▶ 0:23:28Committee will come to order. I would ask the members to take their seats. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Without objection, members shall have five legislative days within which to revise and extend remarks, and to insert extraneous material into the record. I want to welcome everybody to today's full committee hearing, entitled funding lapses analyzing shutdown reform. While having all members in the room usually denotes a markup.
▶ 0:23:57I'm pleased to remind everyone that we reported out all 12 fiscal year 2027 bills before the end of june. It doesn't mean our work is complete, but it does create space for some needed conversations. We all know the adage the first step toward fixing a problem is admitting you have one.
▶ 0:24:16I'd say the two longest government shutdowns in american history, being instigated by senator chuck schumer and senate democrats within the last year, is a strong indication that the people of this great nation and this institution deserve better. I, for one, refuse to allow funding lapses to become an accepted norm in the appropriations process. The reasons are simple. Article one is not simply a talking point or a slogan. It's a constitutional duty.
▶ 0:24:46Article one is not merely a chamber tradition. It is an obligation the framers entrusted specifically to congress. And article one is not a process we can exercise only when it is politically convenient. It's a charge we must uphold. The power of the purse carries with it the mandate to fund the government in a timely, orderly and reliable manner.
▶ 0:25:08And while it is the duty of both republicans and democrats to advocate and debate specific levels of funding, priorities and oversight of federal programs, the tactic of plunging the country into a needless manufactured shutdown for the sake of partizan leverage betrays the responsibility we owe to the american people.
▶ 0:25:29There are a number of legislative ideas and approaches designed to prevent, or at least mitigate the consequences of future funding lapses. Today. And today, we have some of the opportunity to discuss some of those proposals. Notably, we're also doing this before the full committee, giving all our appropriators on both sides of the aisle a forum to examine these concepts in an open setting.
▶ 0:25:57I sincerely thank our witnesses for taking the time to be here. This is unprecedented for us to meet in this fashion. As a matter of fact, we can't find another meeting like this on record. Other than the zoom meeting we had for a member meeting, uh, I think years ago. So this is very unusual for us to assemble in this way. We're together a lot when we're marking up bills, but we don't normally do hearings. That's a subcommittee function. But we thought this one was enormously important and timely.
▶ 0:26:26I certainly appreciate my good friend and fellow oklahoman and former house member. So, you know, we've got somebody that understands how to do stuff over there. Uh, senator james lankford for making the trip across the capitol, along with representative tom mcclintock, my long time colleague. We worked together on the budget committee for many years, sat next to one another. We could never persuade anyone, uh, either one of anything. So. But good to have you here, tom.
▶ 0:26:53And former omb director shalanda young, extraordinary figure in this committee's history and knowledge. Expertise not only former chief clerk of this committee, but obviously omb director and fixture on capitol hill, expert in these things. So we really appreciate you making the time to be here. Thank you very much. Um, and we appreciate all of these excellent witnesses for, uh, their perspective.
▶ 0:27:19Before I give a quick reminder on decorum and proceedings for the hearing, I wanted to close with a reflection on this committee and the work we do. Nothing can replace the stability, certainty, and accountability that come from enacting full year appropriations. That's because article one isn't just a procedural exercise. It's the mechanism that ensures every member has a voice. Every bill has the opportunity to be debated, and every taxpayer can see how their government is funded.
▶ 0:27:48When congress abandons that system, decision making becomes more centralized. Rank and file members have less influence, and closed door negotiations tend to replace committee work. Those conditions make funding crises more likely and more difficult to resolve. So while we may have differing views on the reforms discussed today, I hope we can all agree on one fundamental principle. Government shutdowns are reckless and they are nothing.
▶ 0:28:17And they do nothing other than create chaos and uncertainty. There is never a circumstance where a shutdown is preferable to keeping the government open, and working americans deserve a congress that resolves its disagreements through deliberation, not disruption. Finally, as the committee rarely conducts full committee hearings, a brief note on our process for today. We will generally follow the same process we follow during our subcommittee hearing. Our witnesses will each make brief opening statements.
▶ 0:28:46Following opening statements, we will recognize members of the committee for five minutes for questions, alternating back and forth between the majority and minority, until all members who wish to ask questions have had the opportunity to do so during our full committee markups.
▶ 0:29:03I'm generous with the five minute rule today, though I must be somewhat less generous given both the large number of members present for this hearing, and given the fact that our witnesses are themselves very busy people who have generously agreed to appear before us today, I would ask each of us to confine ourselves to five minutes of questions. I want to again thank you for your cooperation. With that.
▶ 0:29:28I would now yield to ranking member delauro for five minutes for any comments she wishes to make. Speaker 2: 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. Um, and, uh, what a delight to have the former director of the office of management and budget shalanda young with us today. Thank you. Thank you for your years of service.
▶ 0:29:54Thank you for your direction of, of, uh, at omb and thank you for your direction of this, of this committee and where we've had the opportunity to work together. Senator lankford, welcome to you this morning. And congressman mcclintock, delighted that you're here on testifying before us today.
▶ 0:30:11Uh, we are convened to hear from sponsors of legislation to change the government funding process, to put in place permanent automatic continued funding as a default position. If annual appropriations have not been enacted, fundamentally changes how the congress funds our government.
▶ 0:30:36It 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 circumstances, they can be helpful when used sparingly and can be important to facilitate full year funding agreements.
▶ 0:31:06But 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.
▶ 0:31:34President 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, and I believe it is 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.
▶ 0:32:02Nearly all the government does is touched by appropriations. This administration has wrought havoc upon our system through empowerments, rescissions reconciliation and reducing federal grants to partizan weapons, ceding authority to this administration and any future administration would all but complete their mission.
▶ 0:32:24It would cement nearly complete control over government funding within the white house. Why? 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.
▶ 0:32:51Article one, section nine, clause seven states, and I quote, no money shall be drawn from the treasury. But in consequence of appropriations made by law, end quote. James madison wrote, and I quote, his 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
▶ 0:33:22Every grievance, end quote. Given 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 within any single branch of government. So they devised a system of checks and balances.
▶ 0:33:50The 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.
▶ 0:34:08It 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.
▶ 0:34:31In fact, they would be rewarded with greater discretion over spending under the automatic funding measures proposed creating a powerful incentive not to negotiate. Autocar's 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.
▶ 0:34:57The 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 the 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. The strength of the appropriations and I emphasize bipartisan compromise.
▶ 0:35:26Appropriations is the only piece of legislation where you need to have democrats and republicans. Republicans, house and senate agree before it goes to the president for his 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.
▶ 0:35:53Forgoing 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.
▶ 0:36:17Perhaps 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.
▶ 0:36:42Instead 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.
▶ 0:37:14I 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. I thank you and I yield back. Speaker 1: thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Uh, I want to welcome our three witnesses for today, each of whom will provide invaluable insights into these thorny questions. First, we have senator james lankford from my home state of oklahoma.
▶ 0:37:37Senator lankford is the author of the prevent government shutdown acts, one of the proposed pieces of legislation to address the recurring problem of government shutdowns that we will be examining today. Second, we have our colleague, representative tom mcclintock of california. Representative mcclintock is the author of h.r.
▶ 0:37:578380, a bill to amend the congressional budget and impoundment control act of 1974 to establish certain procedures for consideration of annual appropriations bills in the event of a funding lapse. Finally, also with us today is the honorable shalanda young. Miss young served as the 43rd director of the office of management and budget from 2021 to 2025.
▶ 0:38:23More importantly, she's a longtime staffer with the house appropriations committee, including service as the staff director and chief clerk of the committee. I want to thank all of you for joining us today. Also, just want to note, we extend an invitation to ron johnson, senator ron johnson, who very much wanted to be here to talk about his legislation. We all know the tragedy that has put him in a situation where he's probably not able to devote the time to this hearing, but we'd love to have his input at another time as well.
▶ 0:38:51He just could not make it today. Uh, I want to again thank you for joining us today. Your written statements will be made part of the hearing record, and you will each be recognized for five minutes to summarize your testimony. With that, senator lankford, you're recognized for five minutes. Speaker 3: chairman, thank you very much. Thanks for holding this hearing. This is an exceptionally important hearing, and there are a lot of members that are here that want to get a chance to be able to talk about this. So thank you for holding this hearing.
▶ 0:39:19Ranking member delauro, thank you for your comments. You'd be shocked to know that I agree with almost everything you just said, and want to be able to find a way to be able to resolve some of these differences. I really do appreciate the time to be able to have this dialog as we try to figure out what we're going to do about government shutdowns. This has been an ongoing issue for a very long time for us. This particular bill I've worked on since 2019, we've had multiple different versions for this, but we've got to be able to find some way to be able to end the perpetual cycle that we're in of government shutdowns.
▶ 0:39:49As we all know, when a shutdown occurs, members of congress still leave to go on codels, or we travel home to be with our families while federal workers and their families face real financial strain, it's not hard to be able to find different stories on this. We just did a quick search. Uh, sherry quick is a tsa agent in las vegas. During the last shutdown, she showed up to work every day and had no pay. She had to make decisions every week how to be able to put gas in her car, pay the electricity bill. She went more than 40 days without a paycheck.
▶ 0:40:17She didn't know how she was going to pay for her essential blood pressure medication. That happened because we didn't resolve our differences on time. That's both parties. That's happened over and over again. We all know it to be true. Federal workers and their families should not suffer when congress is not finished their appropriation work, but they do. Some of you in this room may even remember december 2018, that particular shutdown when we all left for christmas, and federal workers all got lumps of coal. It happens.
▶ 0:40:43So the question is, how do we actually solve this? And I say solve this together. I'm bringing you something unique today, a nonpartisan proposal. Seven years ago, I sat down with my democratic colleague, maggie hassan, from new hampshire to develop a plan to end government shutdowns in a nonpartisan way. As we worked alongside representatives arrington and panetta to get more input and ideas, we came up with a very simple idea.
▶ 0:41:10This bill has had multiple changes and a lot of input from both sides of the hill, from countless members and from staff. It received technical assistance from the office of management and budget under president biden. And then it's also received technical assistance from the office of management and budget under president trump. The bill does not solve every fiscal and budgetary problem that we need to address. It just solves one thing. It prevents a government shutdown.
▶ 0:41:33Very simply, if we get to the end of the fiscal year and appropriations are not complete, an automatic continuing resolution kicks in for two weeks. It self renews. But however, here's the here's the part that I think a lot of people miss. Members of congress and the white house office of management and budget have to remain in washington, D.C. we have no official travel budget, nor can we use our campaign travel budget to be able to leave.
▶ 0:41:59We're in session seven days a week, and we have to remain here working on one thing appropriations. The bill actually prevents us from moving to other topics until we finish the appropriation work. The goal is not an automatic cr. The goal is to finish appropriations, and if we haven't finished our constitutional responsibility of appropriations, we have to remain in session seven days a week until we finish appropriations work.
▶ 0:42:28Nothing is more motivating in this town than jet fumes. This is an opportunity that we have to be able to say the pressure will not be on members of the federal family that are working at tsa and other places. The pressure will be on us to be able to finish our work on time. And as my mom, the sunday school teacher and school teacher often said, if you don't finish your work during class, you have to stay after class until it's done.
▶ 0:42:57The proposal is just that simple. The bill has been endorsed by a growing list of think tanks, unions and associations across the political spectrum. As we put this idea out over the past several years, we've been very pleased that the number of groups that have stepped in and said that would work. That's actually an idea that could actually get accomplished. Let me just list a few of them to you. We've given you the full list of these, and, Mr.
▶ 0:43:22Chairman, I'd like to ask unanimous consent that the full record of the letters we've received so far be put in the record. Speaker 1: without objection. Speaker 3: thank you, Mr. chairman. Let me list just a few of them that have so far endorsed this idea. The america first policy institute, the american federation of government employees, americans for prosperity, americans for tax reform, the bipartisan policy center, the committee for responsible federal budget, the association of firefighters, the international brotherhood of teamsters, the iraq and afghanistan.
▶ 0:43:50Retired federal veterans of america. National active. Retired federal employees association, the united. United states. Steelworkers. The united states travel association. I can give you on and on and on and on. It's a very diverse group. It's not a group that's all on one side or the other. It's a diverse body that says, let's figure out a way to be able to solve this problem. A national poll was recently conducted on this simple idea, in 80% of the people liked this very simple idea.
▶ 0:44:20There's a lot of things we can talk about, and I really do look forward to the dialog here. But we feel like this is just a common sense, nonpartisan way to put us in a position to finish our work, to do appropriations, but to also protect the federal workers that desperately want a solution to this. With that, I yield back. Speaker 1: Mr. chairman, thank the gentleman for his testimony. We now move to representative mcclintock. Mr. mcclintock, you're recognized for five minutes. Speaker 4: well, thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you for cosponsoring hr 8380.
▶ 0:44:47And thank you for affording me the time to discuss it with your committee today. I believe the budget act of 1974 establishes a methodical, logical, and powerful process to bring spending in line with revenues. The. It just doesn't work very well. Uh, and I think the biggest problem is, of course, that it requires hard trade offs and decisions. And sorry, there's nothing we can do about that. Whatever process we use, the decisions aren't going to get any easier.
▶ 0:45:14Periodically, we hear calls for a new bipartisan debt commission. Of course, we already have a bipartisan debt commission. It's called congress. And congress does have a clear process. The budget act requires both houses to set limits on both discretionary and mandatory spending by april 15th each year, the discretionary limits.
▶ 0:45:37The 302 allocations go to this committee, which dutifully every year marks up 12 appropriation bills, and the house works over time to craft those bills. Meanwhile, the mandatory limits are supposed to be sent as instructions to the committees of jurisdiction to adjust statutes to adhere to those levels. With all of those changes dropped in the reconciliation bill. But here's the problem.
▶ 0:46:00The appropriation bills are subject to closure in the senate, which means the hard work of the house can simply be blocked by a minority of senators. The clock runs out, and congress is then faced with the hobson's choice of a government shutdown. Or, in desperation, we simply throw away the appropriations bills and vote a continuing resolution, which is the path of least resistance.
▶ 0:46:22This also wreaks havoc on the reconciliation process because reconciliation gets expedited consideration in the senate. It's often used, as it is right now, not to comprehensively address mandatory spending, but rather to address whatever shiny object or exigency that presents itself at the moment. That's how the house got wrapped around the axle on obamacare in 2017. It's how we passed the big beautiful bill last year.
▶ 0:46:50Now, I happen to think the baby was a remarkable accomplishment, addressing a variety of majority objectives through the reconciliation act. Unfortunately, it didn't address the one objective for which the process is designed a balanced budget, or at least a less imbalanced one. And of course, most recently, we used it to address the impasse over dhs funding and currently for defense funding and election reform. In my opinion, those are all worthy objectives.
▶ 0:47:19But once again, they're not the objective of the budget act. So this bill makes one simple change. It provides the same expedited consideration for appropriation bills in the senate that we already give the reconciliation bill. Now, this isn't a cure. All the fiscal decisions attended to the budget aren't going to get any easier. And since the senate and house are designed to disagree, it's still going to require intense negotiation between the two houses.
▶ 0:47:44But it would at least remove the blockage that often prevents that discussion from taking place. And it reduces the temptation to misuse reconciliation in order to bypass closure. So that's it in a nutshell, Mr. chairman, as the president would say in all caps, thank you for your attention to this matter. Speaker 1: I thank the gentleman very much for his testimony. Uh, we now turn to director young. You're recognized for five minutes. Speaker 5: Mr. chairman. Ranking member delauro. Thank you for having me.
▶ 0:48:13I thank I thank you all are my friends, but I somehow, from private life, find myself back here. But I'm back here because I love this committee and I love this process and the throughput you will hear in all three testimonies is what we currently have is unacceptable, but we have different ways to get there.
▶ 0:48:33Uh, and I hope this is the beginning of a conversation and that we continue to have conversations in various venues to try to find solutions to prevent shutdowns. Uh, I just have a different way. I believe I'd go about it than senator lankford. And, and congressman mcclintock, you probably didn't hear much, much disagreement about telling the senate what to do from the house. Uh, it tends to be a favorite pastime of of the house members and staff.
▶ 0:49:02So, uh, senator lankford can take that back to senator thune. Uh, but look, I was director of the office of management and budget. Before that, I was a staff director of this committee, two years in the minority, two years in the majority, uh, for the newer members on the committee. It's nice to get to meet you in this position, but if you talk to your colleagues who've been here a while, they'll tell you I'm funny. So please be nice.
▶ 0:49:27Uh, today, um, I opened my phone when I was writing my remarks and the headline pops up, what's wrong with congress? It claimed 9 in 10 americans say they're unhappy with congress. And obviously, shutdowns in the theater that come with them are play a big part in that perception. I would ever ask you to think of shutdowns as one of the many symptoms of what is broken. My child once had pneumonia.
▶ 0:49:55We took care of the fever. It made her comfortable, but if we didn't figure out what was causing the pneumonia, we would have continued in this loop. That's how I think about shutdowns. For too long, congressional dysfunction has been shrugged off as the norm. While congressional leadership uses workarounds as substitutes for the difficult work of legislating. Notice I didn't say a party. We reached this point because it's devolved over time.
▶ 0:50:24For example, using the reconciliation process to bypass the appropriations committee. I consider that a workaround. These tactics allow the institution to continue to limp along, deepening the dysfunction most americans now expect. If the goal is institutional restoration, reclaiming congress's spending authority is a logical starting point.
▶ 0:50:46Although this past year shutdowns might suggest appropriations are especially difficult, I think the opposite might be true because federal spending directly affects your constituents. It offers one of the clearest opportunities for legislators to find common ground and demonstrate responsiveness to the needs in their districts. As we think through potential solutions, we also must refrain from making matters worse. After all, more cameras and hearing rooms have resulted in a lot of theatrics.
▶ 0:51:18I'm sure today will be different a reflection of good intentions, but leading to awful outcomes. I view legislation creating automatic crs in that light, automatic chrt legislation is likely to empower bad actors looking to frustrate, compromise or hijack appropriations for their own legislative priorities, and will lead to worse, less responsive governing because of the need to reach compromise each year.
▶ 0:51:43Annual appropriations are a key way that congress ensures spending meets the evolving needs of the country. A minority in the senate or a president wielding their veto can more easily obstruct enacting appropriations bills without risking blame. Even efforts by congress to assert its power of the purse or rein in executive abuse through appropriations would require veto proof majority to overcome a resistant president.
