I do think that biennial budgeting does lead to business savvy.

I don't think that we could make it much worse than it is today.

I see nothing in the biennial budgeting proposal that would really change the way appropriations is working except just to cut the process in half.

Legally no direct transfer of powers would occur. Practically and politically, I believe that relaxing on that second year of scrutiny and oversight... brings in the White House, whoever the President is.

It is a scandal that hundreds of programs are unauthorized.

I am not a huge fan of the budget process, and I think in many ways it does not serve us well.

I have a deep respect for my good friend Chairman Dreier, whose concern for the well being of our institution is as great and as genuine as any member of this House.

So I urge colleagues to reject the siren song of biennial budgeting, to redouble our efforts to address the underlying causes of our long-term fiscal challenges.

Circumstances, however, are very different.

If we had a 2-year process, I could spend a whole year doing oversight.

The founders didn't say you had to do it for 2 years, but they did say you can't do it for longer than 2 years.

I want to give my friend and my colleague Congressman Norman Dicks a lot of credit.

But this is truly a case in which the remedy is worse than the disease.

In order to get the proper oversight, you have got to have time.

By being able to budget for at least 2 years, you can plan ahead a little better.

The problem was that Chairman Dicks had a good defense bill, but couldn't get it on the floor.

I think it has created sound fiscal policy in Ohio, and it has worked for decades.

the annual appropriations process is broken.