Summary: GAO believes that multiyear fiscal policy agreements and multiyear authorizations make a great deal of sense, but they do not require changing the appropriations decision cycle from annual to biennial. Although biennial appropriations could save time for agencies, they would also result in a shift in congressional control and oversight. Proposals to change the process should be viewed partly in the context of their effect on the relative balance of power in this debate. Budgeting always involves forecasting, which is by nature uncertain. The longer the period of the forecast, the greater the uncertainty. Increased difficulty in forecasting was one of the main reasons states gave for changing from biennial to annual cycles. Dramatic changes in program design or agency structure, such as those Congress is considering in many areas, will make budget forecasting harder. Moving from an annual to a biennial appropriations cycle at the same time may not be wise because of potential program changes that could, in turn, create a need for budgeting changes in the second year of a biennium. If this happens, biennial budgeting would exist only in theory. Biennial appropriations would be neither the end of congressional control nor the solution to many budget problems. The questions for Congress are (1) how does it wish to exercise its constitutional authority over appropriations? and (2) in what forum will it conduct its oversight responsibilities?