▶ 0:52:07Ultimately, automatic crs would risk making it easier for the president to hold annual appropriations legislation hostage, whether by insisting on inclusion of his or her priorities, demanding the passage of unrelated legislation, or resisting the inclusion of bipartisan oversight in those bills. You know, sitting here, I think, about 2023, when I was omb director, went in on a saturday, september 30th, thought we were shutting down the government.
▶ 0:52:38Speaker mccarthy was speaker at the time, got there at 9:00, thought we'd do an orderly shutdown. And speaker mccarthy said, absolutely not. And put a hard bill on the floor and it passed. I'm not sure with a fail safe like automatic crs, that day would have happened, and I believe we would have shut down. And that was a tough vote and a tough thing for the speaker to do.
▶ 0:53:04And we didn't get all our priorities in that bill, including ukraine funding, which was incredibly important to our white house. But I believe the speaker did the right thing, even if I didn't know it that day. The breakdown of the appropriations process reflects broader institutional atrophy, not unlike the decline of the authorization process before it. Let's be real. All we have is n, d, a a, and that's so far. We'll see how the year goes.
▶ 0:53:30One potential reform is to expand the size and representation of congress's spending committees. In addition to considering membership structure, congressional staff also require significant expansion. As executive cooperation has declined, congress has lacked the staff capacity and resources to counterbalance that shift. There are also promising ideas on apportionment reform, changing the budget resolution schedule, so it's not an impediment to appropriations. I know Mr.
▶ 0:53:59Womack has, uh, legislation on on that front and frankly, providing more specificity in appropriations law and less reliance on reports that don't have the weight of law. Look, my recommendations, just like the others I've talked about today, are not a cure all. No process or structural change. Trump's political will. It never has. When I was omb director, there were no shutdowns. And it wasn't because we got everything we wanted. We chose.
▶ 0:54:29And many of you chose in this room to put the stability of the country over strongly held positions on both sides of the aisle. We have done it before. We can do it again. I look forward to your questions. Speaker 1: thank gentlelady for her remarks. Let me begin the questioning. Uh, I want to start first with you, senator lankford.
▶ 0:54:49Um, there's a lot in your bill that appeals to me, uh, particularly the fact that it puts the onus on congress and the punishment and the pain on us and not on the american people. Because seven days here with all of my colleagues, as much as I love each one, followed by another seven and another seven, would probably drive me to a solution as quickly as I can. But, uh, there's also other causes of delay in this deal.
▶ 0:55:18And I'll give you an example. We're supposed to get a presidential budget by february 15th. We do not. Now the first year of any presidency. I understand that they don't even have their own people in place by february 15th. But the second and third years, I don't find much excuse. We got it this year, april 1st, something like that, weeks late. We're also supposed to have, uh, a top line number from the congressional, uh, from the budget committee.
▶ 0:55:46Uh, I don't think we've gotten that in at least six congresses on either side. We're so divided. Uh, when speaker pelosi was speaker that democrats could not literally get a budget out of their own budget committee, let alone across the floor. And she had to deem a budget. So we've got other players in this that set us behind and make life very difficult.
▶ 0:56:10Is there anything in your legislation that would force them to get their stuff to us here, in a fashion that would actually give us the time to do our jobs? Speaker 3: there is not on that particular area. We tried to stay very, very narrowly focused on just working on preventing government shutdowns. I would be eager for us to reopen the 1974 budget act, and to be able to reexamine when the president's budget is delivered, what we actually operate with that, quite frankly, this is a totally different subject, but I'm a fan of having calendar year rather than fiscal year.
▶ 0:56:38We need to admit the obvious gravity that every year we're fighting this in october and november and december. This is now our 30th year that we don't have appropriations done on time. Um, for for. Speaker 1: sylvia garcia. Speaker 3: that's a different issue than what this is trying. Speaker 1: to know. It's an important issue. But I would point, I mean, this committee actually preceded this year. We did not wait on the president's budget. I wish we had it. Uh, but if they can't get it here on time, then it's going to become less relevant in consideration. We did not wait on the budget committee.
▶ 0:57:07I wish they had their deal. And I had very specific look, we have a great relationship. I'm not critical of the committee, but I told the chairman of the committee, if you can't pass it across the floor, I'm not writing 12 bills to a number that's out of committee, because if you can't pass it on the floor, I can't write 12 bills that'll pass the floor.
▶ 0:57:27Uh, and so, uh, you know, we've been flying on our own a little bit here and sort of backing into a top line, uh, doing what we can as we can and moving ahead. But that's not a good way to proceed. So that's something if you, any of you have additional thoughts on how we get the people that are supposed to do their job so that we can do our job to do it in time, because they always escape the blame. It falls on this committee, uh, gentlelady from, uh, well.
▶ 0:57:55Speaker 5: as a writer of four late budgets, you know, the excuse becomes chicken or egg. I remember having this exchange in the budget committee when I was presenting. Uh, congressman was like, you need to submit it on time. I go, well, you need to give me appropriations bills on time. We need to stop pointing the finger and probably get on time, uh, with each other and come to some agreement. But I will tell you, it's an example, though. I came from this committee, I had a predisposition to want this process to work.
▶ 0:58:22That is not, I believe, the norm for omb directors. So the fight internally to make sure you got what you needed fell squarely on the shoulders. I cared about timing. Not necessarily. Everyone else did. And so if you know this about what happens at omb and in white houses and how crises take, uh, you know, trump the basic work of budgeting and appropriations.
▶ 0:58:51That's what leads me to some of my concern about giving people more time and more access to workarounds. Um, as someone who fought to get you what you needed and get it in a more timely manner, everything else becomes a priority. Speaker 1: thank you very much. I don't have a lot of time left, but, uh. Robert onder mcclintock, I do have a question for you. And it really applies in a sense to to senator lankford's proposal as well.
▶ 0:59:17Article one, section five, clause two of the us constitution grants each chamber of commerce or congress the sole, quote, the sole and exclusive right to determine the rules of its proceedings. Given that, uh, how can we impose upon the senate or even ourselves or our colleagues through statute, uh, you know, you will proceed in this way.
▶ 0:59:40A lot of us have problems with, uh, filibuster, uh, on both sides. It just depends on who happens to be using it. Uh, but the really a lot of us do have those problems. But again, how would we constitutionally force the united states senate to do something? You're proposal envisions, which is, uh, you know, you can't have this artificial barrier here that that does foul up the process, no question. Speaker 4: yeah.
▶ 1:00:08Well, the answer is you, you you can't the senate has this annoying tendency to, uh, not see things our way. Uh, but this, this, uh, changes, uh, a statute that requires the consent of both houses and the president's approval of. So the senate does get a say in this. They get to either pass it, modify it, or, or reject it. Speaker 1: thank you very much.
▶ 1:00:33And I ran a little bit over I want to be mindful of the time of the committee and recognize my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. lord, for any questions she may have. Speaker 2: thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Thank you all for your testimony. I just might add that we cannot get cabinet secretaries today to come up and testify before the appropriations committee unless we threaten their appropriations. They don't feel the need to or the necessity to come before us and talk about their, uh, their proposals.
▶ 1:01:00Senator lankford, in 1986, the reagan administration wrote a letter to gao voicing opposition to auto cr proposals. Specifically, reagan's omb expressed concern that, quote, adoption of an automatic continuing resolution option could actually reduce the pressure on congress to make funding decisions in a timely manner. In other words, president reagan's white house felt that an auto cr would eliminate the pressing end of the year deadline that forces bipartisan compromise and action.
▶ 1:01:28Can you explain how your proposal would facilitate bipartisan compromise, when many of us think that it would likely facilitate more entrenched partizan disagreement? And director young, I'd love to have you respond to that as well. Speaker 3: that's great. Yeah. Thanks for the question. It's a great question, actually. Back during the reagan administration, shutdowns were a couple of hours, a couple of days. Uh, they weren't 47 days. They weren't extending out where they are now. So they're continuing to accelerate on it. This particular proposal puts the pressure on us, not on federal workers.
▶ 1:01:57Right now, the leverage to get our work done is tsa agents not getting paid, air traffic control, not getting paid, federal law enforcement not getting paid. Those families are the leverage for us to do our work. Those families have nothing to do with our inability to be able to get things finished up. I want to put the leverage on us, not on federal workers and their families. And the best way to do that is basically to force us to stay in the room until we're finishing negotiating. If I can say it this way, I go back to my mom again.
▶ 1:02:27All my best advice ever came from my mom on it. Uh, when my brother and I would have an argument in the living room, she would make both of us leave and go to one of our rooms and say, if you guys are going to fight, go over there and fight. Don't disturb the rest of the family. When you're done, then you can come back in here. That's basically puts all of us, house and senate republicans and democrats to say, you can't do anything but appropriations, and you're going to stay there until appropriations is done. When appropriations is done, then you can go home or move to other subjects.
▶ 1:02:55But until you do appropriations, you can't leave or switch other things. I think that puts the pressure where it needs to be on us to get appropriations done. Speaker 2: well, it took us took 79 days, uh, in the last go around. And for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to make a determination when there was a proposal on the floor to say, uh, let us fund tsa, fema, coast guard, uh, cisa, uh, etc.
▶ 1:03:19But let's hold because of the difficulties with ice and border patrol 79 days, and they finally, on the other side of the aisle said, okay, we can go there. Those months because of politics and political will, which the director speaks about, caused those families to suffer. While we played around here, uh, with their lives.
▶ 1:03:41Um, let me ask you, a director young, uh, to respond to that same question of how does this how does this proposal of a, of an auto cr, uh, facilitate bipartisan compromise? I'd just love to get your views on this. Speaker 5: so I think if you listen to senator lankford, I think the forcing mechanism is you have to stay due. The problem is I've kind of seen it all. I was omb director. I didn't really travel. I viewed it as more of a central dc.
▶ 1:04:10The cabinet secretaries went out, cut ribbons, these things. I did a little of that, but I was mostly in dc. So if omb operates the way I viewed the job, the restriction on travel wouldn't really impact omb for members and senators. Obviously it has more of an impact. But, you know, and I've known if no bills coming to the floor 2 or 3 days, you stop seeing members around.
▶ 1:04:37If you have a child's birthday party, you don't find a way to get home after you check in with leadership. So just trying to think through how we've seen these things work during a shutdown, there is an expectation that members stay around. We start losing people because life happens. And if nothing's going to be on the floor, why would you miss a kid's birthday or a wedding or any other event? So I think there are limitations to this.
▶ 1:05:04Uh, so I don't think there's an additional mechanism here, uh, to, to promote bipartisanship. And you heard me before talking about the scenario in 2023. Uh, I have my doubts of whether that would have come along, which prevented a shutdown if there was a failsafe, uh, that would have allowed the government to continue to operate. Speaker 2: I have very few seconds left, and maybe we can, we can pick this up offline as well. In your testimony, director young, you say, uh, you mentioned promising ideas of a portion reform.
▶ 1:05:34Um, uh, and, uh, you know, are there areas you think require greater specificity, specificity? Are you making a broader suggestion on how we can take a look at apportionment? Speaker 5: Mr. chairman, I'll be quick here. I know we're out of time. I think this is incredibly important. Apportionment is yours. You gave it to omb.
▶ 1:05:57What you also told me as director of omb is you wanted you were sick of apportionments being hidden, and you wanted us to put them online. Speaker 2: right. Speaker 5: and we did it at your bipartisan direction. But I think when you think about apportionment reform, I hope as things come through congress, you think of that as something that does not belong to any executive branch. It belongs to you. As you think through reform, you don't have to allow omb portion at all.
▶ 1:06:26It used to be appropriations to agencies, and that's it. That's hard because agencies have gotten so big and complicated. Omb served a role. But if omb is not doing the job you wanted to do, whether it be mine or this one, it belongs to you and you can take it. They are not exercising that authority in the way that congress wants it to. So that's how I think.
▶ 1:06:51And also appropriations this committee has always relied on on funding reports. So the statutes aren't very long. So you encourage you direct, you urge. If that's not being listened to more, those things need to go into statute rather than the suggested report language. Um, and that that's that's my suggestion. Speaker 2: thank you very much. And I thank you, Mr. chairman. Speaker 1: thank you very much.
▶ 1:07:21Uh, my friend, um, we next go to chairman aderholt. But before you're recognized, it is your birthday. And so the tradition, newly established tradition, the boehner birthday song will be rendered. This is your birthday song. It doesn't last too long. Hey, the gentleman's now recognized. Thank you. Speaker 6: Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:07:44I, I, I would say that I'm usually not an appropriation committee meetings on my birthday, but looking back, I usually am, uh, in appropriation meetings on my birthday. So, uh, but I will say this is the first time I've been in a full committee hearing on my birthday. So this is, uh, a little bit different day, but it's great to have, uh, senator lankford, a congressman mcclintock, former director of omb, uh, uh, shalanda young, uh, good to have all of y'all here today.
▶ 1:08:10And for your testimony and your thoughts on this issue, I know this is an issue that every one of us, uh, have dealt with, uh, whether you've been here, uh oh, and one term or whether you've been here many, many terms. Uh, let me, uh, address the first issue or first question to congressman mcclintock. Um, of course you're an authorizer. And, um, here we are as on on the appropriation side here on this in this committee.
▶ 1:08:37Uh, how do you see the relationship between, uh, authorizing and appropriations in the process? And as far as, um, you know, do you, do you think there needs to be greater alignment, uh, between authorized and appropriators? And, um, what do you feel like could be changed to make that more, uh, easy to try to maybe avoid a shutdown?
▶ 1:09:03Speaker 4: well, of course, I've always been very critical of the tendency of the house to continue to fund programs that are unauthorized. Uh, our house rules allow a point of order, but those rules are always waived in the rule that brings the appropriation bills to the house. I mean, unauthorized appropriations are a big problem. Um, and it's not the fault of this committee.
▶ 1:09:26It's the fault of authorizing committees that simply fail to look at the programs within their jurisdictions to determine which ones are efficient, which ones have become inefficient, which ones have become superannuated and need to be abolished. But within the budget process itself, there's a very sharp distinction. The appropriations committee of controls, the discretionary spending. The authorizing committees are supposed to control the mandatory spending.
▶ 1:09:55That's the reconciliation process. Uh, and that's the process that's really gotten fouled up. But one of the problems that we face on both sides, discretionary and mandatory, is, again, that impediment in the senate that allows a minority, if it wishes, simply to block consideration of, of the appropriations bills that are sent over. That obviously thwarts the appropriations process.
▶ 1:10:20But again, it also puts pressure on the reconciliation process to be used, not for comprehensive reform of our mandatory spending, but rather to chase whatever shiny object we can't get through the senate. Uh, so I think that that this reform, again, it's not a cure all. It's not a substitute for political will, but it does remove one of the impediments, uh, that I think is keeping this process from, from working. Speaker 6: thank you, senator lankford.
▶ 1:10:48Um, of course, you've had the privilege of to serve in both chambers in the house and the senate. Um, how do you see the dynamics? You know, of course, senator. Uh, I mean, congressman mcclintock just mentioned about the, the issue with, uh, the, the, uh, um, a minority being able to keep an appropriation bill from coming to the floor.
▶ 1:11:09But how do you see the shutdown shutdown dynamics play out differently from your perspective in the house and now being in the senate? Speaker 3: I think I was in the house six hours as a member when I heard for the first time, the other party is the opposition. The senate is the enemy. Yep. Um, so that that has not changed over the years, uh, in the process back and forth. And I, and I get that dynamic. The two bodies do function very, very differently.
▶ 1:11:40As representative delauro had mentioned before, appropriations is always bipartisan, always, uh, when you go through the process on that. And that is true in the senate as well. The senate requires both sides to have to sit down and talk like grown ups and figure out our differences and to be able to solve those, uh, to be able to have to be able to remove the requirement to have 60 on appropriations, uh, which is the gist of this proposal on this would pull away that requirement that we have bipartisan conversation, uh, in
▶ 1:12:11Theis particular structure, one of the things the senators hate the most, and that's the vote a rama. Uh, the house has the convenience of when you do a reconciliation bill of voting it, sending it over to the senate, the senate rules require a vote, a rama. That is an unlimited amendment exercise where we're often in continuous voting for sometimes as short as eight hours, most often 20 to 20 5 to 30 hours, continuous one amendment after another and unlimited subjects.
▶ 1:12:38Uh, you won't find very many senators that want to do another one of those, uh, because they're painful, long political exercises that don't accomplish anything. This particular proposal would add yet another set of voters into the senate rules, and that would be tough to get senators actually vote for. We're trying to get rid of that, not add another one. Speaker 6: thank you. I think my time is up, so I'll yield back. Speaker 1: thank you. Gentlemen. Gentleman from maryland. Mr. juarez recognized for questions. Speaker 7: thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:13:07First, let me say I think we have two thoughtful members of the congress of the united states presenting these proposals. Senator lankford has, uh, represented that in the house and now represents in the senate. And as I've told Mr. mcclintock, I always enjoy hearing him speak because I think he speaks, uh, truth and with good analysis. However, I agree I disagree with both of you strongly. But, Mr.
▶ 1:13:35Mcclintock, congressman mccullough, you just said what I think is the real issue. And you said that no legislation or rule can replace political will. Correct. Uh, let me speak just a little bit about political will. Um. Ronald reagan, as jim lankford just pointed out, was president for eight years. Bush was president for four. Thereafter, we had 12 years.
▶ 1:14:02We essentially had eight days of shutdown or 12, uh, days, uh, eight years of reagan, one and a half day average shutdown. Why? Because the political will of the president and the political will of the congress was to reach agreement that does not now exist.
▶ 1:14:26The director of omb has made it clear we want their funding to be shut down. That's a quote of Mr. boats. Uh, Mr. trump said we had two shutdowns. Excuse me. This was Mr. gingrich, two shutdowns in 1995 and became the first reelected gop majority since 1928. Speaker gingrich pointing out that that was a successful effort. Mr.
▶ 1:14:59Mccarthy said, nobody wins in a government shutdown. Nobody wins in a government shutdown. I've been here. He said that on september 14th, 2023, he believes partially he was removed for facilitating agreement between the two parties rather than a partizan shutdown and confrontation.
