Budget director David A. Stockman recommended yesterday that Congress continue for a year or two to use the novel "reconciliation" process instead of the ordinary appropriations machinery as "the major technique for dealing with the budget."

In testimony to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Stockman acknowledged that using the reconciliation process under the 1974 budget act "moves us, to some extent, in the direction of a parliamentary system," and "makes it extremely difficult for committee chairmen and their members to play their traditional roles."

Stockman also acknowledged that the reconciliation process used this year, which culminated in the so-called "Gramm-Latta II" legislation imposing limits on government spending, was flawed and should be modified.

But with modificatifairs, Stockman acknowledged that using the reconciliation process under the 1974 budget act "moves us, to some extent, in the direction of a parliamentary system," and "makes it extremely difficult for committee chairmen and their members to play their traditional roles."

Stockman also acknowledged that the reconciliation process used this year, which culminated in the so-called "Gramm-Latta II" legislation imposing limits on government spending, was flawed and should be modified.

But with modifications, he said, reconciliation should be used to impose fiscal discipline until the budget is brought into balance. "After the restoration of budget equilibrium and economic growth," Stockman said in a section of his prepared testimony that he chose not to read in the hearing, "we will more easily be able to afford the luxury of protracted debates through committee hearings and other channels."

As used this year, reconciliation allowed the full House and full Senate to dictate spending limits and changes in the legislation underlying some federal programs to the authorizing and appropriating committees that usually make such decisions. Some members of Congress and legal scholars have challenged this approach.

One of its most vocal critics, Rep. Richard Bolling (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Rules Committee, also testified at yesterday's hearing, which was called to assess the workings of the budget process. Testified Bolling:

"The exploitation of the reconciliation process, coupled with draconian Republican Party discipline, enabled the executive to unilaterally impose its will in near totality on the Congress with Gramm-Latta II . Superficially, this exercise may have resembled parliamentary government. Under our system, however, as the executive is not drawn from members of the legislature, it is a potent recipe for despotism."

The chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) and Rep. Jamie L. Whitten (D-Miss.), echoed Bolling's concerns. But Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the reconciliation process. Sen. William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.), chairman of Governmental Affairs, indicated he wanted to draft changes in the law