The Standing Rules of the Senate are drafted to encourage vigorous public debate on our nation’s most important issues. Indeed, the U.S. Senate is often referred to as “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” The Rules allow any Senator to seek recognition from the Chair at any time and, absent a temporary agreement to the contrary, to speak without interruption so long as he or she wishes. Debating important questions before the Senate is one way a Senator can highlight an issue, advocate for a change in policy, or voice his or her opinion on pending legislation.
Senate debate occurs in public, and is televised on CSPAN and transcribed in the Congressional Record. For your convenience, I post transcripts of my Senate floor speeches on this site for your review. I hope you find them informative and useful. My web site also makes available information on my voting record and legislation that I have sponsored in the Senate.
 print |  email |
|
Sen. Sessions Speaks about the Proposed 2 Year Budget Cycle
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
2-YEAR BUDGET PROCESS
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the congressional budget process, which we will begin again soon, is clearly broken. Since fiscal year 1980, only three times has Congress enacted all its appropriations bills by the start of the next fiscal year, which is October 1. During that same time, 138 continuing resolutions have been needed to keep the Government running. In other words, if Congress does not appropriate money, it cannot be spent by the executive branch. It cannot be spent by the Government, period. So when we do not pass an appropriations bill to fund the Department of Defense or the Department of Housing and Urban Development, they cannot operate. They shut down. As a result, we come through with continuing resolutions to allow funding to continue at the previous year's level while we debate and argue over the appropriate appropriations for that next fiscal year.
Repeatedly, we have been late. On average, there have been 4.8 continuing resolutions each fiscal year. On average, we have been almost 3 months late passing the appropriations bills, putting us well into the next fiscal year. For fiscal year 1996, 10 years ago, the final appropriations bill was signed almost 7 months late.
Over the past 13 budget cycles, Congress has passed 10 omnibus spending bills. These omnibus bills occur when, instead of passing each of the 12 appropriations bills separately, as we are set up and plan to do, they cannot pass them individually. Because they are so far behind, all the bills are cobbled together in an omnibus bill and moved at one time, which creates so much momentum that it is difficult to stop a bill such as that. It is certainly almost impossible to read and know what is in it. On average, these spending packages have combined 7.6 regular appropriations bills. So the average omnibus bill is 7.6 of the 12 appropriations bills piled all together in 1 bill and passed, basically rammed through the Senate and the House.
Last year, Congress enacted a $555 billion, 1,600-page omnibus package that combined 11 of the 12 required appropriations bills in 1. It was passed in late December, not long before Christmas, when people were anxious to go home. I am sure that is part of the plan. It all moved forward. Mr. President, 1,600 pages--it is unlikely many Members of this Senate read it. Basically, what they would do is send out their staff to determine if something they especially cared about was in it, and if what they wanted was in it, they would vote for the bill. That is the way things have gone around here. It is not a good policy. The package we passed last December was the largest omnibus bill since 1988, when we enacted a $598 billion package that included all 13 bills.
Finally, this broken budget process has resulted in almost $1.7 trillion in deficit spending over the past 13 budget cycles.
There is no single cure, I will certainly admit, for all of what ails Congress and the way Congress spends the people's money. However, a biennial, 2-year budget, 2-year appropriations would be, I am convinced and have been for quite a number of years, a tremendous step in the right direction. It is a good-government reform. I wish to talk about biennial budgeting a bit.
Biennial budgeting has been supported by the last four Presidents. It is a very simple concept. Under current budget law, Congress must pass the twelve 1-year appropriations bills each year to fund the Federal Government. With biennial budgeting, twelve 2-year appropriations bills would be enacted instead of 1-year bills. A change from a 1-year to 2-year budget cycle would have many great benefits.
I emphasize, this is not a partisan matter. This is a matter that I believe will strengthen the Congress and help us increase some of those very poor ratings we have with the American people.
A change from a 1-year to 2-year budget would deal with this problem that is a reality for us: that under the current system, the budget process, the appropriations process is never-ending. We should have completed this process last year before October 1, the start of the new fiscal year, the appropriations funding for the next fiscal year. We did not get that done until late December. Now we are going to be starting soon trying another series of 12 appropriations bills to try to pass them before October 1.
Last year, it took 325 days from the release of the President's budget until the appropriations process was completed on December 26. Now, only 40 days later, the process has begun again with the submission of the President's new budget on February 5.
By limiting budget decisions to every other year, Congress would have considerably more time to spend passing critical legislation. Whether it be immigration reform, which we need to do, tax cuts, or legislation addressing our Nation's housing problems, Congress could focus more on important legislative matters rather than just always every year backed up, jammed up with appropriations debates, arguing over pork and earmarks, among others.