▶ 1:15:19Uh, I believe these proposals, uh, do exactly the opposite of what we need to do in the sense I think they weaken greatly the congress and strengthen even more than has happened to date. The presidency, making the executive extraordinarily powerful and the congress much weaker.
▶ 1:15:42Essentially, it makes the appropriations committee irrelevant and powerless to carry out the founders intent to give paramount and exclusive, exclusive authority to the congress for the spending of taxpayer money. And furthermore, I think that shutting the government down has been a tool of political choice. By many republican leaders, including newt gingrich, donald trump and many others, including vote.
▶ 1:16:12And it is a tool which has been employed by democrats as well. So no one has clean hands, if you will, on this issue. Uh, but let me refer to the, uh, director of omb, uh, director young, when congress provides only broad, outdated funding through crs, who makes the operational decisions about what is delayed, reduced, or prioritized.
▶ 1:16:44Speaker 5: that is typically some combination of the agencies and the office of management and budget, and probably some insight from the white house, if it is consequential enough. Speaker 7: so, in fact, what a shutdown does by the failure of the political will, of which congressman mcclintock talked about, uh, it enhances greatly the authority and ability of the president of the united states and through omb and through his agencies to set
▶ 1:17:15Policies for those agencies. Speaker 5: yes. During the shutdown, each agency has to tell the american people what is open, what is closed. And as we all know, that is different even within the same administration. One one year, it could be this is and it was politically tough. And they changed their shutdown plans to something else. Uh, so there is a lot of latitude, uh, for the president to make those decisions. Speaker 7: let me say to senator lankford, I represent approximately 77,000 federal employees.
▶ 1:17:44I feel their pain, I know their pain. And obviously, uh, that pain visited on not only government employees, but on others as well, is reflected in how many people are looking for a solution. But I really say that as we did under ronald reagan, I was here all eight years.
▶ 1:18:06He was president and george bush, uh, we really shut down the government under joe biden with the republican congress. Uh, we didn't shut down the government at all, not once, because we reached agreement and political will. I suggest again, congressman, is in fact the answer, not weakening the congress of the united states, not saying somebody else will get government going.
▶ 1:18:33Uh, the incentive for the administration to undermine agreement is heightened by, I think, these proposals, although I would like to see the senate. I'm one of those that thinks the senate needs to reform itself so that it can do its business. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Speaker 1: thank you. Thank the gentleman, the gentleman from idaho. Mr. simpson's recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank you all for being here.
▶ 1:19:03Uh, I actually like all of this discussion of what's going on. Uh, Mr. mcclintock, I'm not, uh, I'm not speaker 8: not optimistic the senate would listen to us. But I agree with what you're trying to do. Uh, the filibuster rule has been changing forever. It was originally two thirds vote. They dropped it to 60 because two thirds was too hard.
▶ 1:19:25And then they decided, well, we shouldn't do it for judges or confirmation, so we'll drop it to 50 for for, uh, those positions. The appropriations process and appropriations bills are something that the federal government has a constitutional responsibility to do. And I think we have a constitutional responsibility to do it. Senate how to do it with simple majority. If they want to change their vote, a rama rules.
▶ 1:19:51I don't even know what those are, but they could change those too, if that became a problem. But I'm not optimistic that they will listen to us. So, you know, I talked to my two senators and they don't like the idea. So anyway, but I, I. Speaker 4: a helpful suggestion. Speaker 8: it will be a helpful suggestion. I agree with that. And, uh, senator, I agree with your proposal. I like parts of it. I think it's a good idea that it puts the responsibility back on us to do this.
▶ 1:20:19Uh, but if you listen to everybody in this room, I, almost everybody in this room would say they're opposed to shutdowns. They don't want government shutdowns. We want to make sure that that doesn't happen. And yet they continue to happen. And they're getting worse and worse and worse. And when you get narrower and narrower majorities, they're going to become more frequent because all of a sudden, any individual can become a king.
▶ 1:20:45If I don't get something that has absolutely nothing to do with funding over in this bill, I'm not going to vote for this. And we've all seen that happen. Happens every day around here. Uh, that's a problem. But we even had shutdowns when we had some of our largest majorities. And that that is a problem. And I noticed that rosa mentioned, uh, the shutdown where they proposed funding everything except ice. And we didn't go along with that until the very last.
▶ 1:21:14It was because I don't think you can pick and choose. I don't think that's right. And ultimately, how did that work out for you? We got ice funded for two years, which I disagree with, because all of a sudden we don't have the ability to change and have oversight hearings of what the funding is for the next couple of years. I think that was the wrong thing to do, but we were kind of at odds of not being able to do anything else. And that's that's a real problem.
▶ 1:21:43But I do want to compliment tom and ranking member delauro and actually susan and patty over in the senate, senators collins and murray, they have been working on trying to get us back to what's called regular order, what we all refer to as regular order. I think one of the biggest problems that's driving this is we haven't followed the budget act 74. We need a budget resolution.
▶ 1:22:12We need to know what the 302 a is. They are hard to do. I listened to a speaker, uh, from one of our institutes here saying, most members of congress don't even know what a budget resolution is. I've never voted for a budget resolution. When I was a freshman, I came back early from my dad's funeral to vote for a budget resolution. That's how important they were. And then all of a sudden, they became too hard to pass.
▶ 1:22:40So we stopped trying and we started deeming numbers. And the house deems a different number than the senate deems. So consequently, how do you conference a bill if you don't have the same numbers and you don't have the same numbers until the four corners or leadership gets together and decides what that is? But if senator murkowski is marking up her interior bill to 40 billion, and I'm marking it up to 38 billion, how do you conference that? You can't. We need to get back to regular order.
▶ 1:23:07And I will tell you, we have been moving in that direction. I think I chairman cole has emphasized that, and we've been trying to get back to having a budget resolution, but it includes other committees. And you talk about the authorizing committees and things that go in our bill that are authorized. I don't put anything in my bill that hasn't been approved by the chairman of the authorizing committees. I have to get their approval to put it in, or they can object to it on the floor. Now, is that right or wrong?
▶ 1:23:34I will tell you, one year I, I brought a bill down that defunded all the endangered species act and critical habitat, and people thought I was crazy. The reason I did it, I was trying to make a point. The endangered species act had not been reauthorized for 23 years. At that time. It still hasn't. The authorizing committee need to get busy, get busy, and do their job with the reauthorization of some of these things. And, uh, and that's a challenge we all have.
▶ 1:24:06But, uh, I will tell you, it is, uh. Too many people in congress, frankly, have forgotten what the word compromise is. We work with compromise in this committee. Our subcommittee, chellie pingree and I sit, as do all the ranking members and chairman sit and work on a compromise, trying to solve that. We have disagreements on what the 302 b is.
▶ 1:24:32Sometimes they'd like to spend more, sometimes we'd like to spend less. So we have disagreements on that. But within the bill, how we spend the money, we compromise. Too many people are up, don't understand what compromise is. That's what this place operates on or should. So anyway, I appreciate you all being here. It's good to see you again. And, uh, I look forward to working with you. There is no one gentleman from georgia, Mr. bishop, is recognized for questions. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:25:02Um, um, welcome to all of our witnesses. Miss young. Thank you for coming before the committee today. Uh, your many years of experience working as professional committee staff with appropriators on both sides of the aisle, as well as your commendable service at omb. As is invaluable to this discussion.
▶ 1:25:19Um, in your view, what is the role of the president in legislating government funding and do the legislative proposals that are before us today, uh, put forward, uh, do they discourage the president's participation, uh, just slightly differently? Do these proposals promote a more functional political system that encourages accountability of congress and of the president to the public and to Mr. langford?
▶ 1:25:49Uh, related to my question, to Mr. young, while your legislation goes into quite some detail on the restrictions on members of congress and congressional procedures during a lapse, uh, it is completely silent on the president. Yet the president has an immense role in negotiation of appropriations legislation and has many tools to hinder the process. Why does your legislation provide no carrots or sticks? To encourage the president's participation in the appropriations process?
▶ 1:26:19In fact, the 2018 shutdown happened because president trump refused to work with the house and senate of his own party. Uh. After Mr. langford's response. Miss young, I'd like for you to let me know your thoughts on seating congress's role in appropriations without providing any mechanism of accountability for the executive branch. Speaker 5: I'll go first.
▶ 1:26:44Um, so to, to combine kind of what you and, and congressman simpson talked about, look, there are lots of things that come through white house that are difficult. White house's like, operate in six hours sprints a day when you have something complicated, like the appropriations process in the budget. I've seen it firsthand. It is difficult.
▶ 1:27:09It requires intense engagement to get, uh, all 12 bills done. And sometimes it does not matter the party, it would be easier to find an off ramp. So I look at all these proposals. Um, we, I don't want to provide any more off ramps for people not to do the hard work. That's how I look at all of it.
▶ 1:27:32I don't want the same thing, this authorization process, uh, that chairman simpson talk about to happen to this committee. And we all know we can say it. We all know once you stop doing something and you give people an out, it does not stop. Once you say you don't have to vote on this amendment and forget open rules and this and that, it doesn't go back.
▶ 1:27:56So I we've seen this tale and my fear is presidents white house, omb of the thousands of things they have going on, this becomes a distraction. And if you give them an easy way to deal with it, and I'll put congressional leadership in that box, that is the path they will take. That is how I look at the lens of all recommendations that come up. You know, a worthy aim to prevent shutdowns.
▶ 1:28:25I want people to do more work, more rooms together, more code l so we know each other and have relationships and can find can find compromise. I want more, not less interaction. Speaker 1: senator lankford. Speaker 3: yes, great question, by the way, on it, if I can just clarify just a couple of things on this, I don't want this proposal to be misunderstood. This is not the government on autopilot. This is us sitting every day at our desk having to work.
▶ 1:28:54It puts takes the pressure off of federal workers and their families and puts the pressure where it should be on us right now, the pressures on federal workers and their families. And we leave and go home and go to birthday parties and go to other things. And and so I think this is being misunderstood. This is not just autopilot. This is pushing us towards appropriation on the one change is the pressure point is on us rather than on them. That's why the american federation of government employees union. Speaker 1: what about the pressure on the president? What about the executive president?
▶ 1:29:24Speaker 3: the president is this is actually long discussed in it that we've done in a bipartisan way, and it's been several versions of this is that members of congress, our staff. We can't travel, official travel, whatever it may be, omb, their staff doesn't travel. Now, omb doesn't travel much on it. But we looked at who are the budget negotiators that are there. But we did not put a limitation on the president of the united states. That is a different role. Speaker 1: that means if he's not interested in pushing it, or his budget director doesn't want to get it done, they can just sit on it and do nothing.
▶ 1:29:52Speaker 3: well, I would only disagree in the sense that whoever the political party is of the president, if we're all sitting here looking at each other for a week, we will find a way to be able to press the president and to be able to say, the people that support you are stuck in this spot. We've got to be able to find a way to be able to work together. Speaker 1: Mr. chairman, may I have 30s for Mr. young to respond to? Speaker 9: that gentleman is recognized for 30s. Thank you. Speaker 5: I've done lots of these negotiations. Members, when they're sitting around waiting to see if the the smoke from the chimney comes.
▶ 1:30:21When I was omb, I was on the phone with ken calvert. I was on the phone with like every one of you who sit in rooms, most members aren't in those rooms. And what happens is they're waiting just like the american people are waiting. Uh, so I think in practicality, most members are not going to sit. We don't sit on the floor and have these negotiations. We have these conversations, negotiations about subcommittees, congressional leadership.
▶ 1:30:48You know, if the president is engaged at the white house, my you know, I get the point. But the way they have tended to operate is the majority of the members aren't beholden to this process. Like the members of this committee are in omb. So if you're sitting around for five days, you don't see the pope smoke. You. Are you really going to miss a family event like you're you're not engaged in any meaningful way and probably have other things that this isn't going to stop you from participating in. That's my that's my worry.
▶ 1:31:19Speaker 3: right now. It's tsa agents waiting for the pope smoke rather than us. And I'm trying to take that away from them. Speaker 9: gentleman yields back. Well, reclaiming the committee's time. Uh, we will now go to gentleman from texas, Mr. carter, for any questions you may have.
▶ 1:31:53Speaker 10: I live with this guy. Uh, I think we can all agree that congress has a basic duty to fund the government. That's why we're here. And we've got a problem. That is, that didn't start anywhere but at the courthouse, in your in your hometown. That's where it started.
▶ 1:32:19When I was a judge for 20 years before I got here, I had to call immigration a dozen times and say, my jail's full. I don't have any place to put my prisoners. I'm not going to pay for it. Send your people over here and get your people out of my jail. And I came in there and I got him out. Well, that was immigration. That's what they were called when.
▶ 1:32:48So the idea that the counties should decide, well, we're not we're not going to, uh, allow anybody to take anybody out of here. It's totally contrary to the way it operated for 20 years. And I was on the bench. We we had they were lazy. Get them out now. They don't get any help at all getting them out. So there's where this problem starts.
▶ 1:33:17And that's breaking the law. And after that, everywhere we go, somebody is slightly breaking the law again. And we're here now talking about funding this and coming up with it. I served fort hood, I represented fort hood. I'm proud to serve fort hood. Fort hood has around 15,000 civilian employees.
▶ 1:33:45The federal contractors who work for them are some of the hardest working people we got anywhere in our county. Could you explain how your legislation would protect the government contracts of these governors in these government shutdowns? What's happening to those people first? That's my first question.
▶ 1:34:10Speaker 3: so it this proposal actually uniquely does that because it provides the funding for the programing as well as the pay. And as we know, we we just had a time where we determined we were going to pay employees. Uh, but we weren't going to pay contractors and we weren't going to pay programing. Uh, we had a situation where literally in the coast guard, for instance, the coast guard, the coast guard, coasties, they were actually paid, but they couldn't take their ships out because they didn't have gas, because that was a contractor that provided the gas for it.
▶ 1:34:39Uh, they were getting their utilities cut off at some of their stations because they were getting paid, but they weren't actually getting any the contractor pay that was actually going to it for programing. So what I've tried to do here is to say the functioning of government continues. We ought to stay here and it is required in this. We have a quorum call every day that we cannot go into recess for more than 23 hours. So it requires everybody to be here.
▶ 1:35:05And I know folks want to be a birthday parties, but they literally have to tell their constituents, I left the work that that is not required. Now. Now, if you head home for a birthday party, that's not a violation of what we're doing. This actually changes it. It also takes away all official funding and campaign funding for travel and puts a quorum call here. So it puts us here at work where we should be to resolve our differences until appropriations is done.
▶ 1:35:27But it holds the programs, the contractors and the federal family, the workers that are out there holds them harmless because they can't do anything about us not resolving things. Only we can. So the pressure goes on us. Speaker 10: well, I'm hoping. Anybody else want to talk about what their proposal does to protect the contractors?
▶ 1:35:51Speaker 4: well, to your point, the continuing resolution introduces a great deal of indecision in in, uh, contractors relationships to the federal government. How do we get to these continuing resolutions? Because the good work of this committee goes over to the senate, and then it just sits there. Now, they're supposed to to amend it to their liking and send it back to us. But if it can be blocked for lack of closure, you can't have that discussion. And then we again have the hobson's choice.
▶ 1:36:16We either accept a shutdown with all of its devastating impact on the government, or we go to a continuing resolution and the contractors go from from continuing resolution to continuing resolution, not knowing what is next. Speaker 10: that's not good, ma'am. You got a suggestion? Speaker 5: yeah. Well, I, I don't have legislation, but commenting on it, I would say, senator langford, as we've said here, there's nothing to prevent us from thinking about ideas to require.
▶ 1:36:43If the idea is to keep members and omb and the administration engaged, let's start that september 15th of every year, rather than a new process to take the pressure off. If the idea is to make sure people don't leave, I don't know why we leave september 10th through 15th for random house. You see what I'm saying? There are ways, without taking pressure off. If the idea is to insist that people show up every day, let's do that.
▶ 1:37:11September 1st through september 30th. And this idea that we're arguing between automatic crs and crs, this committee knows that crs are bad regardless. Um, so I also don't want us to leave this room thinking that is the choice either. We want regular full year bills done because whether it's automatic or whether it's a cr, we have never found those.
▶ 1:37:35The way to the way to operate government because fort hood told us about their funding needs almost two years ago in order to be in the budget process to keep that in place through cr to cr is also not showing up for fort hood. Speaker 10: amen. Thank you. Speaker 9: chair would ask the members do their best to the conversations. Good. But we got a lot of people here that have questions.
▶ 1:38:04I'd just ask that we try to stick within the five minutes. Gentlelady from minnesota, Mr. collins recognized for questions. Speaker 11: thank you, Mr. chair, and I want to thank you and the ranking member for making this happen. Um, it gives me great solace to be able to go home and tell my constituents we care about the constitution, we care about our duties here in congress, and we know we need to get our job done on time. It's clear we all know continuing resolutions are not the way to fund government.
▶ 1:38:34And I want to talk about some of the people that we we talk about our constituents a lot, but our constituents also live in local communities, local governments, our communities at large hospitals, schools, transportation dollars, they're all impacted. We make a mess. Having served on local and state government and and even county government, which I didn't serve in. We take their budgets and we put them in total chaos.
▶ 1:39:02And so sometimes we fail to think of the the partners that we have in making this democracy work. I want to just take a second to talk about, um, you know, trump and omb, they used, in my opinion, and I can back it up the full year. Cr is an opportunity literally to break appropriations law.
▶ 1:39:25Um, the impoundment of funds was rampant in agencies that were established by congress, like the department of education, us aid. They were just torn apart in the shutdown. Um, and this is, in my opinion, was completely unconstitutional. We didn't stand up for the constitution. We didn't do our article one responsibilities because article one does give congress, not the administration, the power of the purse.
▶ 1:39:51So let me just take this down a little bit of a notch here and talk about my subcommittee that I'm proud to serve on with chairman calvert, and how this is bad for the department of defense. Um, when we do a full year cr appropriations bill is being kind of, you know, or even going into december. Um, it throws away the work that we do.
▶ 1:40:18Bipartisanly to work carefully to respond to the, all the, the, the specific activities that the department of defense covers. So let's think about what that includes. It includes dual use technologies for small businesses like advanced manufacturing, microelectronics, cybersecurity, life saving medical treatments that impacts the lives of our service members, and benefits of civilian health care sector. And when a cr happens, none of this happens under a cr.
