Fixing the congressional appropriations process

For almost a decade, the congressional appropriations process has run as smoothly as a contentious divorce.  Since 2009, only one of the twelve spending measures passed the Congress as a stand-alone-alone bill and was signed by the president.

Hope springs eternal, however. Every year lawmakers promise to get the dozen bills done following “regular order.”  Yet these aspirations quickly get stymied in a quagmire of floor politics and scheduling demands.

{mosads}Former Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) is often quoted as saying, “If I let you write the policy and you let me write the process, I will beat you every time.” (Dingell reportedly used a less family friendly word than “beat,” but I think you get the point).

But when it comes to getting annual funding bills done, the process is “beating” Congress every time.  Something has got to give.

The “process” is indeed the key culprit in this pattern of failure.  Yet it’s not the fault of the House and Senate Appropriations committees. These two panels are among the most well run, professional, competent and hardworking committees on Capitol Hill.  Most years, both Appropriations committees do yeoman’s work, passing most of their bills out of their respective panels in a timely manner. But that’s where things break down. Getting all these measures across the House and Senate floor has become the legislative equivalent of solving Fermat’s Last Theorem.

Moreover, it is the “process” that beats them every time.  Here’s why. Early legislative action is nearly impossible. Although the House and Senate convene in January, the outdated Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, mandates that unless the Congress agrees on a budget resolution first, lawmakers cannot even consider these spending measures until May 15. So the Appropriations Committee’s work is dependent on the successful resolution of a budget by the full Congress – another aspiration that doesn’t happen very often.

Second, the calendar and other congressional priorities conspire against the appropriators. In a less polarized environment, say twenty or thirty years ago, it may have been realistic for Congress to pass twelve stand-alone appropriations bills through the House and Senate, reconcile differences between the chambers, and send these measures to the president by Sept. 30. Yet, under the current congressional schedule, that aspiration seems either naively quaint or complete lunacy.

If the process starts in late May, and Congress maintains its current work schedule, including an August recess, it’s virtually impossible to complete work by Sept. 30 even if the House and Senate did nothing else. Tell that to those who want to repeal and replace ObamaCare, reform the tax code, pass infrastructure and raise the debt limit.

Finally, when the Appropriations bills do reach the floor, they are inundated with hundreds of amendments, many intended to tank the bill by forcing the majority to cast politically embarrassing votes.  Multiply by twelve separate measures in the House and the Senate and it’s clear that the regular order vehicle has careened into the ditch.

So here’s a modest fix. Why not check the regular order box at the committee level?  The Appropriations panels could do their work, craft twelve separate bills reflecting the committees’ spending priorities. Tell other rank-in-file members they have to go to the Appropriations Committee to add amendments.   Then roll them together into a multi-titled omnibus appropriations bill and pass it through both chambers before the August recess. Lawmakers could return in September and consider a conference report that reconciled the differences before the end of the fiscal year.

House and Senate leaders could reserve one week every summer to consider this omnibus appropriations measure. One full week of debate in the House and Senate, especially if members were encouraged to bring their priorities to the committees earlier in the process, is ample time.  Anything longer borders on dilatory.

Some lawmakers may say, “I don’t vote for omnibus appropriations bills.” That’s a weak excuse.  Every appropriations bill includes multiple chapters and funds different parts of the government.  And if lawmakers could bring amendments to the Committee and would also have a week to offer others on the floor, this new approach clearly passes the reasonableness test.

The appropriations process has gotten off track because the “process” no longer fits the new realities of the congressional schedule and an intensely partisan environment. The modest reforms suggested here represent a happy marriage between some regular order and today’s new realities. They would help restore an orderly and successful appropriations process.

Gary Andres was the Majority Staff Director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee from 2011-2017. He also worked in the Office of Legislative Affairs for Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. He is currently the Senior Executive Vice President for Public Affairs at the Biotechnology Innovation Association.  The view expressed are his own.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.