Some will argue that 2-year budgeting would increase the need for enacting supplemental spending. They say we will have more supplemental emergency spending. As such, we will not save a lot of time, and it still will not be a healthy process.
I ask this: How much more supplemental emergency spending can Congress do?
Over the last 10 budget cycles, even though we are passing regular appropriations bills every single year, Congress has enacted at least 25 supplemental emergency appropriations packages. These packages have approved almost $884 billion in additional emergency spending. That is a shocking number.
But I will add this. When someone does bring up an emergency spending bill--and there may be a number of times that it is quite legitimate--and asks that it be brought up and spent above the budget--and that is what emergency spending does; we approve a budget, we should stay within the budget--we pass an emergency bill and it busts the budget. It goes above the budget. We say it is emergency spending that is so important that we don't adhere to the budget and we are going to spend the money anyway. Of course, all of that goes straight to the debt, since we are already in deficit. Any additional spending over our budget is even more monies that go to our debt. But it takes 60 votes, at least. A person is able to come to the floor and object and create a discussion and demand a supermajority of 60 votes to have emergency spending. I think that in itself should deter some frivolous use of emergency spending, I really do.
I think we would be better off, even though I am sure we will have emergency spending packages with a 2-year budget, because we certainly have had them even with a 1-year budget cycle. I do think the taxpayers won't be defenseless when those emergency bills come up.
Another big thing. All of us in the Congress, and I think all of us in the Senate, know in our hearts, know in the deepest part of our being, that we are not doing a good job of oversight over this massive Government we are supposed to be managing. We don't do a good job of oversight. One reason we don't do oversight in an effective way is because we have to pass the funding bills. We are always arguing over how much should be spent on this or that program, how much should be spent on this or that pet project, and we spend our time doing that and not going out and looking at agencies and departments with a fresh view.
The Office of Management and Budget has made a long list of agencies that are poorly performing, that they question the legitimacy of. If we would focus on that effectively, I think we could do a much better job.
Also, I would suggest that with a 2-year budget, Federal agencies could focus more on their core missions. The Department of Defense, for example, spends untold hours preparing their budget every year, and it creates a lot of uncertainty because they are never sure whether this or that program will be continued. It causes quite a bit of stress and uncertainty. Agencies are spending thousands of hours on their annual budget process.
Constituent groups and organizations could save a lot of money. They come up every year. We see them. They are some of the best people we know, and those people come up every year. They wouldn't have to come up but every 2 years with biennial budgeting. Save some money for those agencies and departments that are worried about their budgets and maybe even save our constituents a little money on air travel.
Finally, a 2-year budget would create a more stable system of government because Congress has proven it cannot complete its budget process each year. It can't do it. Funding delays would surely occur less often and less frequently with a 2-year budget, and the Federal agencies could function more effectively.
Process often does drive policy. The current budget process, the current appropriations process, we know, is not working. It is an embarrassment to us. It embarrasses us every year, not just because the Democrats failed last year in their first year in the majority, but because Republicans failed too, consistently, to pass budgets in an effective way. It is a bipartisan problem. We need to look no further than the $400 billion deficit projected for this year, or our Nation's $9 trillion debt to know we are not being effective in managing the taxpayers' money.
By itself, a 2-year budget will not end the profligate spending of Congress, that is for sure. But a 2-year budget cycle would be a huge improvement. I have no doubt about it. Twenty-one States currently operate with a 2-year budget cycle. I think it is time for Congress to do the same.
When I was working on this the last several years, when the Republicans had a majority in the Senate, I felt as though there might be a slight advantage to the majority party because the majority party has an agenda. They have items they feel obligated to effectively promote. But they are not able to do it oftentimes because all the time on the floor of the Senate is spent on trying to pass appropriations bills. So whether it helps the majority or the minority party, I am not sure, but it will help the taxpayers. It is good government reform.
It is not a partisan thing we are talking about. We are talking about a historic change in the way we do business that will help every agency and department of government because they will have at least 2 years of a solid budget from which to work. They will only have to put together their proposals every 2 years instead of every year. Congress will be able to deal with it one time, and then during the off year, we would be able to examine how we are spending money and make new proposals and new ideas for improving the health care system of America, the savings system of America, and the defense of America.
I thank the Chair, and I note my colleague Senator Alexander from Tennessee is here. I know he strongly shares this view. We have both worked with and met with Senator Pete Domenici, long-time former chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate, who has championed this battle. Frankly, I think it would be a nice tribute to Senator Domenici if, when he completes his tenure, distinguished as it has been in the Senate, we were to pass a 2-year budget.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
|
|
||||||