▶ 1:40:47We can't stop spending in areas where no longer is needed, like old legacy platforms that should be retired. We fail to, at the same time to invest in critical needs that we have to work on. Um, so russia and china don't operate on continuing resolutions. I don't agree with the president's decision of what he did in iran, but we're at war, and now we're talking about a cr.
▶ 1:41:16They're bad for the department of defense. They're bad for the united states of america. So president trump didn't have any problems endorsing a full year continuing resolution for 2025 for the entire federal government.
▶ 1:41:33And with the discussions that I'm seeing taking place, or the lack of communication from the department of defense to this committee, when we request important things in order to plan our budgets, I have to wonder how engaged the administration really is in helping us put pressure. As you talk about Mr. langford, for all of us to get together, sit down and do the job. Bottom line, it's a complete disaster for the taxpayer.
▶ 1:41:59And, um, you know, with without this, I want to reiterate it again. Money doesn't move on time to to businesses. Contracts are late costing the taxpayer more money. We lose an entire fiscal year. So. I'm going to ask you a question, miss yang. Um, because the bottom line is we're cycle after cycle after cycle of this.
▶ 1:42:26So if we really went back and looked at the inefficiencies, the wasted money from all of these crs, I think the taxpayers would be enraged. But we don't do an accumulation. We don't run a clock on that. So your experience, director yang, on continuing resolutions, could you give us our thoughts on some of the impacts that it not only has on the employees that are getting paid, but the long term impacts of the inefficiency and the waste of tax dollars? That happens.
▶ 1:42:55And I use the department of defense as an example. But you can use whatever you want. Speaker 5: sure. You can look at any drafted cr that's been passed, you care provision that rightfully says agencies can't make big decisions until full year bills are done. So if that's six months later, the army navy can't go into long term procurements on new, uh, on new things. Most of your state and locals won't get their funding or any other large grant.
▶ 1:43:23Because if agencies, if omb allowed that, it basically pre presumed where you would land in the final bill. So I'm not suggesting you take that out because you don't want us dictating the final legislation.
▶ 1:43:39But if we can't make big long term investments, including grant programs that most state and locals just depend on from year to year, uh, is incredibly impactful to, to local units of government who can't make those long term decisions if they're waiting on a epa, um, state revolving fund loan or the army or navy who are looking to make a large scale acquisition, we we all know crs, whether it be the new proposal or the current way of
▶ 1:44:10Business, uh, prevents the government from operating in an efficient way. A private, private business would never do that. Speaker 11: thank you, Mr. chair. Thank you, miss johnson. Speaker 9: thank the gentlelady. I would ask members to try not to pose questions the last 10s of your time. That puts a witness in a very difficult spot. So with that gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, recognize your question? Speaker 12: well, thank you, Mr. chairman. I thank our witnesses for being here today. Uh, I'll carry on with.
▶ 1:44:39Betty was talking about, uh, obviously, our house defense appropriations committee has half the discretionary budget. It's always good to see you, shalanda. Uh, and we had many discussions in the past and the frustrations that we have in attempting to operate the largest enterprise in the world under a continuing resolution or in a shutdown scenario. Uh, it shouldn't happen.
▶ 1:45:04Uh, and we've been forced to do this because we unfortunately have given away our article one authority more and more, uh, to the executive branch and a dysfunctional congressional process at this point. Uh, and our global competition, whether it's china or russia or iran or north korea, they don't have continuing resolutions or shutdowns.
▶ 1:45:28And so, uh, I'm sure they're amused to watch us go through this process, uh, as we attempt to make sure that the men and women of the united states military are paid, that we can operate our procurement process in an orderly fashion, uh, which unfortunately is not occurring at the present time. And then we've now fallen back on extraordinary new ways to fund the federal government.
▶ 1:45:53We used to pass appropriation bills, and if we needed to have a supplemental in order to deal with a conflict, is the gentlelady was talking about, uh, miss mccollum? Uh, we would do a supplemental and we would pay for it, whether it was in the war on terror through the process or, or, or in previous wars.
▶ 1:46:16And, uh, reconciliation, I don't think was ever an intention to give the authority to omb to determine how those dollars are going to be spent. Because one thing that I think the american public doesn't understand is that, uh, the appropriators, we don't control the reconciliation process. The authorizers really don't control the, the appropriations process. And I would submit that the department of defense doesn't control how the outlays work under the under reconciliation process. Omb does.
▶ 1:46:46They, in effect, make the final determination of what money will be spent or what. We can make a list of suggestions. They may or may not follow it, but that's what we've fallen into over a number of years. So how the hell we get out of this thing and get back to regular order? All of us. Because this is not good for the process. Uh, this reconciliation process we're going through right now is, uh, I don't think it's healthy to, for, for us.
▶ 1:47:12And so, um, here we are, uh, on a potentially a verge of another shutdown in a, in a time of conflict. And so all of us, I think this is a problem within the family really, um, that we have to come to a determination that this cannot continue and I'm going to go with Mr. simpson, said my friend Mr. lankford, that maybe we ought to rethink the filibuster.
▶ 1:47:43That's your decision to make. I know that it's not our decision, but it was never the intent of the founding fathers or, I think, a previous sentence that we would be held hostage to a 60 vote process in order to pass needed appropriations, especially at a time in conflict we're in today in iran. So what would you how how do we get. We don't have time to keep talking about this.
▶ 1:48:13We need to do something. How would you respond to that? Speaker 3: I'd respond to that. That we have become allergic to having bipartisan conversations because the filibuster is not an issue. If you're actually having bipartisan dialog and you're allowing grown ups to sit down and talk to other grown ups and to be able to figure out how we're going to solve things where we disagree with the filibuster really came into position.
▶ 1:48:35Of course, it was part of the senate rules from the earliest days, and it used to be 4 or 5 members could actually hold the senate hostage because they could just rotate around and be able to speak. In 1917, uh, that was changed over to a two thirds, and then in 1974 was changed over to to the 3/5. The current rule that we have now, I would say that we've had some conversation about this. My predecessor, don nichols, whose two senators before me served on the appropriations committee in the senate for 20 years.
▶ 1:49:02They never had a single cloture vote in appropriations in his entire time that he was in the senate. The rules were the same. The behavior was different on this. And now we've practiced bad behavior so many years in a row. That's why I'm looking for how do we actually help guide us back to this? Because I don't think it's just going to be a situation where we say, let's just figure out how we're going to cooperate together. I think we've got to be able to put some new boundaries around us.
▶ 1:49:29And the suggestion that maggie hassan, my democratic colleague and I have, and bipartisan suggestion from multiple of us in the senate, is to say, let's put the pressure on us to be able to stay here until our work is done. We all know how important it is to get home and see our families. Um, if we were to say no one leaves this week until all the work is done, we would somehow find a way to be able to get the work done. Um, but we don't. We leave and the work is undone and the pressure goes on. Federal employees, we're trying to solve that. Speaker 12: thank you. I yield back.
▶ 1:50:02Speaker 9: thank you. Gentlemen. First questions. The gentlelady from florida, miss frankel, is recognized for her questions. Speaker 2: thank you. And thank you to our witnesses today for being here. Um, first, I want to just say in regards to leverages on members, I, I want to respectfully suggest that, uh, no leverage, no leverage should, should occur that would affect members unequally.
▶ 1:50:27So for example, someone from maryland can go home overnight to see their family. Someone from california, alaska wouldn't do so. A wealthy member could afford to travel. So, uh, unequal leverage is not right, not fair. And our decision should be based upon what is best for our constituents and for the country, not our own personal considerations.
▶ 1:50:54And I, I want to add that, um, I do think the people on this committee, it's been said before that we understand that the dynamics and the circumstances of the present day congress, we have to have a bipartisan agreement to get a spending plan done. And it seems to me the approach should be to get to that position earlier. That seems to me the reasonable thing to do.
▶ 1:51:23We are allowing, and I'm not going to point fingers, but we have people in the process, not on this committee, who just hold us up on everything. With that, I'm going to ask a question. Uh, welcome back, uh, the honorable shalanda young, um, the one of the greatest strengths of annual appropriations is to allow congress to respond to a changing world, as some of my colleagues have said, and every year brings new challenges.
▶ 1:51:53We've seen the attacks of september 11th, congress increased funding for congress, but we saw benghazi and having to increase security for embassies. We've seen disease, ebola, covid outbreaks, where we've had to invest more in global health and pandemic response. And we war in ukraine.
▶ 1:52:16We we've had to respond to that, uh, year after year, we respond to hurricanes, earthquakes, famines, and other humanitarian disasters that sometimes we could not have anticipated. And that's why I think the people on this committee, uh, believe that annual appropriations is matter. And I'm bringing this from the perspective of our in our committee. You knew it as swaps.
▶ 1:52:40Uh, and I'd like to, uh, get your opinion in terms of, uh, how as a continuing resolution would affect these kinds of decisions, especially in this foreign assistance budget. Speaker 5: so I assume you mean if my prognostications about how the auto cr would play out that a bad actor, a president or a minority in the senate, or a leadership who does not like what appropriations bills come up, could could gum up the process and keep us on?
▶ 1:53:10Uh, crs, I think what happens is eventually you get to a workaround, right? If you see a problem in your regular appropriations bills, can't deal with it, you probably start doing more supplementals or figure out rules to exempt this or exempt that or exempt this and that. Um, someone asked me about automatic apportionments.
▶ 1:53:33I go, it works until it doesn't until you're out in congress is out in august and an agency goes over its funding and is automatic apportionments. And you don't let omb do these things, exceptions start happening. So does it happen in year one? Does it happen in year two?
▶ 1:53:46Uh, so if you believe what I believe, what happens with auto crs that, you know, a president or a few people could keep you in it if there's something big enough, I think supplementals and other workarounds start to become, uh, more prominent if you are just stuck in the appropriations, uh, do loop and you cannot move regular appropriations bills. And I don't think that's a good thing either. Supplementals.
▶ 1:54:11We, you know, without budget caps, one doesn't really need them. You can come do a regular appropriations bills. We just gotten used to it. Um, and they're not a bad thing if they are easier to get done than, than regular appropriations bills. But I'd hate if they start being used because we just can't do regular appropriations bills.
▶ 1:54:34Speaker 2: I think what you're saying, I think what I've heard my colleagues say is continuing resolutions keep us stuck many times in a wrong, dangerous place. And I would just I know this committee, uh, that we can find bipartisan agreement. And I would just say, we got to figure out how we get the rest of our colleagues. Speaker 5: you pointed out the problem.
▶ 1:54:56You have lots of places coming into this process that aren't necessarily, uh, as big of fans of this process is as members of this committee are. Speaker 2: thank you, all of you, for being here. I yield back. Speaker 9: I thank the gentlelady. Uh, it's my understanding, senator lankford, that votes have been called in the senate, and you will need to go and please go at your discretion whenever you think is appropriate is perfectly appropriate. Uh, I'm going to proceed the following way. Mr.
▶ 1:55:27Diaz-balart is next up for questions. I'm going to recognize him. I have to step out myself. So when he is done with his questions, he will come and take the chair. We'll continue. Uh, as long as members want to continue, you know, and be running the meeting. The vice chair um, I would say again, uh, you all of you have been exceptionally generous with your time. So, and I'm not sure we've managed your time as well as we should have, but I want to thank you for your patience.
▶ 1:55:56Uh, but we'll continue to proceed. I think this is really important topic. I think the bipartisan exchanges have been very helpful and I'm very grateful for that. Uh, so with that, I'm going to recognize Mr. diaz-balart for any questions he might have. Speaker 13: thank you, Mr. chairman. Actually, great to see director young. Um, I will I have to admit that I, I also too am always reluctant to, to give off ramps, uh, because off ramps are taken, right. Because it's tough. This is tough.
▶ 1:56:25You mentioned this is not a new issue. Uh, and it's not going to get any easier, unfortunately. You also mentioned the issue of cameras, right? And that's, that's a factor that, that, uh, there are some folks who are less interested in getting the job done, more interested in just, you know, being celebrities. And so that's always been one of my concerns is on any of these proposals. But let me start with you, Mr. mcclintock.
▶ 1:56:51Um, you talked about the issues of our authorizing committees not being able to get the job done, uh, how frustrating that is and how frankly negative that is. Um, and and, but yet your proposal deals with, in essence, appropriations, correct. For those that, that might not be clear.
▶ 1:57:12Why are, is the appropriations process different than trying to force, for example, uh, you know, the authorizers who don't get their jobs done with very few exceptions to do that? Why the appropriations process? Is it the constitutional issue? If you would just very briefly. Well, because. Speaker 4: the system is seizing up, uh, to, to to Mr. bishop and Mr. mcconnell's point, the president is not the central figure in the appropriations process of.
▶ 1:57:40Nor, for that matter, is the united states senate appropriations begin in the house. The buck literally starts here. And the process that we put into place in the 74 budget act has the appropriations committee working through all of the discretionary spending. Once they're given a budget resolution with those limits by the budget committee, which very rarely gets done to, that's a whole separate matter.
▶ 1:58:07The point is, your work you've always marked to to the to the levels. You take these bills to the floor. We pass them after many, many hours of debate and amendment, and they go over to the senate. Now, what's supposed to happen in the senate? The senate is supposed to say, either send the bill back to us of with their modifications, or send it on to the president. Um, if they send it back with their modifications, we either agree to those or we send it to a conference committee and we have a discussion with them.
▶ 1:58:37But the problem is the system seizes up when we send the bill over to the senate, six without 60 votes, they can't even take it up. So they don't send us their alternative. They don't send the bill to the president. It just sits there until the clock runs out. And as I said, we're then given a hobson's choice. That's the central problem that I see in the budget act, that there are a lot of other issues as well that get back to that question of political will. And there's there's no way around that.
▶ 1:59:09Speaker 13: that. Let me let me now again and, senator, thank you for for your leadership and for being here as well. Um, again, as I as I said to the director, I'm always fearful of off ramps, but that's not what you're doing. Uh, from what I see, you're actually trying to create a different pressure point. Right? And I get that. Um, but let me then, uh, but the appropriations process can't happen in a vacuum. You know, the, the chairman talked about that, about the things that have to happen, the budget committee, etcetera. I'm not going to I'm not going to restate that. Um, so, um.
▶ 1:59:38How and then going back to some folks who really are more interested in being celebrities and legislators, right? Because I will tell you there, there are some folks I think, I think, uh, congressman frankel brought up a very interesting point, folks that maybe are close so they can go home regardless. But, but also there are some folks that might relish being here not to get things done.
▶ 2:00:06Because if you actually look at kind of what the impediments are, it's usually a relatively small group of people, right? Some of those, frankly, are celebrities. Uh, and so how do you deal with that aspect to not, not create a system that actually empowers celebrities even more to not get their job done, but to just be on television more? And so have you put some thought into that?
▶ 2:00:30Speaker 3: I have, and since that, um, I remember saying to my constituents at home, I don't pick the people I work with, other people pick the people I work with. I've just got to figure out a way to be able to work with them. Um, we have a wide variety of opinions and 535 members and some folks love their social media feed more than they love anything else. And I get that that's just the reality of, of the society that we live in. My focus is the pressure point should not be federal workers and their families. And that's what it is now.
▶ 2:00:58And the argument is we want to keep federal workers and their families as the pressure point. And if we take that pressure point off and put the pressure on us instead to be stuck in a room with each other, we don't want that. So my option is, if not this what? And I do understand the leverage issue. I've had this conversation. There are some members, uh, that have more ability to be able to fly on their personal expense to be able to come back and forth on it.
▶ 2:01:24Uh, it's somebody that's, uh, serves on the west coast that said, if you can move the capital to the west coast, I'm willing to support this proposal on it. I get that dynamic. My issue is our constituents have to hold us to account to get the job done. And if the law says you have to be there and you have to stay until you get it done, we will push each other to try to figure out how to do that. We always have. The last kr got resolved when we all stayed over a weekend, and we all said, that's not going to happen twice. And it got worked out.
▶ 2:01:56And by the way, Mr. chairman, if I can apologize, I'm going to run vote and then come right back. Speaker 9: we appreciate that. Speaker 3: I'd be glad to be. Speaker 9: able to be here again. Thank you for your patience. Thank you for your cooperation. Gentleman's excused. Uh, gentlelady from new jersey, miss watson coleman is recognized for any questions she may have. Oh, I apologize for that. Speaker 14: I'm going to ask. Um, first of all, I'm going to say that I agree with the senators. Oh, um.
▶ 2:02:27Speaker 9: gentlelady, just your advice. He is going to come back. You will be allowed to pose your question when he comes back. Speaker 14: I can wait. Speaker 9: it's up to you. You're certainly free to use time now, if you've got other members you want to, but you'll be recognized again when he returns so you can have an opportunity to address your question. Speaker 14: all right. I just have a quick question for please. Shalanda, I want to thank you for being here. And, congressman, thank you for being here. Um, thank you for the thoughts.
▶ 2:02:52And thank you for the fact that this is all about trying to get business done so that federal workers and the people who depend upon the programs that would be supported would not be hurt. So I love the premise of it. I just think we're not in normal times and we ought not be having this consideration right now. But shalanda, thank you for your thoughts.
▶ 2:03:16One thing has become clear to me during the discussion, when the logical conclusion of a permanent auto automatic cr leave discretionary funding such as job training programs, food safety inspection, certain types of disease research, housing assistance, etc. Um, and so much more chronically underfunded already leaving these vital programs anemic and ultimately inoperable in the long term.
▶ 2:03:43Can you speak to the impacts that multiple years of an automatic cr would have on the operations and delivery of these very important programs? Speaker 5: you just have to look at a few programs. Pell grants comes to mind, consistently shifting depending on how many americans choose to go back to school. That typically happens when the economy starts to sour. So now we see a billions of dollars in shortfall in pell grant.
▶ 2:04:11Without this process, I don't know how we deal with a pell shortfall other than an off ramp of going to the reconciliation route. Um, so those, those are the kinds of things housing vouchers. Again, not knowing when the government does not know what the uptake will be. So often we are behind and we see that the need outweighs the funding and we have to catch up. Yeah.
