the rules and restrictions of this supposedly stopgap legislation for months to come.

Although a steady series of continuing resolutions - or a long-term CR through early next year - might serve the needs of Congress and the White House, this is the absolutely worst way for the federal government to operate.

In fact, a continuing resolution that lasts into early 2003 has the potential to make next year's budget process even more difficult than the one that occurred this year.

Such a long-running CR would also make it possible to say almost a full year ahead of time that, regardless of how the election turns out, 2003 will not be an aberration - very few of the 2004 appropriations will be signed into law by the start of next fiscal year either.

This is not supposed to be happening.

One of the most important reasons for the enactment of the Congressional Budget Act in 1974 was to stop the need for continuing resolutions. That act gave Congress and the president three additional months to work out their differences by changing the start of the fiscal year from July 1 to Oct. 1. The act also set out what back then was thought to be a very rigid timetable for action on all budget-related legislation, including appropriations, so that the work could be done by the time the new fiscal year began.

The fact that it has not worked out as planned is one of the biggest failures of the 1974 act - and a testament to the ability of Congress and the White House to avoid budget decisions whenever they are politically difficult.

But while we tend to focus on the political failures inherent in continuing resolutions, the bigger and far more enduring problem is actually the havoc they create for the departments and agencies that must operate under them.

For example, October and November may be the beginning of this fiscal year, but they are also the months when federal departments and agencies are usually putting the finishing touches on next year's budgets. How does a department know with any certainty what it should request for fiscal 2004 when it does not yet know what it will have in 2003?

This problem gets worse the longer a continuing resolution stays in effect. Most of the decisions in the president's budget are made by the end of December or middle of January. A CR that runs through early next year, as some are suggesting could happen this time, will make at least part of what the president eventually sends to Capitol Hill irrelevant before it ever arrives. It will also make many of the estimates and projections in the administration's budget even more of a guess than usual.

Administering a program in this environment is also very difficult. Although this year federal departments and agencies are not constantly preparing for a shutdown as they did at the start of fiscal 1996, weekly continuing resolutions do create a good deal of uncertainty for almost every federal manager.

When a manager begins the new fiscal year with last year's funding level and a requirement that nothing new be started, all the work that went into developing the fiscal 2003 budget and all the plans the department or agency developed for this year must be put on hold. They could remain that way for months.

Federal departments and agencies are left implementing last year's priorities, and have little or no ability to respond to new issues. That often causes them to be criticized for being bureaucratic and unresponsive, or for not fulfilling their mission.

Even in the few cases where a department thinks that some new activity can be justified under the CR's restrictions, this runs the risk of infuriating key members of Congress and creating more problems for that department in the long run. This is especially the case if the department ends up doing something while the CR is in effect that ultimately is prohibited when its regular appropriation is enacted.

The problems don't stop when the regular appropriation is enacted. If the appropriation increases funding compared to what was allowed under the CR, the department must rush to spend the money or suffer the wrath of Congress for not using everything it requested or was given.

If, on the other hand, the appropriation cuts spending below the level included in the CR, the agency will be forced to make even tougher reductions than it would have had to do if its appropriations had been in place at the start of the year because it will less time to achieve the savings. If the continuing resolution lasts long enough, the only way to cut spending as required is often to reduce personnel. In some cases, however, the appropriation requires staffing levels to be maintained but the savings still to be achieved.

Management problems are seldom the primary consideration when a CR is being developed, of course. The assumption is that federal departments and agencies will deal with the situation regardless of the magnitude of the disruption.

But continuing resolutions can cause long-term hassles on Capitol Hill as well.

Congress and the president seldom look at the CR's impact on what they will have to do next year. In this case, a long-term continuing resolution would mean that Congress and the White House next year will have to deal with the remaining fiscal 2003 decisions before they even begin to contemplate what to do about fiscal 2004.

Given the problems the closely divided Congress has had this year in dealing with spending decisions, it is anything but a good idea to reduce the amount of time the House and Senate will have to deal with the same issues next year.

Question Of The Week

Last Week's Question. What happened to all of you search engine junkies? Last week's question was a tough one, unless you are a budget geek or have access to a computer and could look up the text of the Congressional Budget Act. Readers were asked for the date when the Senate can start to debate appropriations for the coming year even though a budget resolution conference report is not adopted.

The answer is - there isn't one. The budget rules provide a May 15 escape hatch for the House but nothing similar for the Senate. The winner of the "I Won A 2002 Budget Battle" coffee mug, who was selected at random from the four people who got this week's question correct, is Bonnie McEwen of the General Accounting Office.

This Week's Question. This week's question was suggested by Senate Budget Committee staff member Jim Horney, who gets a Budget Battle mug for his efforts. The question: As noted above, the second continuing resolution for fiscal 2003 will expire at midnight on Oct. 11 and a third is expected to be enacted by the end of this week that will last until Oct. 18. That means that a fourth CR will be needed. The question: When will the fourth CR expire?

Send your prediction to scollender@nationaljournal.com by 5 p.m. PDT, Saturday, Oct. 12, 2002. You must include your mailing address so the mug can be sent if you win. If there is more than one correct response, the winner will be selected at random from all of those who provide the correct answer.

It's On Jan. 28, 2003, At A Great Location!

For the fourth consecutive year, National Journal, Government Executive and Fleishman-Hillard are joining together to present a half-day executive briefing on the upcoming federal budget debate presented by "Budget Battles" columnist Stan Collender. This latest briefing - "Houston, We Have A Budget" - will use almost every phrase, song, movie and television program about space to bring the fiscal 2004 budget debate to life.

The briefing will be held on Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2003, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. at a still-to-be-determined hotel in downtown Washington. The cost is the same as last year - $299 per person for registrations received before Jan. 1, 2003, and $399 per person for registrations received after that date. Group discounts are also available.

A special Web site that will allow you to register online will be up running shortly. You can also register or receive more information by contacting Beverly Campbell (campbelb@fleishman.com or 202-828-9712).

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.