Lawmakers debate biennial budgeting again

The star witness was different, but the arguments for and against were all too familiar at Wednesday's House Rules Committee hearing on biennial budgeting.

Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels and Reps. Charles Bass, R-N.H., and Joe Barton, R-Texas, two long- time budget process reform crusaders, were among those to endorse the idea of moving Congress to a two-year budget and appropriations cycle, in the interest of giving the legislative branch more time in the second year to focus on its oversight responsibilities.

Daniels expressed his frustration at the "perennial" nature of the debate over biennial budgeting, telling the committee: "We should not spend a whole lot more time talking about the pros and cons. Biennial budgeting has become a perennial idea. It is time to enact the legislation to implement it or to admit that the forces against it are just not going to let it happen."

Citing support from the Bush administration and key members such as Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., House leaders and Senate Budget Committee ranking member Pete Domenici, R- N.M., Bass said Congress has a "golden opportunity" to enact biennial budgeting legislation this year.

Several appropriators, including three subcommittee chairmen, cautioned in their testimony that biennial budgeting could actually weaken Congress' oversight powers by severing the link between oversight and the annual decision over how much money a particular agency or program deserves.

Appropriators were also concerned biennial budgeting would weaken Congress at the expense of the White House and the House at the expense of the Senate, and would lead to an explosion of supplemental appropriations bills, which tend to become "Christmas trees."