▶ 2:04:35Well, I'd rather the we're always behind, but rather the catch up be six months behind than two years behind if we remain in the same stale funding scenario. Speaker 14: so as not to use all my time up. Um, Mr. chairman, hi. I just want to say this one thing. The one word I keep hearing over and over and over again is we could do a better job if we had the will to do it. And that will doesn't exist right now. And that's unfortunate.
▶ 2:05:02One of the things I loved about being in appropriations is that we debated stuff. We didn't always disagree, we didn't always agree, but we didn't always disagree. And now we disagree. So the will to do our work on behalf of this country, our constituents, and even taking into consideration those who work for us that will doesn't exist. And so we need to find a way to get it back.
▶ 2:05:30And I temporarily, partially, whatever. Speaker 7: thank you. Thank you. Speaker 13: um, Mr. womack. Speaker 12: all right. Thank you, Mr. Mr. acting chairman and let me begin by saying I have the utmost respect for the witnesses on this panel today.
▶ 2:05:49Senator lankford and I serve together on the joint select committee on budget process reform back in 2018, left at the altar because we had several democrats that voted present instead of for the reforms that we. And miss young, you know that process very well because you were there.
▶ 2:06:04Um, I have a tremendous amount of respect for my friend tom mcclintock out of california, who, in my opinion, based on what we've seen here today, has the only true legitimate legislation that could actually fit fix the problem, uh, or, or go a long way toward fixing the problem, uh, by requiring, uh, expedited procedures in the senate where a lot of this is, is held up because of filibuster rules.
▶ 2:06:32Um, and miss young, your credentials speak well for themselves. As a matter of fact, if this were a fortune company and we were the board, we would probably just hire you to execute this, this, this budget process.
▶ 2:06:45But, but here's kind of the, the, the funny thing about it all, if you were an alien and you landed across the street this morning and then stumbled into this hearing room to see what was going on with the legislative body of the greatest country in the history of the world. And you found out that they were talking about fixing a budget process.
▶ 2:07:12You you would have to come away scratching your head. And that's exactly what's going on right now. It is a shame. It is embarrassing that this country, that the legislative body of this country that was written into article one of the united states constitution in 2026, is having this conversation 250 years after we were founded.
▶ 2:07:45But here we are. So, uh, Mr. mcclintock, as you heard me say, uh, I, I think that, um, your proposal, based on the way the 1974 budget act is written, is the only legitimate proposal that could actually get us off the dime because of the concept that elections have consequences. And in the house, it's a simple majority.
▶ 2:08:10So if this is our basic function, one of our truly basic functions is to draft a budget, which is a reflection of what the winners of the election would want to do with the budget of the united states of america. Then yours pretty much is the only thing that actually forces the hand of congress, because it would give you a simple majority. Would you agree with that? Speaker 4: uh. Speaker 7: of.
▶ 2:08:41Speaker 4: course I do. And thank you for those comments. Uh, you know, goes back to Mr. Mr. hoyer's point, uh, I think this makes the congress more powerful, not less powerful, because it makes it more likely that the actual appropriations bills that express the will of the congress will be presented to the president of right now is we it's it's a constant parade of continuing resolutions.
▶ 2:09:06Um, but, you know, the basic problem, though, is these are hard decisions and, uh, they're going to be imperfect in any body. They're going to be imperfectly, uh, addressed. Uh, benjamin franklin has that wonderful line from the constitutional convention where he pointed out that when you draw a group of people together to benefit from their mutual wisdom, you also will inevitably get their mutual folly.
▶ 2:09:30Uh, you can't expect a perfect, uh, response, but the processes that we have are meant to guide us to the most perfect that we can make, given our flaws as human beings. Speaker 12: well, I agree with the principle details of of what your proposal is. I also happen to agree with others that have proposed that we do something to prevent the the government or the country from going through the gymnastics of a potential government shutdown, a la what we did yesterday on the house floor by passing a cr.
▶ 2:10:00Uh, that probably is not going to be lawful. Uh, but I also believe this. And miss young, I'm going to give you the last 30s on this. Uh, you know, as you know, I have a bill that kind of mirrors some of the work we did back in 2018, moving congress to a biennial budget, because I think the calendar is also, uh, a problem in this situation. Would you agree? Speaker 5: you were in my opening remarks, uh, as one of the proposals.
▶ 2:10:26Uh, I've always thought that was just common sense because at the time we worked on that joint select committee, that's how we were operating. We had ten year budget caps from the days of the obama presidency. We come together every two years to actually enact real levels that the appropriations committee to operate under, and we did those in two year cycles. So that's already how I was operating. I will say to chairman cole's point, the budget resolution isn't happening right now.
▶ 2:10:55So given the budget resolution two years, like it's not like anything's coming out of the budget committee. So yours is common sense. Um, it's more common sense. If the budget resolution process was actually happening. Um, and I think that is a proposal that makes a lot of sense. And you, you have recounted kind of how that discussion in the joint committee, uh, came about. I will say for the record, uh, Mr.
▶ 2:11:24Acting chairman, I need everyone to know I'm the co-chair of the steve womack fan club. Um, there's almost no one who takes these issues as seriously as steve womack. Um, and we all want a solution. My problem is the same political will that we think we're going to magically come up with in these 14 days of auto. Cr where was that september 1st through 30th or where was that? April 1st through 30th?
▶ 2:11:53I don't think it magically comes in. My worry is because I have seen the inner workings of white houses, even though I love you all most because I grew up here is they will say, presidents will say under this, can I do this, this, this and this and this. Omb director yes, sir. You can. Then why would I do this? That has these other three things I can't stand. So that's my worry.
▶ 2:12:23And if we can create that political will in these 14 day cycles, let's figure out a way if it's keeping people in town to do that now and do the work. Speaker 12: thank you, Mr. chairman, for your indulgence. Speaker 7: well. Speaker 13: and I'm also on the womack fan club, but that's not why, uh, he went over time. Um, miss underwood, you're recognized. Speaker 15: thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:12:51First I'd like to say welcome to my friend miss shalanda young as always. We are so lucky to have your expertise and your insight into the critical role of the appropriations process and exercising our article one authority. Uh, based on the comments that we've heard here today, it looks like my republican colleagues have taken the exact wrong lesson from the unacceptable 43 day shutdown we experienced last year while they controlled the house, the senate, and the white house.
▶ 2:13:15Instead of taking our constitutional responsibility seriously by fixing the appropriations process that they have broken, they are considering legislation that would do even more damage to our system of checks and balances. For the last 18 months, president trump has trampled on the separation of powers in the constitution, illegally withholding and delaying funds that congress appropriated. But instead of protecting our power of the purse, republicans in congress have sat on the sidelines cheering him on. I want to be very clear that the proposals here today do not solve the problems republicans created.
▶ 2:13:46They do not protect federal workers. They do not protect federal resources our communities rely on. They do not protect the american people from the whims of an out of control president. Automatic continuing resolutions fail to address the changing needs of our districts. They failed to provide the community project funding so sorely needed by our constituents.
▶ 2:14:07They failed to incorporate expert insights from federal agencies, and they fail to impose the oversight and guardrails needed when agencies like ice and cbp go rogue and murder people in our streets, our constituents deserve a responsive and a deliberate congress that can adapt to challenges in real time and fund essential services and programs with specificity, with stability, and with accountability.
▶ 2:14:32I will not vote to hand congress's power over to a president who thinks that he's a king. Now, since miss young is the expert on this topic, I'd like to offer my remaining time to her in case she had any additional comments. Speaker 5: don't offer it up to any president. Um, there is. I think we're in a singular moment. Things feel worse and different, but there is no president who gives power back to congress.
▶ 2:15:00And if you don't take it in a bipartisan way back, no one's going to give it back to you. So everything I think about, I write about, I talk to students about, they go, I thought we got a former omb director. Why do you keep talking to us about congress? I sat and listened to a constitutional law professor tell us all the things wrong with the judiciary and the presidency. And my only question to him was, well, what about congress?
▶ 2:15:26We just accept that it's broken and we find these workarounds. And a lot of times it comes from the body itself. Um, and I don't wax poetic about the past a lot because I think that's a waste of time. Times move on. We're in the political moment we're in, but we have got to figure out, and I think this committee is essential to it, figure out a way to hold hands and do the hard work. This committee has always done it. You have the numbers to do it.
▶ 2:15:54One of my reform ideas is maybe this committee has to be bigger, since all the focus tends to be on the appropriations process because it gums up the works of the house. If more members were involved, maybe that probably won't work. But it's the idea of thinking larger than when you get to shutdowns. Do you know how many things have failed before we got there?
▶ 2:16:18Let's start further up the road than try to deal with the symptom of lots of problems that lots of people are responsible for. Speaker 15: well, thank you, miss young. I do believe that we can get there in a positive resolution that continues to maintain the congress's article one responsibilities to continue to protect our power of the purse and to continue to assert the congress's authority in, in in directing federal spending.
▶ 2:16:45And so, you know, I hope that as a bipartisan appropriations committee here in the house, we can commit ourselves to finding that path forward. And I thank you for being here as a witness today. Mr. mcclintock. It's nice to see you as well. I yield back. Speaker 13: thank the gentlelady. Uh, doctor harris, you're recognized, sir. Speaker 16: thank you very much. I want to thank all of you for being here. Uh, but I'll tell you, we're just applying a tourniquet to a hemorrhaging wound that's hemorrhaging more every year. I've been here long enough. Now, look, we. Two years ago, we celebrated.
▶ 2:17:13We celebrate the 50th anniversary of the budget act. No, because it has failed. Let's just admit it. Why don't we just admit to ourselves we actually need to redo the budget act? It doesn't work. Hasn't worked for decades. Hasn't worked since I've been here 16 years. And no wonder, because the size of the federal government, the discretionary budget has more than doubled since that budget act was passed, more than doubled, 700 $730 billion in today's dollars. Then we're now at 1.6 trillion.
▶ 2:17:44The bottom line is these budgets have become too complicated to get done. Given the limited bandwidth of both the executive branch and the legislative branch. So I will tell you, you know, and and, uh, miss young, you're absolutely right. We have we're just doing workarounds, you know, the idea of a two year budget cycle for the budget. Why don't we do two year appropriations? There's some states that do two year appropriations. We meet every year. If we have to adjust something, we can adjust it.
▶ 2:18:13But at least half the government doesn't close on on october 1st. And except with the exception of defense, uh, you know, the idea that we somehow that a one year ndaa works and then a one year budgetary cycle works is ridiculous.
▶ 2:18:30The ukraine war has shown if the ukraine government had an nda that they passed a year ago that said what drone they had to buy and didn't give authority to the government, to the the minister of defense there for stop starts. They would have lost the war in that year. When it comes to. And miss young, you've you've. You've said it absolutely right.
▶ 2:18:55The only real authorization, the real authorization bill that affects discretionary budget every year is nda, a everything else. We don't really change the law that often. So why are we changing the appropriation every year on schedule when we could in fact change it every two years? Everything but defense.
▶ 2:19:13And I will argue that in defense, we do have to give the executive branch more stop start authority because we will otherwise freeze ourselves and we'll have a technology freeze that will serve us very poorly in in defense and wars going forward. I do think that that we should consider it. We should again, we should have I mean, look, 74 act has failed.
▶ 2:19:39We should start talking about how to replace it, given the given the current state of affairs and the size and scope of the federal government and the advancing technology in defense, I will tell you that there is another option. We haven't talked about the true shutdown fairness act, which is kind of the compromise of. And senator langford's not here. I was going to ask him about where you pay the workers, but you don't pay everything. That's non non non defense related contractual. And I know and I'm going to ask you, Mr.
▶ 2:20:06Mclintock, to comment on this because, you know, as we've grown the federal government, we we have a lot of grants. We have a lot of things that go out that are not contractual. Uh, and, and if, if we just pay and because we don't, the workers should not get in the middle of this, uh, we should figure out what actually has to be done to keep the government functioning safely and preserve those in a if we go to a shutdown, fairness or no shutdown act, whatever you want to call it.
▶ 2:20:33Uh, but that would leave some leverage over the, over the government to actually do something that workers would be paid, but grants wouldn't be going out. I mean, there would be plenty of, uh, you know, pressure on us. So, Mr. mclintock, if you can just mention within the scope of government, why are we why why don't we subdivide some of that out? Speaker 4: well, the fault, dear brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings. The budget act hasn't failed. We've failed to apply the budget act.
▶ 2:21:03Uh, there's a story that newt gingrich tells, uh, at a time when a republican congress and a democrat president balanced four budgets in a row, uh, during a leadership meeting, john kasich, the budget chairman, uh, slams his fist on the table and says, you show me where it's written in stone that we have to balance the budget. Well, the next meeting, gingrich brings in a stone tablet inscribed, thou shalt balance the budget. Uh, and they did.
▶ 2:21:32Uh, so again, we, we, that, that's our responsibility. You know, we, we may have a lot of, as miss underwood, uh, says, a lot of concerns over how that money is being spent. We don't get to spend the money we get to appropriate. The president gets to spend it. We need to get back to our job of appropriations. Speaker 7: all right, well, thank you. Speaker 4: and that means getting past that blockage in the senate. Speaker 16: thank you very much. I yield. Speaker 7: back. Speaker 13: thank the gentleman. Marcy kaptur. You're recognized.
▶ 2:22:09Speaker 17: thank you. Thank you so much. I had to find the button for the mic. Uh, let me thank the chair and ranking member delauro. Uh, chairman and ranking member delauro for this hearing. And to each of our witnesses and guests today actually, um, continuing resolutions represent this legislative branches major breach of its article one constitutional responsibility.
▶ 2:22:35The executive branch aids abets and even coerces, uh, this broken process even more, pressuring lawmakers to acquiesce to its will. It's very dangerous indeed. What's going on? Um, I also have served on the budget committee throughout my career many, many times over my federal service.
▶ 2:23:02And at this moment, there is no budget from the budget committee to guide the appropriations committee. And, uh, we're being sent home. Uh, in addition, for the record, I've counted the number of days the current house speaker has sent house members back home, uh, since the beginning of the year, without congress's budget and appropriations work being done under regular order. It's close to 50 days, and that doesn't count what we're going to be sent home for now.
▶ 2:23:31Uh, meanwhile, federal workers and contractors, from air controllers to employees at our veterans administration and veterans homes have faced uncertainty and literally chaos. They can't hire, they have to furlough. The executive branch takes full note and executes its power grab of spending across accounts.
▶ 2:23:58At this moment, as a nation at war, which has not been declared. Can you imagine the musical chairs being employed by the executive branch, shifting defense accounts from one spending category to another to others? No one here can speaker 9: and explain what the department of defense has been doing, including the department of defense.
▶ 2:24:22Uh, I'm concerned that congress is acquiescing the automatic, uh, congressional, uh, crs that kick the ball to the sideline, the big balls, while further empowering the executive branch. Let me focus on our defense planning, preparedness, and procurement at this moment in history.
▶ 2:24:43Our nation's defense requires replenishment, replenishment, failing to give stable predictive guidance and funding to industry makes it remarkably difficult to build ships. Uh, complex systems, or catch up to technological advancement where our country has lost edge.
▶ 2:25:05The trump administration has come before this very committee in recent weeks, asking for more long term defense planning and procurement. So I'm pretty astounded that we might consider going in the opposite direction, making it less likely that the regular appropriations process can go forward.
▶ 2:25:26Um, so as a member of the defense subcommittee, I wanted to direct question, uh, to miss young and thank her for her service to our country. Can you explain to us what kind of an impact continuing resolutions have on our ability to plan for our nation's defense?
▶ 2:25:48Uh, continuing resolutions also impede our ability to address new challenges that arise and require timely congressional input. When it comes to automatic crs, are there any constitutional implications, given that, uh, given the clause that no appropriation of money to raise and support armies shall be longer than than two years? I'm very concerned about what is happening at the us department of defense. And I wonder if you could comment on this.
▶ 2:26:19Speaker 13: sure. I think I gave some examples about what happens under long term crs, including the inability to do long term procurement, uh, and, and fix problems that arise throughout the year. So I won't repeat those. The army clause in the constitution obviously says the congress is not supposed to appropriate, uh, army for more than two years at a time.
▶ 2:26:40At the time the constitution was written, we can probably think back as to why the founders and the writers of the constitution did not want an army that could rise up without the express approval and funding of the united states congress. I think it's an interesting constitutional question that, you know, I would hope, as this legislation is thought about, some constitutional scholars weigh in.
▶ 2:27:05Um, uh, the solicitor general, I believe in 1904, we all live under his opinion. And I'm assuming it's a his because it was 1904, um, that the part of the constitution, uh, or the defense appropriations that deals with that part of the constitution is only military personnel, not procurement, not research.
▶ 2:27:32Again, I think if this was enacted, all of it would raise new constitutional questions and probably find their way into a court, like every other budget and appropriations item that has found their way into a court. Um, the things we thought were law. Now judges are deciding what is constitutional, not in the budget and appropriations space in a way. We just have not seen this level of litigation.
▶ 2:27:55So it probably will end up in litigation, like lots of other things we've seen in the past year to see if it violates, um, the, the army clause of the constitution. Speaker 5: I yield back. Speaker 9: uh, I yield back for the moment. I hope we have a second round. Thank you. And I didn't get a chance, Mr. chairman, to thank senator lankford and congressman mcclintock, for whom I have very deep respect. Speaker 5: thank you for doing that. And we thank again, senator, I know that you've been you ran and came back.
▶ 2:28:23So we we are very grateful for that, Mr. fleischman. You recognize, sir. Speaker 16: thank you, Mr. chairman. To the distinguished witnesses. Senator, you were my classmate in 2010 in the house and my neighbor. Always a privilege to serve with you there and in this capacity as well. And I thank you for your efforts. Of course, you know, I'm a co-sponsor of this bill. I did want to recognize the other two distinguished guests. Mr. mcclintock, great, great friend.
▶ 2:28:51Thank you for your efforts in this regard, and the accolades that you received are well deserved for the way that you have conducted yourself in our body and for miss young. Thank you. Uh, not only for your work on omb, but for your work with this committee. I remember very well, ma'am, when you were seated to the position at omb, the tremendous bipartisan, uh, feelings of, of, of joy for you to get that. So thank you.
