Ranking Member DeLauro Opening Remarks at House Appropriations Hearing on Automatic Continuing Resolutions
WASHINGTON –House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (CT-03) delivered the following remarks during a House Appropriations Committee hearing on automatic continuing resolutions.
Thank you very much, Chairman Cole. As always, I appreciate your friendship and our partnership on this Committee.
Let me just say a big thank you to our witnesses. And what a delight to have the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget Shalanda Young with us today. Thank you for your years of service. Thank you for your direction at OMB and thank you for your direction of this committee, where we have had the opportunity to work together. Senator Lankford, welcome to you this morning. And Congressman McClintock delighted that you’re here testifying before us today.
We are convened to hear from sponsors of legislation to change the government funding process to put in place permanent automatic continuing funding as a default position if annual appropriations have not yet been enacted. This fundamentally changes how the Congress funds our government. It replaces the current annual appropriations deadline with a standing default.
Continuing resolutions, often called “CRs”, are temporary extensions of funding that bring forward the prior year’s funding agreement, typically with few changes. They are imperfect tools even under the best of circumstances. They can be helpful when used sparingly, and can be important to facilitate full-year funding agreements. But they should not be our first choice. They should not be made automatic.
All of us here – at least at one point in our careers – have been charged under the constitution with protecting the primacy of Congress’s power of the purse. Nearly every President has endeavored to undermine that primacy, but rarely have we seen one go so far as the current administration.
President Trump and Budget Director Russ Vought have sought unprecedented control over federal spending, ignoring the Constitution and breaking the law in their efforts to take the power of the purse for themselves. It is their goal, I believe, to abolish the appropriations process entirely.
Those of you who know me know the depth of my faith in the appropriations process. I view it as the center of government – nearly all the government does is touched by appropriations.
This administration has wrought havoc upon our system. Through impoundments, rescissions, reconciliation, and reducing federal grants to partisan weapons. Ceding authority to this administration – and any future administration – would all but complete their mission. It would cement nearly complete control over government funding within the White House. Why would we voluntarily forfeit that authority? Why would we choose to diminish the role of this committee? This is our responsibility, laid out in the Constitution.
The Constitution is unambiguous. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
James Madison wrote, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance.”
Giving the president power over the sword and the purse would make him, in effect, a king. The decision to separate these powers was not accidental; it was a deliberate choice that is foundational to our system of government.
The Founders were wary of vesting too much power within any single branch of government. So they devised a system of checks and balances. The requirement that the president come to the Congress to ask for funding for their government was designed as a forceful check on their authority. Deferring to the executive through continuous, automatic funding, substantially weakens that check, and empowers the president. It takes power away from those elected to represent the needs of the American people.
Providing a permanent and unlimited grant of funding would surrender essentially all of Congress’s authority over government spending to the president – one individual making the decisions.
The president could veto any spending legislation they even mildly disapprove of, with little consequence. In fact, they would be rewarded with greater discretion over spending under the automatic funding measures proposed, creating a powerful incentive not to negotiate. Auto-CRs are permission never to finish the process at all.
There ought to be a reasonable push and pull between the branches of government. That is what the founders intended. A permanent government-wide appropriation for the President would stack the deck in favor of the Executive, against the Congress, weakening the branch of government closest and most accountable to the American people.
I also strongly believe that permanently funding the government would incentivize some in this Congress to harden their positions, and refuse to earnestly engage in the difficult but important work of bipartisan compromise.
And I emphasize: bipartisan compromise. Appropriations is the only piece of legislation where you need to have Democrats and Republicans, House and Senate, agree before it goes to the president for a signature. Otherwise, the government shuts down. Bipartisan compromise is what we need to have.
The strength of the appropriations process is that the House and the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, must work together. They need to forge that agreement. Forgoing that process would exclude the diversity of views represented in the Congress, in favor of the fiat of one individual: the president.
While the permanent continuing appropriation proposals before us would keep the government open on paper, in practice they would sacrifice many government functions.
From year to year, the funding needs of the federal government can change substantially. Perhaps there is a submarine base in serious, urgent need of repair. Or maybe an economic downturn has pushed more families into poverty, forcing them to rely on nutrition assistance to feed their families. Automatic funding would fail to account for these changes.
Additionally, the proposals do not account for community funding projects and congressionally directed spending that Members rely on to meet their constituents’ needs.
Instead of emphasizing the need for Members of Congress to engage with one another in that annual appropriations process, permanent funding would push Members to lobby the White House directly for aid to their communities, giving the Executive Branch still more power.
I am sympathetic to the goal of reducing government shutdowns. But the permanent funding proposals we will discuss here today would, in my opinion, create far more problems than they would solve.
I am eager to hear from our witnesses, and I thank you all again for taking the time to appear before us today. I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you and I yield back.
###