Mr. STENHOLM. We sincerely look forward to working with you. Appreciate you holding these hearings, and we really look forward to working with you to accomplish some things, if we can.

Mr. Goss. We mean for these to go somewhere. Thank you. We stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS

Wednesday, September 13, 1995

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND BUDGET PROCESS,
AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION

OF THE HOUSE, COMMITTEE ON RULES, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m. in room H313, the Capitol, Hon. Porter J. Goss (chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process) presiding.

Present: Representatives Goss, Dreier, Solomon, and Beilenson. Mr. Goss. Professor, would you join us?

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PORTER J. GOSS, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AND BUDGET PROCESS

Mr. Goss. The meeting will come to order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a joint meeting of the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process and Rules and Organization of the House, which David Dreier Chairs, and we are today continuing the process that we started previously of reviewing our budget processes, possible suggestions, ways of making improvements.

We have had two subcommittee hearings already. I don't know if you have had a chance to review any of that material. Certainly we are going to have more as we go along, and we want to talk to a number of experts, which is why you are here today, Professor, as well as some other good witnesses we have in the budget field; and we have sort of started from the question of the 1974 Budget Act. Is it really still relevant? Is it still useful? Is it the machinery we should be using?

I think that it is pretty obvious that we are going to have extra attention on budget matters, if not budget process, in the immediate days ahead. I think the term du jour is train wreck, and I think that we can certainly do better than that. Of course, that certainly goes well beyond the budget process, but I think there is a very clear commitment from the White House and on the Hill to try to balance the budget, and that is a big chore. And making sure that we have the machinery to get to that kind of a task, I think, is extremely important.

I am not sure that the process that we have is as good as some people think and I am not sure it is as bad as some people charge. And that is why we are investing the time and energy and soliciting the views, experience, and expertise of people such as yourself,

Professor, and the other witnesses we are going to have today and those witnesses we have had already to find out if there are some things that suggest themselves as very obvious.

In our last hearing, we heard proposals from a bipartisan crosssection of Members, and I guess that if we had every Member in the room, we would have that many different suggestions and views on this. This is a very lively topic, but I think that it is fair to say while there is much difference in the specifics, there is certainly consensus that maybe now is the time to change, make some changes in the process; and how far, how many, I think is an exercise that is fully justified.

I think as we go down the road we are going to find out that every time somebody has a good idea for change that once you look at the details of that you find out maybe it is not as good an idea as it sounded up front, and there is more complexity because everything seems to lead to something else in this.

But I think that we-the primary function of the legislative branch, which is establishing and overseeing the budget of the United States-basically we are the house of revenue; this is where the buck starts. We have got to make sure that process works.

I frankly think-my personal view and the reason I am excited about doing this is-I think we are going to make some changes because we are going to reach some conclusions that there are some ways that we can improve things, at least bring them up to date.

In order to get the debate on a somewhat common-denominator process for ourselves as we go through the hearing process, we started out with the three questions that we have made available, and by no means are they meant to be exhaustive or exclusive. What are the objectives of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act? Which of those objectives are still relevant to today's fiscal environment? And should the budget process be redesigned? That is broad enough so that you can virtually draw any conclusions you want. I think that we have had some good ideas already which have led to some others, and I think that we probably will be visiting some of those; and we would like to be able to come back to our witnesses and bounce ideas on them, and I am sure that is something that is going to happen.

I don't expect this job to be complete this month or next month, but I do expect that we will be focusing it down to something more specific, I hope by the end of the year, so that we can get on with the implementation of anything we think is a good idea. Having said all that, I yield at this time to Mr. Dreier.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID DREIER, CHAIRMAN OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RULES AND ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE

Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before we proceed, I should probably observe with the gathering of both subcommittees of the Rules Committee-at least we have certainly high quality representation of the two subcommittees and also guests here that Chairman Goss just became a grandfather for the third time this past weekend. The frightening thing is he is

now the grandfather of Porter Goss II. I certainly congratulate you on that.

Let me say, Dr. Schick, that we appreciate your being here. In 1993, I had the opportunity to co-Chair what was called the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress. We spent a great deal of time on this issue; and obviously, we are proceeding with that now because not much was done in the wake of the tremendous, very exhaustive hearings that we had on budget process reform back in 1993, and I hope that we are going to be able to proceed with them now.

We had the opportunity to hear from your present colleague and our former colleague, Mr. Frenzel, and I think that he, having played a key role in the whole issue of budget process reform, and the ranking minority member of the Budget Committee had some very interesting observations, and I am familiar with your position, obviously, and I think that there is room for debate and this debate is going to proceed as to exactly where we are going to be on this question.

I look forward to your testimony.

Mr. BEILENSON. I do, too, Allen.

Mr. DREIER. That was Mr. Beilenson's opening statement.

Mr. Goss. We have been joined by the distinguished chairman of the committee and distinguished acting ranking member, Mr. Beilenson of California. I have not yet introduced the professor formally, if you care to say something, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SOLOMON. Dr. Schick, it is a privilege to welcome you before our joint subcommittee. I apologize for being late. We have a dairy crisis in New York State, would you believe?

Mr. SCHICK. A daily crisis?

Mr. DREIER. A daily crisis is very true.

Mr. SOLOMON. Incidentally, this is one of them, the dairy issue. But I appreciate your being here.

Mr. Goss. Mr. Beilenson.

Mr. BEILENSON. I appreciate your being here, too, Allen. It is good to see you, sir.

Mr. Goss. Thank you. I think we have reached a consensus at last in the Rules Committee. We are pleased to see Professor Allen Schick from the University of Maryland.

Mr. BEILENSON. Let's hope we are pleased to hear what he has

to say.

Mr. Goss. I have read his testimony; I find it most stimulating. He also comes from The Brookings Institution today, and I think many of us know Dr. Schick's work. He is the author of the definitive book, "The Manual on the Federal Budget Process," so I would suspect not only will we get some special insights; I would also expect that we will get a little bit of that paternal pride I feel as a grandfather perhaps drifting through the

Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield, for those Members who just arrived, I announced Mr. Goss has become a grandfather for the third time and his grandson is called Porter Goss II.

Mr. SOLOMON. The second.

Mr. BEILENSON. For the first time?

Mr. DREIER. Third time.

Mr. SOLOMON. Congratulations, Porter.