▶ 2:29:20And thank you for continuing this process to all three of you all. Um, again, my, my question will be for senator lankford, uh, again, a proud co-sponsor of the prevent government shutdown act. Uh, in my view, this bill solves many problems without letting congress get off the hook. Uh, I firmly believe that we should never shut the federal government down. Rarely do I get animated.
▶ 2:29:50Uh, but I did on several national tv outlets, both progressive conservative and in the middle when we went through that government shutdown. It's just wrong to the american people. It hurts. It hurts the institution, and it hurts families. So hopefully we get there. My question for you, senator, uh, you first introduced this legislation back in 2011.
▶ 2:30:14Can you speak on how the shutdown landscape has changed since then, and why you believe this moment represents the best opportunity for congress to finally enact a permanent solution? Sir? Speaker 11: representative fleischmann, thank you so much for your work on this as well. Uh, I've come a long way since 2011 when I first came in 2011 side in the house. Um, I saw the government shutdowns happening and I jumped in and said, there's got to be some way to be able to fix this.
▶ 2:30:43They've gotten longer, they've gotten more frequent, uh, since that time period. I've had multiple different iterations. There was an iteration I had initially, uh, that was we, we, if we have a shutdown, then the budget gets cut by 1% until we keep doing it. Well guess what? I never had a single democratic colleague ever get on that bill on it. Uh, we had multiple different iterations on this. And then it was about seven years ago, I sat down with the democratic colleague maggie hassan and said, we've got to figure out a way that's a nonpartisan way to be able to solve this.
▶ 2:31:11That's where it was born, to be able to figure out how do we actually put pressure not on federal workers, which has been interesting to me in the dialog, even here today, it was if we change the current status quo of not paying federal workers while we go home, that's going to be bad. Like, no, that is bad. What we're currently doing, the status quo is what's bad is that we for months will get our pay.
▶ 2:31:36We will go home and see our families, we'll work on other bills and things while federal workers and their families can't pay their mortgage. We got to fix this. So if this proposal is not the right proposal, let's work on one. That is. That's why I'm so grateful this committee's got a full committee. This is the heart of the body. To be able to solve this problem is right here, and it's got to be solved in a bipartisan way. That's the way we have to be able to solve big, hard, complicated things like this.
▶ 2:32:06And it has to be an agreement from congress. So this this proposal is shifted over the years to multiple different iterations. What I mentioned before, shalanda young had this at omb. She actually did the technical assistance for this bill when she was with the biden administration. Now, this omb has done technical assistance for it as well. We've tried to work through several iterations because we're not trying to make a message. We're trying to solve a problem on this. And the problem is we've we stopped paying federal workers. We go home and pretend things will get better at some point. They don't for them, and it's bad for the country.
▶ 2:32:36And as I agree completely with you on that, we look terrible on the world stage on this as everyone tries to figure out what's wrong with the americans while we have a government shutdown. Speaker 16: and thank you for your answer. And once again, my compliments to all three of you for tackling this arduous issue. Uh, in my remaining seconds. Very quickly, senator, this goes beyond this bill goes beyond simply avoiding a shutdown.
▶ 2:32:59It pairs the automatic continuing appropriation with real accountability measures, including restricted travel and a 23 hour limit on recess. Can you speak to why these provisions were important to include, and how they ensure this bill doesn't just paper over the problem, but actually pushes congress to finish its appropriation work? And by the way, I agree with this. Speaker 11: yeah. Thank you. By the way, the focus of this is not to have long term crs. And it's been interesting.
▶ 2:33:26Some of the dialog today has been this is going to put us into a perpetual cr. If we are all here seven days a week as required by law, we can't travel. We only can recess for 23 hours. We've got to get get back together every single day. House and senate. If we have to be here every day, we will get our work done because we will find a way to be able to solve a problem in this sense of we'll just never do appropriations again, also means we never do another bill because this this bill actually prevents us from moving to anything but appropriations.
▶ 2:33:55So the real focus is you can only do appropriations. You're here every single day until you solve the problem. So when you solve the problem, you can go home. And I can't even imagine this body not trying to say, we got to get on focus, let's solve this problem because I do need to get to a birthday party. I do need to get to my family. I do need to get to cody and responsibility.
▶ 2:34:18So this is far from a perpetual cr that there's some are saying this is a focus of we're here until we solve the problem and we will get the problem solved. Speaker 16: senator. Thank you. And to the entire panel, my profound thanks. Yield back. Speaker 5: thank you. We're going to now go back to, uh, miss watson coleman, because she was very efficient and kept two minutes of her time still. So. So you're recognized for two minutes. Speaker 6: thank you. Senator, you were walking out the door and I'm saying I've got the question for him.
▶ 2:34:45First of all, let me just say that I appreciate the motivation behind this. I agree with you that we need to do better. We need to do our job, and we ought not be. We ought to be inconvenienced when we don't. I think I'll ever, um, this issue of will is important, particularly in what I consider to be these non normal moments of governance.
▶ 2:35:09And so I'm not sure that people wouldn't stare us down for ten days, 12 days or whatever and still not come to any conclusion. But nonetheless, I'm, I don't want to give up any of our authority because I think that we've been giving up congressional authority to this president's second term in a way that's shameful.
▶ 2:35:29So I wanted to just ask you, um, if we if we do take our jobs as appropriators seriously, I can't imagine why we would consider making permanently a tool that renders our committees work, um, unnecessary. How exactly would this automatic continuing resolution proposal encourage the kind of debate and consideration and respect for one another and one another and each other's differences?
▶ 2:35:55How would we accomplish those necessary negotiations? Speaker 11: thank you for the very honest question on that. I really appreciate that the what what happens under this proposal and what senator hassan and I have agreed to on this, is the way to put pressure on members of congress to actually get our work done, is that we all have to be able to remain here to be able to get our work done.
▶ 2:36:20The focus of this, especially by saying we can't move to bills other than appropriations, puts the pressure on doing appropriations work. Literally. The goal of this bill was not to have a cr. Now we're we're about to have our 30th year in a row of having crs. I don't like crs either, but I hate shutdowns more. And so the goal of this is to have. If we have a shutdown at all, it's short and everybody has to drop everything and finish appropriations.
▶ 2:36:46When appropriations is done, then we can go back to everything else our families, other legislation, other committees. If we have not done our constitutional responsibility of appropriations, we have to stop everything until that's done, because that is the first priority in our in the constitution for us to be able to accomplish that. So I'm a former appropriations committee member. I want to make sure this committee is actually empowered to be able to do its task. And so I'm trying to draw a box around everything else to say nothing else gets done until this gets done.
▶ 2:37:17Speaker 6: thank you senator. Speaker 11: so it's literally empowering this committee. Speaker 15: thank you. Thank you. Speaker 5: um, Mrs. henderson, you're recognized. Speaker 18: thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, thank you for holding this hearing today to our chairman, cole. Um, and thank you to our witnesses. It's a great discussion, a really important one. And I think the american people are certainly frustrated watching how this place does its business. So I'm encouraged by the fact that you are all here at the table, joining with us to try to solve this very important problem.
▶ 2:37:44We did see last year, the longest shutdown in government history was incredibly destructive. Um, not only did it threaten our food assistance programs disrupted a lot of travel. We all saw those tsa lines and it put our national security at risk, which I think is unacceptable. And we saw people in both chambers really choosing political theater over american families through that process. I don't want to see that happen going forward. So I, again, appreciate the possible solutions here to avoid government shutdowns and all these proposals.
▶ 2:38:13Um, and senator, you mentioned maybe yours isn't the right one. Maybe it is. Maybe we need just more conversation around these things. Um, and congressman mcclintock as well. Um, I just I am encouraged by this discussion across the board. Um, so, um, I wanted to ask you a question. Director young thank you for coming. It's nice to see you again. Um, and my question for you, um, because I know that we've talked about the cost of government shutdowns. They do cost a significant amount of money.
▶ 2:38:38Um, they're fiscally irresponsible and they're inefficient, as are even the threat of a shutdown happening. Um, you talked about that day, september 30th, a couple of years ago when you were headed into the office to go through the process. Can you tell us a little bit more about what even the threat of a process of shutting down looks like? What, what motions do you have to go through at omb to make that happen? Speaker 13: I said we didn't shut down, but I didn't tell you. We didn't spend a lot of time preparing. Right.
▶ 2:39:05Um, because all the deals came through on the last day and hours possible on the phone. You sure you got a time agreement in the senate? Like we are putting ourselves out here not to do an orderly shutdown. It requires each and every agency not only to develop the plans, but they have to start communicating with the staff. How traumatic. Like you don't know if the next day you leave your tools at the. Because you're not supposed to answer any government phone.
▶ 2:39:31So you have to tell grantees, you have to tell federal employees, you have to tell contractors, uh, and they're all waiting for this, you know, do we have a new pope smoke to see if a deal is not so it is not without consequences to get to the threshold. So we we've talked today about how bad shutdowns are secondary to that or crs. Um, because I don't want to leave this room either thinking crs are the panacea either.
▶ 2:40:00Uh, the regular appropriations bills are, are the goal and always have been the goal of this committee and should be the gold standard of congress and preferably on time, which we haven't gotten all of that done since long before my time. Speaker 18: well, at least I'm proud of the committee's work. In the past two appropriation cycles, we have gotten all 12 bills through committee, and we're working on getting them over the floor for the second year in a row.
▶ 2:40:25But of course, with the fiscal year being only two months away from ending, um, it certainly challenging with the timetable. But, um, when you think about, you talked a little bit about kind of the planning that has to happen. Do you feel like culture across the board in many of our departments, many of these people are, you know, um, really experts in their field, lifelong employees who are valuable contributors to, to government service. Um, do you feel like shutdown culture is pervasive? They know this is coming and they just kind of shrug and, or is the frustration. Speaker 13: I mean, their hope is you can prevent it, right?
▶ 2:40:54I mean, during the four years I was at omb, we didn't shut down. So they had some hope. Like we would come out on the other side and they would come to work the next day. So it isn't a, you know, a surety that you end up in the worst case scenario, but it's quite destabilizing. And look, you have it in your own office to tell somebody they're essential or not essential, especially at an agency level. It also presents a morale problem.
▶ 2:41:19Um, I've managed it from the congressional side and I managed it from agency side, my own agency, not just the federal government and the orderly operations. So it presents a morale problem, even preparing for it, because I have to tell somebody your job is important. Well, all jobs are important. We just try to take the narrowest view possible, uh, to try to stay on the right side of the law.
▶ 2:41:42But it is it is a moral, a morale, uh, bust when you have to go through this process for many reasons. Speaker 18: well, and I've visited many of my fsa offices in the district where they talk about the struggles they already have with hiring personnel and how long it takes to get that process done. All of that is hit pause and, uh, and delayed further. So our farmers aren't getting the services they need. Um, tsa has trouble recruiting and retaining employees if they're not getting paid and they're having to show up to work every day.
▶ 2:42:12So, um, I thank our witnesses for coming today and I look forward to engaging and working on this problem so we can doesn't play politics with government shutdowns. Thank you, I yield back. Speaker 5: thank you for yielding. Mr. may. Speaker 19: thank you so much. And thank you to all of our witnesses for being here too, and for your work and this dialog. Um, I wanted to ask if any of you are welcome to answer, uh, under this current administration.
▶ 2:42:37Um, how has omb director vote approached the legal requirements of our budget process? And how is it different from, uh, maybe previous administrations, even under the first trump administration? Speaker 20: I'm not going there so. Speaker 12: well, yeah, obviously, uh, they've been, uh, late in submitting budgets to the congress.
▶ 2:43:04But again, as I said earlier, they're not the central player in the appropriations process. The chief executive is there to tell us how much he thinks he's going to need to, uh, faithfully execute the laws to run the government. Uh, it's up to us to tell him how much we are willing to appropriate to him. The congress appropriates, but cannot spend.
▶ 2:43:26The president spends, but cannot appropriate that separation of powers is is central to concept of good governance. Going back to magna carta. Uh, we need to focus on our responsibility to appropriate. And that's where we have an impediment that I think we can remove. Speaker 15: anyone else. Speaker 11: yeah. I would just say, obviously, russ vote was also in the first trump administration as well as the second.
▶ 2:43:54It's hard for me to be able to say day to day operations there, because I'm not in day to day operations, but clearly, the first year, very late in getting the budget over, uh, which is typical for a president when they actually come in the first year. I think president biden was as well on that. Uh, just because you're just getting your staff hired and trying to be able to get going also late, there's already been mentioned by chairman cole. Uh, it is important to be able to get those numbers. But as representative mcclintock mentioned as well, uh, those numbers are the requests from the president and the president's budget in the 1974 budget act.
▶ 2:44:23They're supposed to be in on time, but this body actually determines house and senate, uh, determines what's going to actually come out legislatively. It has to originate in the house. So literally, this committee is the one who actually kicks it off first. Speaker 19: I don't know if director young, if you want to offer any input, even if differences. Speaker 13: is it proper to, you know, to comment on your own, uh, your own operations? Look, I, I, I mentioned this earlier and I think it's true. I, I, I'm a omb director.
▶ 2:44:54You've had members of congress, uh, like leon panetta, who was the budget chair. So sore from a member perspective, very different. I think having a staff director of the appropriations committee, uh, even from a member who had been chair of budget, go. Uh, I think what that gave me was a perspective of, uh, I knew what you needed. I knew your districts, every government program I go, whose district is that? I so I had 15 years of that baked in.
▶ 2:45:23There was no way, as omb director, I wouldn't consider how that impacted your constituents. I'm from south louisiana. I don't do red and blue, and certainly not in a job like omb. Uh, while I work for a democratic president, I work for democratic members. I have an I believed I approached that job responsibility to make sure we are answering the mail for our constituents.
▶ 2:45:50I think a disaster response, it does not matter who represents them in the senate and who represents them in the house if there is a need. And thankfully, I worked for a president who spent a long time in the senate, and I did not have to convince him that was the right way to approach the job. So you got someone who was predisposed, I think, to not bypass this system. Speaker 19: yeah. Thank you so much. Sorry to rush you all.
▶ 2:46:18I just wanted to ask one more question. Speaking about local districts, there's always a concern that these automatic types of procedures or process would freeze out benefits to local districts. Um, for example, under an automatic cr, no new community project funding, uh, including local infrastructure and public safety projects, uh, would be able to be enacted into law. Is that correct? Speaker 11: that is correct.
▶ 2:46:46If I can just make one comment on that. We're hopefully we're going to get a continuing resolution. That's not our best case scenario, but that's better than the worst case scenario of a shutdown coming up. So that will start september the 1st. That kicks it all the way into november. Uh, let's say before we actually get appropriations done, what what I'm recommending is instead of having a two month cr, it'd be two week and we have to get all the work done at that point. And we all have to be here at this point. We're punting all this and we're saying we'll deal with this in november.
▶ 2:47:17That's very different than you. Don't leave until it's done. So I totally agree that's how a cr works. But the goal of this is to not have a shutdown. Second best to having appropriations is having at least the government still operating, but we're all still here while we have to get this resolved. So hopefully cr would be much shorter in the days ahead. Speaker 19: yeah, I'm just concerned that that two weeks could keep getting extended. Speaker 11: it could if you want to stay here forever with chairman cole and be able to be here week after week after week with all of our colleagues here.
▶ 2:47:48By the way, chairman cole's a great guy to hang out with. But, um, it's just we all want to be able to get home and see our families and do other responsibilities. If we're in a position where we have to legally stay here and you can't move to any other bill. But appropriations, that's the incentive built in to get appropriations work done. Speaker 19: thank you. Speaker 5: great. Thank you, Mrs. bice. You're recognized. Speaker 21: thank you, Mr. chairman. And thank the witnesses for being here this morning. Slash. Now, afternoon. Um, shutdowns are bad for the american people.
▶ 2:48:17And more frequently, members will take votes, uh, to close government. From a political standpoint, I have thousands of dedicated civilian employees in my district, and I'm glad that we at least passed a cr last night to hopefully avoid another government shutdown.
▶ 2:48:32Um, during the last shutdown, I had a constituent stop me in the airport, and he said his son had taken a job a few months earlier with the tsa, and he was wondering why his son would do a job where a paycheck isn't guaranteed. This is a 20 something year old young man single trying to get out on his own. And yes, those government employees are made whole.
▶ 2:48:58But in the back end, when you have rent and utilities and bills to pay, it can become incredibly difficult. So I'm incredibly thankful for the work that my senator, senator lankford, has done to try to address this issue, and I am incredibly thankful for the work that representative mcclintock has done on the budget control act. Let me start with with you, if I can. You know, the budget control act was passed in 1974. Things have changed just a little bit since those days.
▶ 2:49:29Are there other things that we should be considering as we look to try to make sure that the budget process and our appropriations work is done in a timely fashion. Speaker 12: as I said earlier, um, whatever process we use is not going to make the decisions any easier. Uh, and every year that goes by and we go deeper in debt, those decisions become more and more difficult. Uh, I continue to believe that the budget process outlined in the 1974 budget act is methodical. It is logical.
▶ 2:49:58The problem is we just don't follow it because it requires hard decisions. That's on us. But we can't. There is that one impediment, though. We keep running into, even without fulfilling the budget process as envisioned by the budget act, the appropriations committee. This committee has still. Of established or received 302 budget instructions, uh, marked to those instructions, sent those bills on.
▶ 2:50:27We've spent endless hours debating and amending them on the floor. We send them over to the senate, and nothing happens because the minority is able to block that for lack of closure. Again, this is not a cure all. Uh, the two houses are still going to disagree. Uh, you know, there will still be other impediments, but at least that one impediment is removed. Uh, and perhaps we can get back to the process as was. We've involved this legislative process over two and a half centuries.
▶ 2:50:57Uh, and it's very good at resolving differences between the two houses. When we use it. We have to use it. Speaker 21: thank you for that. Uh, and I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of your legislation as well. I want to pivot to you. Um, miss young, you briefly touched on this earlier, uh, excluding the chicken and the egg problem, uh, during your time at omb, what was the biggest pain point in getting the president's budget submitted in a timely fashion?
▶ 2:51:27Speaker 13: look, uh, besides the chicken and the egg, which I think I could do the same thing congress could do. I could ignore congress's numbers. I can go there late. And we're just going to go ahead. What happens is we're then told that's incredibly unhelpful because you get a president's budget. That's not compared to what reality is. I've literally had budgets go out. As you all are finishing up probes.
