Biennial Budgeting: Issues, Options, and Congressional Actions (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (18 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Jan. 10, 2017 |
| Report Number |
R44732 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
James V. Saturno |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
Difficulties in the timely enactment of budgetary legislation have long fueled interest in the idea
that the congressional budget process could be better structured in a way that eases time
constraints. The need for consideration of budget matters in the form of concurrent resolutions on
the budget, reconciliation measures, tax measures, public debt measures, authorizations, regular
appropriations, continuing appropriations, and supplemental appropriations has been criticized as
time consuming, repetitive, and inefficient. One long-discussed reform proposal would change
the budget cycle from one to two years.
Biennial budgeting includes several variations. It may involve multiyear authorizations, two-year
budget resolutions, two-year appropriations, or some combination of the three. Most proposals
incorporate all three factors.
Biennial budgeting has a long history at the state level. Although the trend since World War II has
been for states to convert to an annual budget cycle, according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures, 19 states currently operate with a two-year cycle, and some states operate with
mixed cycles that put significant portions of their budgets on a two-year cycle.
In addition to congressional support, biennial budgeting has received support from the Reagan,
George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush Administrations.
Proponents of biennial budgeting generally contend that a two-year budget cycle would (1)
reduce congressional workload by eliminating the need for annual review of routine matters, (2)
reserve the second session of each Congress for improved congressional oversight and program
review, and (3) allow better long-term planning at the federal, state, and local levels.
Critics of biennial budgeting have countered that the projected benefits would prove to be
illusory. Projecting revenues and expenditures for a two-year cycle requires forecasting as much
as 30 months in advance (rather than 18 under an annual budget cycle). This would result in less
accurate forecasts and could require Congress to choose between allowing the President greater
latitude for making budgetary adjustments in the off-years or engaging in mid-cycle corrections
to a degree that would effectively undercut any reduction in the workload or intended
improvements in planning. Opponents also point out that annual review of appropriations
requests is an important part of oversight that would be lost under a biennial budget with no
guarantee that a separate oversight session would be effective. Furthermore, they argue that
reducing the number of times that Congress considers budget matters may only raise the stakes
and thereby heighten the possibility for conflict and increased delay.