▶ 2:51:51I'm then required to send supplemental tables from every agency. Um, because the appropriators, you guys need to see real comparisons and I appreciate that. But putting that aside, saying omb and the white house and agencies in the 500 zero million priorities that happen, oftentimes you have to remind them that it is the law and a priority to put this together.
▶ 2:52:20And just like the budget resolution process faded because it was tough. My fear and president's budgets is we're headed that direction. I fought very hard to have full budgets, mandatory revenue, discretionary. What have you gotten the last cycle? A discretionary budget. No one screamed.
▶ 2:52:45And I bet you you're going to get just discretionary every time. An easier path and no one really squeals. That is what the system is going to do. And shalanda at omb in the future. Will I win an argument that says our responsibility is to put a full budget that shows all spending, all revenues? I'm going to lose that argument because they're going to say the last president didn't have to do that. Why do we have to take those bullets and arrows?
▶ 2:53:15Speaker 21: so it sort of speaks to, uh, representative mcclintock. We're taking the easy path, um, to be able to try to address this. And sometimes the easiest path is either punting or not adhering to the budget control act provisions. So with that, thank you for being here today. Um, special shout out to my senator. I'm thrilled that you're working on this important legislation and, uh, appreciate your time with that, I yield. Speaker 5: thank you so much, Mr. espaillat. Thank you. Speaker 22: Mr. chairman. Thank you, senator member. Ash, thank you. Good to see you again. Um.
▶ 2:53:48Shutdowns are horrible, right? They. The general public, the rest of the world see us as dysfunctional. People get hurt, continuing resolutions are not necessarily either. The best solution to this budget issue. Right. Uh, but I tell you what I feel is just as bad.
▶ 2:54:12The winner take all attitude and the extreme, um, budget decisions that either sides makes, uh, present a scenario where it's too difficult to build consensus and get this done. So imagine how the world looks at us when we cut food stamps, for example.
▶ 2:54:39That could very well be that it is, uh, something around $7 and change per person per day. Imagine when a mom is hurt because in one of our 12, uh, separate appropriations process, we, uh, present a scenario where they will be hurt that way or other meritorious programs for the american people.
▶ 2:55:08So I think that the extreme positions that we take make it impossible for us to reach consensus. And the winner take all attitude. Presents a major obstacle for us to get this done. And then we have to resort to either a shutdown or a continuing resolution, which is both are not the best scenario.
▶ 2:55:35But I think that unless we decide to be more flexible and understand that there is a middle road somewhere where we can all live, uh, and protect our points of views, uh, and we're going to continue in this direction.
▶ 2:55:55And, but my question is to miss young as a ranking member of the legislative branch, a subcommittee I have met in her concerns from capitol police officers. Uh, it has been growing concern that the us capitol police continues to lose staff to other law enforcement agencies that can offer higher pay and benefits as violence. Right.
▶ 2:56:22And the threat of violence continues to hover above us members, staff and visitors in this campus. So this is a real issue that could have a devastating impact on, uh, the campus. Having served as director of the office of management and budget, you understand how continuing resolutions affect agencies abilities to plan and manage their operation.
▶ 2:56:52What risk will congress created? The department were required to operate under an automatic cr for an extended period of time, while staffing shortages and security demands continue to evolve? This is something right here on campus, right? Uh, we've seen it play out on different occasions, scenarios, and theaters. Uh, so what do you see?
▶ 2:57:20Speaker 13: long before I was omb director, I was the clerk of the legislative branch subcommittee. Uh, so it is near and dear in the capitol police are near and dear. Uh, and it was always hard to recruit. Uh, and it's gotten harder. And obviously their morale problems.
▶ 2:57:36Uh, look, you've heard what I believe happens in a, in an automatic cr scenario where a few people who see the, the, the year long bills as something they would rather not have happen for whatever reason, whether it be a president or a few senators or a few house members. Um, that we have no, uh, way out of that w 14 days becomes 28. Think about before election season. If there's something hard to deal with, like immigration has always been difficult. What happens?
▶ 2:58:07You take tough votes. You put the house and senate in that position. Or do you say, I have this thing that allows me not to do that? That's my fear. Uh, and senator lankford is right. He has quorum call every day for the senate. I don't see that for the house. So my fear again, is I see a provision that says that it is an order, uh, to have a bed check basically for the house, but it does not dictate for the house in the same way it dictates for the senate, uh, in the bill.
▶ 2:58:36So my worry is, uh, that especially in election years, we end up just the automatic cr becomes something we have to live with for a very long time. Speaker 22: thank you.
▶ 2:58:49And again, uh, uh, senator and congress member, unless we deal with the culture of this place and our inability to talk to each other and reach consensus, this is a difficult endeavor, I yield back. Speaker 5: I thank the gentleman. Mr. kimani. You're recognized, sir. Speaker 23: thank you. Chairman, I want to first of all, thank all three of you for being here and for giving us so much of your time.
▶ 2:59:18I think it's been a fascinating discussion on the solutions and also reiterating the problem. I think if we have gone down the line in terms of explaining what the issue is, the problem that we're all trying to fix, and I think everybody agrees what the problem is. The the difference, of course, is going to come in in the solution that we're proposing here. I've been here for three and a half years. Um, it came in in january of 23.
▶ 2:59:44And so I, I've lived through a few of these moments and uh, both from, from us, it was explained. Um, uh, speaker mccarthy coming to an agreement and that potentially causing him the speakership to actually the longest shutdown in us history, followed by a partial shutdown. So we see the problems. I can read stats of how this has impacted my district 1.3 billion per month in lost gross state product.
▶ 3:00:06Um, disruption in snap benefits, um, with benefits, not to mention tsa has been mentioned before and so on. So I think we get that, uh, now what, what, what's one of the most frustrating parts for me after being here for, for the period of time that I have been, is the blaming on both sides. Uh, it happened under, under other leadership when I was here, before I was here. Now this. So there is a problem. There's a problem that that hasn't been fixed. We could argue.
▶ 3:00:36And who's, who's the main responsible person depending on the year. But this is the reality that I think we're trying to get to the. And that I strongly believe that this is the case. The pain of a shutdown should be felt primarily by this body and not by the people at home, because they're not the ones that have failed. It's it's the people that work in this building, specifically the members that have been elected. That's where the pain should be felt for any shutdown.
▶ 3:01:05I withheld my pay as long as people in my district and my office were not getting paid, I was not getting paid either. That's just a small part of what needs to happen in terms of everyone in the building making the decisions to get us into a shutdown, to participate in that pain, and to actually be the ones feeling the pain, not the people at home. So my question is to and I hope I can get to them real quick here. Uh, miss young, you know, the way that we've explained tonight, and I really appreciate your perspective because you've been in the practical sense of this thing, working on it.
▶ 3:01:35And I think you've given a very thoughtful response to all this. Um, you know, the guardrails that, that have kept the shutdowns from happening in the past as it was described, they still exist today. But as it was mentioned before, the culture in this place is not the same that it was back then when the shutdowns were not acceptable and neither side wanted them. And the work was to go to a solution. What we have here today is a different culture, a different mood in this building that it seems that for some that's where they want to go. So the current guardrails that we have today are not working.
▶ 3:02:06They're not enough to prevent it because those in power of them and making the decisions are not constraining themselves to those guardrails anymore. So if not the solution that is being proposed, what can we do to fix this and prevent this from happening? Speaker 13: and I wouldn't say it's guardrails. It's people, right?
▶ 3:02:22Um, the, the people in leadership, the people who occupy the house, the office of the presidency, but more congressional leadership given this committee, the space in which to do its, its job and to promote this process and stand on an equal footing with any presidency. I will say, listening to senator lankford like I'm a big fan of people staying and working.
▶ 3:02:46If there is a way to ensure that that happens and people are as engaged as this committee is all summer long, I remember my summers. Yeah, only being appropriations do it earlier. So I don't like that is a honorable goal. I would like to see that same will or forced participation happen much earlier in the process.
▶ 3:03:14Because even before we got to like shut the longest shutdown crs, like, you know, we all know we get to september. That's not the time. You're never going to finish in time. So what can we do? And some members of our lives to bring if a senator, senator lankford's idea don't have it, start october 1st. This idea to keep members around. What can we do earlier in the process?
▶ 3:03:42Speaker 23: I like that, so I want to talk offline because I want us to acknowledge that that that what we have today is not enough to prevent shutdowns from happening. The only thing worse than the short term cr is a long term cr. And the only thing worse than the long term cr is a shutdown. So we don't want any of those. We want them do our job and pass it. So I do I'm happy that we can acknowledge that.
▶ 3:04:02Senator, with the seconds I have left on on miss young's perspective here, the practical experience of this, uh, if something like this goes through the decision really at the end of how to pass this or not to pass, it comes down to just a few handful of people. And many of us in this room are not in those conversations. So just the decision making of two, three, four, maybe ten people have an impact on the other 435 that are not at the table in the room and all the decisions that are being made.
▶ 3:04:27So how will the legislation like this or a rule like this one, um, address that? Speaker 11: so for the 5 or 10 people that are in the room at that point, there are at least known by the other 400 people that are around them. At this point, we're just saying we're not going to pay tsa workers that have no idea where to point. We at least know who they are. We can pick up and call them. We can interact with those folks. When the final negotiations are done, they'll be done here in this building, not out somewhere else.
▶ 3:04:54Right now, I've got tsa agents that tell me they feel like their paycheck is bipolar, and they don't know who to be able to call to be able to fix it. The responsibility and the consequences should be on this body, not on federal workers. And the idea that the the best case scenario for us is to continue to not pay federal workers. I just disagree with. Speaker 23: absolutely unacceptable. Speaker 11: absolutely unacceptable. And we got to be able to solve this. And if somebody has a better solution than this, bring it. But currently no one else is.
▶ 3:05:22So we're bringing it on. Speaker 23: I'm with you. Thank you so much, sir. Speaker 5: thank you. Gentlemen. Um, miss torres, you're recognized. Speaker 24: uh, thank you, chairman and ranking member. And to our witnesses, thank you for being here. Um, today, special shout out, of course, uh, to director young, who many of us have had the pleasure of working with you in this committee and beyond.
▶ 3:05:45The appropriations process requires the discipline to work across the aisle, find common ground to cut off, especially to cut off extremes on both sides of the aisle and the extremes of a president.
▶ 3:06:04I know that a few republican colleagues were relieved when some of the cuts proposed by the president and house majority were not signed into law for fiscal year 2026, and some of us were disappointed to see cuts in critical areas that help support our communities and the next generation of leaders. I support a transparent process that includes compromise checks and balances.
▶ 3:06:29And senator lankford, I really appreciate your approach. Um, what I do not agree on is the triggering of an automatic continuing resolution, because I agree with director young that we should start this process earlier and we should we should be committed and disciplined. Uh, simply put, it is our job to compromise the american people needs congress to step up when our country is divided.
▶ 3:06:58They need the appropriations committee to uphold our common american values and help our communities, especially on disaster aid. The january 2025 la wildfires were devastating to communities across southern california, and the white house has not taken a single step to submit a disaster aid supplemental request. Not for california and not for the 39 states, tribes and territories that have had major disaster declared since 2025.
▶ 3:07:27Where is the outrage in that? And instead of lending a helping hand to hard working taxpayers, the trump administration and the republican majority are prioritizing funding the iran forever war.
▶ 3:07:43To add insult to injury, california is also the biggest donor state in america, with 40 million of our hard working taxpayers paying $275 billion more in federal taxes than we get back in funding. Disaster aid should not be a partizan issue. Doubling down on this short sighted decision, president trump announced this week he is freezing federal medicaid dollars for california.
▶ 3:08:14The appropriations committee should be spending time on standing up for appropriations law, instead of letting president trump decide that americans in blue states shouldn't get the funding congress provided in law. Instead of considering legislation to avoid hard choices and let automatic process take over, we should be working together, compromising and finding a path forward.
▶ 3:08:39The proposals before us would do the opposite and weaken not just this committee, but congress itself. Except for my agreement with you, senator, on the issue of ensuring that we come together, we are already witnessing what happens when a party refuses to check its worst impulses. We need not only to stand up for the appropriations law, but we need to stand up for laws in general.
▶ 3:09:10Federal immigration agents need to follow the same law they impose on american citizens. You cannot say that we are pro-law enforcement or party of law and order. When you don't care. When ice agents break the law, it is still against the law to murder an american citizen for no reason on american soil. Even if you wear a mask and a badge.
▶ 3:09:32When and when agencies don't follow the law, that is when congress and this committee must step in and hold them accountable, not give them a free pass and unlimited funding. Instead of proposals like this to get out of tough choices, this committee must work together across the aisle to hold this administration accountable, support our constituents, and uphold the law. There's really no excuse not to do that.
▶ 3:10:01Senator, how would you suggest we move forward? I think there's so much more agreement than disagreement. And how can we cancel, you know, the two super extremes on both sides and find the middle to move forward. Speaker 11: so I think the best thing we can do is keep the conversation going. What typically happens in a moment like this is someone will say, I like everything in this proposal, but this one thing, so let's not do it and then let's not do anything right.
▶ 3:10:30It's a different issue when we actually look at it and say, okay, I agree with these issues. I don't agree with these issues. Let's figure out how to be able to solve this. If we have agreement that we should end government shutdowns, then let's actually figure out a bipartisan option. That's what we've been working on in the senate to figure out a bipartisan, nonpartisan option to try to figure out how do we in government shutdowns? That's what maggie and I continue to be able to work on. The worst case scenario for us is to finish this hearing and go, we had a hearing on it check.
▶ 3:10:57And then a couple of years from now, we're in a long government shutdown again and say nothing's changed. Nothing changes until we actually keep the conversation going, until we figure out what does work and then do that. Speaker 24: I'm committed to doing that with you or anyone else. I can tell you that I got myself to congress, elected to congress, campaigning in my district. The party did not get me here. And my commitment, and when I took that oath was to my constituents, not the democratic party or any president. And with that, I yield back. Speaker 5: thank you.
▶ 3:11:27Um, the, uh, our witnesses have been exceedingly generous. Uh, but the senator has to get back to the senate. Uh, and so. Speaker 11: so I've got to run back and vote. I can try to run right back. Speaker 5: well, we're we're we're you don't need to because we're, we're pretty much, uh, getting through the, uh, um, the folks that, uh, that have questions. But let me first again, thank you. Thank you for your commitment. Thank you for your service. And thank you for your willingness to spend this, what I think was very productive time with us, senator. So with that, you're excused with great gratitude. Speaker 11: thank you.
▶ 3:11:56I do appreciate the time to be able to be in the part of the conversation. I. I do encourage folks to glance through these. This letter from the american federation of government employees. They really want a solution to this. Um, and, senator, I almost called you senator hoyer there for just a second. Sorry, that's just a default on that. Uh, congressman already knows this extremely well from having so many federal employees that live in his district.
▶ 3:12:20This is a big issue that they are crying out that they support this piece of legislation, but they are crying out for us to actually solve this. Speaker 5: thank you. Thank you. The senator has to be excused. And then we will, um, uh. Just check. Of course, we'll give you a few seconds. Speaker 25: I thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Um, Mr. kelly is a, a good friend of mine.
▶ 3:12:44B lives in my district and we've talked about this, um, everybody on this committee has said shutdowns are terrible. I cited, uh, three people who didn't believe that necessarily. And that was Mr. gingrich who said that. Mr. boehner has said that. And president trump has said that and shut down under certain circumstances is good.
▶ 3:13:13Uh, I want to thank you for this thoughtful proposal. I will tell you, I am very much supportive of your, uh, proposal. You cannot consider other legislation until must pass legislation. And the only must pass legislation is the appropriation bills. Um, none of the authorizing bills are must pass.
▶ 3:13:37Consequences will occur, but they will not shut down government if they don't pass. And I want to thank you for, uh, thoughtful presentation and the way that you always present yourself and your issues in, in a constructive, positive way. And I look forward to working with you as we go forward.
▶ 3:13:59Because as majority leader, I indicated to the appropriations committee and shalonda young, I want the bills ready to go to the floor by june 1st. I want all the bills considered in june. I want july by then. June go to the senate. The senate. I want them to consider it. I think Mr. mcclintock's idea is an interesting idea. I don't think we can affect it. I am, frankly, not for the filibuster.
▶ 3:14:27I know we democrats are for it now. We weren't for it when we were trying to get gun legislation through. Right. Uh, so I thank the gentleman. I thank the work and look forward to working with him. Speaker 5: thank you, gentlemen, again, senator, you're excused. But but again, uh, gratitude for your willingness to do the work that you do for your service and also for spending this, I think, very valuable time. Thank you, sir. You're excused. Uh, Mr. edwards, you're recognized, sir.
▶ 3:14:57Speaker 25: thank you. Speaker 5: thank you, thank you, Mr. chair. Speaker 4: thank all of you for. Speaker 5: uh, for being here on our panel today. Mr. young. Uh, I represent western north carolina, nc 11. We were hit on september 27th, 2024 by hurricane helene, the worst natural disaster in my districts history.
▶ 3:15:18And I got to witness firsthand, uh, how difficult that it became for us to continue our recovery from such a storm under two significant government shutdowns. Can you tell me from your experience from the inside of the white house, what difficulties that you have seen?
▶ 3:15:43Because I'm not sure that every member of this committee, and I certainly know that not every member of congress understands the difficulties of folks that have lost everything. When we choose to play political games with a budget up here. Speaker 13: uh, Mr. edwards is someone who has pulled out drywall from my parents house and grew up with a storm tracker under my arm, uh, in south louisiana.
▶ 3:16:08Uh, there is nothing almost, uh, that energizes me than meeting people after they've experienced some of the worst loss after hurricane, tornado of fire. It should be nonpartisan. Not even bipartisan, should be nonpartisan. Um, so we were proud to work together to, to get supplemental up.
▶ 3:16:31We did not have a shutdown during my time at omb, but I can tell you I've seen shutdowns over my time, especially when I was staff director. Uh, people have to, we have to determine whether people can continue to, to service in the disaster area if we have to pull them back. So you have to take two weeks to decide who can even stay versus leave.
▶ 3:16:56Uh, it is extremely even if they can stay, you've gone through this process, which slows down their ability to do their day to day work. So it is, uh, detrimental in a regular time for people, for people who are wondering if the sba is going to continue to staff the disaster recovery center, uh, can you imagine like going through the muck literally after helene, the muck, uh, showing up to not have full support, um, be there to take your application.
▶ 3:17:25Uh, so while we didn't have the scenario of a shutdown, uh, I know how hard it is to manage disaster response, uh, and shutdowns in general, uh, just put a strain on the system as we even determine it. And by the way, can the people in the disaster recovery center get paid? So you have them trying to help people. The fema people probably are getting paid because they have the disaster relief fund, the sba people maybe not. So you have two class of federal citizens.
▶ 3:17:54Uh, it's not a way to operate. Speaker 4: well, I. Speaker 5: I can tell you that, uh, there are positions in fema that might continue to operate during the government shutdown, but from first hand experience, uh, for me and for my constituents, a large part of fema absolutely shuts down. They won't even answer our phone. Uh, what would, what would shut down?
▶ 3:18:17For example, for example, what would a government shutdown to replenishing the disaster relief fund? Speaker 13: so again, we didn't have a shutdown, but we talked about this a little where during shutdowns, omb and the white house have a lot of flexibility on what they determine to be essential or not. Uh, so this idea, this general theme where we seem to have agreement is congress wants to keep more of that authority.
▶ 3:18:42So shutdowns, just by their very nature, hand that authority over to white house and omb to decide who can still answer phones. Now, the longer these go on, even people who are told they have to work may have to go find other jobs. And you start seeing people call out and not being able to sustain their own families and long shutdowns. Speaker 5: thank you. I'm going to run out of time, but I need to reiterate to this committee I've seen what happens in a government shutdown.
▶ 3:19:10Uh, the north carolina governor came to my office as the only appropriator from north carolina asking for additional relief funds. And two days later, his very delegation chose to shut the government down, uh, in the north carolina delegation chose to shut the government down. That brought things to a screeching halt, money that was due to folks looking to recover. Uh, what was brought to a halt?
▶ 3:19:38Debris removal was brought to a halt that helped that people in western north carolina needed was brought to a halt. All while there were folks up here saying, we need more money, we need more resource resources. And I thought it was rich and hypocritical of folks to then turn right around and vote to shut the government down. Just, uh, just my perspective for, uh, for, for those folks that are making decisions to shut us down for political reasons.
▶ 3:20:09Thank you, I yield back. Thank the gentleman. Speaker 16: Mr. ivey. Speaker 5: you're recognized, sir. Speaker 1: thank you, Mr. chairman. I appreciate it. And let me say I appreciate the structure. Speaker 8: of this hearing. Speaker 1: as well. Uh, you know, I think, um, while I've been on appropriations, we've done a lot of hearings where, frankly, they're kind of, um, very quick opportunities to chat to, uh, have some questions with, uh, the heads of some of the departments and agencies don't always get a chance to have this level of, um, information that's shared
▶ 3:20:40With people who are knowledgeable on this topic, especially miss young here, uh, for. So I want to thank the committee for that. Uh, and I appreciate the fact too, that this is such a critical issue for us. I mean, we've had, um, um, a couple of shutdowns while I've been here in the congress only for three years. I represent the other half of prince george's county that Mr. hoyer doesn't represent. I have thousands of federal government employees in my district.
▶ 3:21:10Um, I used to be a federal government employee along these lines as well. Before I was elected to congress, my parents, my father in particular, um, was a federal employee as well. So I have a lot of concern and sympathy with respect to them and the impact that these shutdowns can have on them.
▶ 3:21:28Uh, I also want to make sure to, though, and I miss young, I think your, your testimony addresses some of this, um, from a standpoint of institutional impact that this piece of legislation might have from the standpoint of transferring authority and power to the white house from congress. Uh, and I was kind of curious if you could elaborate on that and give me some of your additional thoughts on it.
▶ 3:21:54Speaker 13: and I'll, I'll give you an answer I gave someone earlier, like having been at omb and how decisions typically get made where there are lots of balls in the air. You know, I certainly see a scenario where if you come together in a bipartisan way and you have some oversight that a occupant of the white house is not a fan of what happens if they have this fail safe and automatic if they go to the omb director said, look, the government's still open. Can I still do these five things?
▶ 3:22:22And omb director says, yes, you can, Mr. or miss president, then why should I sign these bills? The government stays open. Um, that's my worry that you have ten people. That could be a combination of the senate. There could be bad actors in any administration, even in the house itself, who don't want this process to work for whatever reason.
▶ 3:22:45And you give them a fail safe, and then we never or it will take a very long time to get regular appropriations done. That's my concern. Speaker 1: Mr. maclennan, do you have thoughts on that? And by the way, it's good to see you again. Speaker 12: good to see you again. We miss you on. Judiciary. Speaker 1: but what's what's your thought on that. Speaker 12: well, um the. I think Mr.
▶ 3:23:15Langford's main point, uh, I can't speak for him, but, uh, I think what it comes down to is this, um, if we're not here talking to one another, we're not resolving the issues. The whole the name congress comes from the root of the word that means coming together. Uh, it is a process. It's a human process. And it's a very messy process. The founders wanted it to be very difficult to make these decisions.
▶ 3:23:43They wanted every voice in the country to be heard. They wanted these questions to be held up to every conceivable light. Um, once that and that's, that's this process of, uh, I think senator langford's principal point is it can't work if we're not actually in congress. Speaker 1: I appreciate that, uh, and I appreciate the fact, I guess we've got two versions of the legislation here that we're going to take a look at.
▶ 3:24:14I share, Mr. senator langford's view that, uh, we do need to try and find a solution here because it's an ongoing challenge. I do think it's critical for this to be the right solution, though. And I, I'm not sure that, um, we sort of figured that out. We've got two competing bills here that I think, uh, are honest and fair minded efforts to try and address the speaker 26: problems, but I think we've got some more work cut out before we get there. And I, you know, running out of time.
▶ 3:24:42This the snap benefits piece would be one that I would ask that popped up in the the last shutdown, I think there was an assertion by the administration that they couldn't continue to pay snap benefits. And there was. Speaker 5: a I mean, it's just another example of how much leeway in omb a white house has in a shutdown. So I think we've all agreed shutdowns are awful. Crs slightly better than awful, whether they be automatic or a regular way of doing crs.
▶ 3:25:11What what can we do to get this process to produce 12 appropriations bills? And there was just a lot more agreement in this room than there was opposition. The solutions. There is disagreement, but the overall aims and goals to stop shutdowns and crs not being much better.
▶ 3:25:36Um, I think provides a basis to not end the conversation here but keep it going. Speaker 26: I thank you for that, Mr. chairman. I apologize for running over and I yield back. Speaker 21: well, thank you very much, sir. Mr. malloy, you're recognized. Speaker 27: thank you, Mr. chair. Uh, this has been a really interesting hearing, unlike any I've ever been in.
▶ 3:26:02Sitting here as a still fairly newish member of congress, listening to three insiders with knowledge of how things work about here, talking about how broken we are has been informative and a little bit heartbreaking. Um, and thank you. I know you're not used to being on that side for these hearings, but thank you for sitting here and patiently answering questions for more than three hours. Now, I will be brief. I don't think I'll even use my whole five minutes. But, Mr.
▶ 3:26:26Mcclintock, um, I think you and I are in agreement on part of what's broken here. Based on other conversations we've had. I think the reason that the annual appropriations bills are so important is that when we have to pass spending bills every year, it keeps congress accountable to the taxpayers every year. And when we're talking about spending government dollars, their taxpayer dollars, we're taking money from american citizens. We're deciding how it needs to be spent.
▶ 3:26:56And if we have to vote on that every single year, it keeps us accountable. It keeps that at the front of our minds. Um, and the process of how we do that is only supposed to be a means to an end. And what I'm hearing here, and I'm doing the thing I hate, which is giving a speech, asking a question, but what I'm hearing is that the, the means has become the end. We get so caught up in the means we're not getting there.
▶ 3:27:20Um, and any proposal that includes automatic funding for anything seems like it defeats the purpose of making us vote on it every year. So we go back to our taxpayers and say what we're doing. And, and so I really like your bill. I like the idea that we need to change the process to make it work. Um, but we can't make the senate change. They're going to have to vote on that in the senate.
▶ 3:27:46How optimistic are you that we can get senators to actually vote for a bill that changes their procedure? I know there are changes on our side, too. Um, but I know how our side works better. Do you think we can actually get the senate to agree to process changes to get us back on track? Speaker 4: that ultimately would be a question for the senate to decide. Again, we are amending statutes. So both houses have a say in this. Uh, but obviously this directly affects the senate's procedures.
▶ 3:28:12Uh, I have been in contact with one of the leading members of the senate who's very interested in introducing a similar measure on their side. I don't think he's made a decision yet, so I won't mention his name. But, uh, you know, I do think there's, there's, there's enormous frustration in the senate over that same problem of the system seizing up and not being able to deliver, uh, of, uh, and, you know, that's going to be true.
▶ 3:28:37Whoever's, you know, whoever has a majority of the minority can block the system, can block the process of coming together, uh, to, to compromise and to make a decision. Uh, that's, that's a serious problem because then the system can't operate as it was designed. It can't operate at all. Speaker 27: yeah. And as an appropriator, I, I, I've seen that it is a lot of work for us to get 12 bills written marked up out of committee, ready to go to the floor.
▶ 3:29:06And, and when we know it's not going to go anywhere, that's a lot of wasted effort. But I've also seen that when we do that work, sometimes we're our own worst enemies. And, you know, the public thinks these are enormous bills that were written at midnight and presented the next morning, and nobody's seen them. Do you see any solution to that? Where we have some control on our side, um, that we can make sure the public understands this process and why it's so important and how many people are involved and how many steps are involved.
▶ 3:29:38I agree that's a yes. Okay. With that, I have some other questions, but I'm almost out of time. And you've been here for a long time and it's been a long day. I appreciate both of you and the senator answering these questions. And again, this has been one of the most interesting hearings I've ever sat through, and I yield. Speaker 21: well, thank you. Um, Mr. aguilar, you're recognized, sir. Thank you. Speaker 26: Mr. chairman. Speaker 7: I appreciate it. And I know our, uh, our guests have been here for a long time, and I appreciate their patience. Shalonda. It's always good to see you.
▶ 3:30:06And always good to see you back here in this in this space. Uh, we think of we think that we're your home here on the appropriations team. I wanted to know, and I know you've answered a ton of questions from members. Can can you talk to me specifically? You know, I'm from southern california, the home state for Mr. mcclintock. And I, uh, often ravaged by wildfires in our region. The current administration has neglected our recovery needs.
▶ 3:30:32Um, in, in my opinion, because we're a blue state. Uh, I'm also working to ensure that our region is prepared for national security when it comes to the 2028 olympics. Can you touch on how policies of automatic crs would impact congress's ability to respond to unforeseen needs, like natural disasters and other unforeseen events?
▶ 3:30:58Speaker 5: again, if you if you believe, um, my scenario and how automatic crs play out, obviously I believe it quite well that if there is a quote unquote fail safe in there hard decisions to be made at, like immigration, like a whole host of things that we have fought hard in the appropriations process to do, then it may not be this committee, but it could be, uh, a president, it could be a group of senators, it
▶ 3:31:29Could be some combination of leadership who just say, why would we take this tough vote if we have an out not to shut down the government? If you believe that and you believe that leads to a longer cr, then you can't be responsive in a cr.
▶ 3:31:47This committee has always been against crs because all the work that miss malloy has talked about over the summer, where you're responding to things you've heard about from home, where, frankly, you're marking up a president's budget that's probably out of date before it even gets to you, because agencies have started this late, then we have never believed a cr am putting the third of government that depends on appropriations.
▶ 3:32:13Uh, that 2 or 3 years operating at the same levels was a responsive way to govern. When I started on this committee as a staffer, I would sit through senior members just real, like all this stuff comes to us, yet we at least do our work every year. Go talk to the authorizers who have mandatory and they don't deal with that every year.
▶ 3:32:39And I just am will always be shaped by that and can't imagine a world where we put this now, 28% of discretionary, even the possibility that turns into yet another chunk of federal spending that congress does not deal with in an annual way. The complaint I grew up with from members was all of it needed to be reviewed in a more, you know, in a in a clip that was, uh, more regular.
▶ 3:33:09Speaker 7: and that was members on both sides of. Speaker 5: the aisle that was members on both sides of the aisle and a unique perspective from the members who served on the annual process committee. Speaker 14: yeah. Speaker 7: Mr. mcclintock, your thoughts on how automatic crs would respond to unforeseen circumstances or natural disasters? Speaker 4: well, again, that's senator lankford's bill, but I think his point is that we need a default, um, safety net, uh, when we can't come to an agreement.
▶ 3:33:35But I, I can't disagree with miss young's analysis, uh, that, that, you know, that that can then provide a perverse incentive not to come to an agreement. Speaker 7: yeah, yeah. Speaker 14: the. Speaker 7: the theory of your case is that we all need to, you know, kind of be in the same space to, to work that out. I think that's also the same ethos of the members on this committee. We want to even in difficult times, even in even in shutdowns. Speaker 4: that's the whole purpose of that building. With the big dome on top, it's to talk these things through.
▶ 3:34:04And sometimes that takes a lot of talk. Speaker 7: yeah, sometimes that takes a lot of talk. And I've, I've, I've been here when we have had shutdowns in a number of, of ways and a number of circumstances. Um, miss young was, was working here, uh, previously when we had shutdowns, uh, over the border wall that, that was unnecessary. We've had shutdowns over the affordable care act tax credits.
▶ 3:34:30Um, you know, I, I see that just, and I know we're here to talk about the, the proposals, but it's not lost on me to kind of step back and think why we get into the situation we're in are also big and complex and sometimes, um, you know, are out of the purview of just this committee, but that doesn't minimize the importance of, of the debates that we're, that we're having.
▶ 3:34:53Uh, I think what we want out of these proposals is to just ensure that we have the ability to shape, uh, what is, what is in front of us. Um, that's why we're here. And, and that's the job that we've, that we've agreed to. So I thank you both for your time and I appreciate your patience with the committee. Yield back. Speaker 21: I thank the gentleman. Is letlow. Okay.
▶ 3:35:16I think you're going to wind us up. Wind us down, I should say on the other side. Over here. Is that you're, uh, you're recognized. Speaker 28: thank you so much, Mr. chairman, and thank you for holding this important meeting.
▶ 3:35:46And, miss young, it's good to see you. Uh, fellow louisianan here today. Uh, last fall, the nation experienced the longest government shutdown in history, lasting 43 days. The shutdown disrupted businesses across the country and placed a significant burden on american workers and their families. For weeks, dedicated federal government employees were required to report to work without pay, while members of congress still received a paycheck. This is simply unacceptable.
▶ 3:36:15During every government shutdown, I have asked the house to withhold my pay until the government reopened because members of congress should should share in the consequences of a funding lapse. Earlier this year, my fellow louisianan senator john kennedy, led a successful effort to withhold senator's pay during government shutdowns. I think this is a common sense measure enduring, ensuring that members are held accountable and are not treated differently from the federal employees and american families they serve.
▶ 3:36:45Well, I hope our nation avoids another shutdown. I believe the house should seriously consider adopting a similar policy to hold all our feet to the fire for our witnesses. Today, as congress considers ways to restore public trust in the appropriations process, should additional accountability measures, including whether members of congress should continue receiving pay during a funding lapse, be part of that conversation.
▶ 3:37:15Speaker 5: one I cannot let pass a fellow louisianan without. Uh, she's the only person in here who knows where clinton, louisiana is. And that's my hometown. Um, I promise you, she's the only one. Um, look, I think that this conversation today, there has been more, uh, agreement that this is unacceptable. Um, in my remarks, I reminded not as a pat on the back because it's low hanging to say I didn't preside over a shutdown.
▶ 3:37:44I don't take great pride in that. That's like should be basic. Um, but nothing trumps political will, right? And I have asked and think through these, these reforms that congressman mcclintock has, that senator lankford has let's I don't really, I don't we like to start with the symptom, but there's been a lot to fail. Uh, before we get to shutdowns.
▶ 3:38:12And that could be a combination of administrations who there's. And it doesn't matter. The party, it presents an opportunity. They're not going to really offer you your article one power back. Mhm. Uh, so I'd like to see a lot of effort and thought in what does it take to get the room to really work on the appropriations process and have leadership give you all the room to do the the hard work?
▶ 3:38:42Mhm. To have an administration who is fearful if they get in the way of your hard work, the soft power, the appropriations committee was often more strong than the hard power of the bills. A pick up of the phone call like, hey, that's not what we meant. And that was always listened to. So I think I get it. After the longest shutdown and we saw the harm in federal workers, the want to do these things on the tail end, um, like pay.
▶ 3:39:12I'll leave that to you all to discuss. And I know there's been some constitutionality questions, but you all have to answer that for yourself. But I would just hope we leave this. And it's been a very good discussion trying to figure out what we can do to give this process the space it needs and the hard work you all sit here and do all summer, right? I finally took my 1st june vacation last year because appropriations is all this summer.
▶ 3:39:37What can we do to focus the house and the senate's full body on this work and not leave it to september when we know we're set up for failure? We can't finish in two weeks. Speaker 28: yeah. Thank you for your comments. I know the american people expect us to do our job. And when we shut this place down, I just believe that we should not receive a paycheck just like they would not receive if they didn't show up to work.
▶ 3:40:02Speaker 4: the ideal outcome courses for the appropriations process to culminate with appropriations sent to the president for signature. Absolutely. We have a blockage in that system where a minority, republican or democrat, can stop that process in the senate, and that that seizes up the legislative progression that, uh, will ultimately arrive at agreement between the two houses and produce an appropriations bill to the senate.
▶ 3:40:32So, uh, that's, that's my principal concern. Again, not a cure all, but it will make it more likely that those bills can make their way to the president's desk. And that's the ideal situation is for the congress to work its will through the appropriations that it adopts. That's what the founders envisioned. Speaker 28: amen to that. Thank you both so much for your time. Appreciate it. I yield back. Speaker 21: thank the gentlelady. Uh, let me let me thank our our remarkable witnesses for being here today, for your time, for your insight.
▶ 3:41:03As a reminder, members shall have five legislative days within which to, uh, revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material into the record. Uh, with that, the committee stands adjourned.