[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 15, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1174-S1175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Appropriations Process

  Mr. President, there is a lot going on in the Senate, and I am 
grateful for that. I hope we can resolve our differences and begin to 
work on policy. Personnel do matter. But what I want to highlight, as 
we look at the agenda for the Senate, when we look at an agenda for 
this Congress and the Federal Government, is the appropriations 
process.
  One of my goals as a Member of the Senate--I didn't expect this when 
I was elected; I didn't expect there to be a problem--what I want to 
see is the Senate function. All 100 U.S. Senators, whether they are 
Republican or Democratic, ought to take a great deal of responsibility 
for seeing that this place, the U.S. Senate, gives each Senator the 
opportunity to present his or her ideas, to represent his or her 
constituents, and to make a difference on their behalf. One of the ways 
we can do this is in the way that we appropriate money.
  The appropriations process is important. At the moment, we are 
operating under a continuing resolution that expires in a few months. 
We have had lots of conversations about the first 200 days of this 
Congress, the first 100 or 200 days of the administration. We have 
talked about the importance of confirming Executive nominations. We 
have talked about the importance of dealing with the consequences of 
the Affordable Care Act. We have talked about the need and the desire 
to repeal regulations that are onerous and damaging to our ability to 
create jobs. We certainly have talked about the need to do an overhaul 
in a comprehensive way of the U.S. Tax Code.
  I want to raise to my colleagues' attention and hopefully generate 
awareness about one of the things that seem to be missing in that 
discussion about what our agenda is or should be, which is the 
necessity of doing appropriations bills.
  The way this place is supposed to work is that by law, by April 15, 
we are to have passed a budget, and then 12 separate appropriations 
bills march their way through the Appropriations Committee and come to 
the Senate floor, where they are available for amendment, discussion, 
and debate by every Member of the Senate. We ultimately pass each of 
those 12 appropriations bills and send them to the House or vice versa. 
Those 12 appropriations bills fill in the blanks.
  Unfortunately, what has happened way too often is we have gotten in 
the habit of passing something we call a continuing resolution. 
Continuing resolution means that we are going to fund the Federal 
Government, its agencies and departments, at the same level of spending 
next year as we did this year. That suggests that there is no ability 
to prioritize how we should spend money. That is poor government. In 
fact, if you have had continuing resolutions year after year, the 
priorities of spending that were in place 2, 3, 4 years ago have become 
the priority of spending next year.
  In my view, it would be a terrible mistake for us to reach the 
conclusion that we can do no better than a continuing resolution in the 
appropriations process this year that takes us to the end of the fiscal 
year. It is not just about priorities; we need to get spending under 
control. In fact, the appropriations process has generally done that. 
There is a reasonably flat line in the growth of government spending on 
the discretionary side, the things that the Appropriations Committee 
deals with, the things that we as Senators deal with on an annual 
basis.
  In addition to determining priorities and levels of spending, another 
reason this is important is that it is our opportunity to influence 
decisions made by various agencies, departments, and bureaus of the 
Federal Government.
  In my view, the Constitution of the United States created the 
Congress--the congressional branch, the legislative branch--for reasons 
of trying to restrain Executive power. When we do a continuing 
resolution, we leave so much discretion, so much power in the executive 
branch. It doesn't matter whether it is a Republican President or a 
Democratic President, Congress is here to protect the American people 
from an ever-encroaching desire on any administration to garner more 
power and to make more influence in the Nation. Congress has the 
ability, if we will use that ability, to restrain Executive action. We 
are going through a series of Congressional Review Act procedures in 
which we are rejecting regulations made in the final days of the past 
administration.
  A more effective long-term approach to dealing with the expansive 
nature of the bureaus, departments, and agencies is to have an 
appropriations process in which the agency head, the Cabinet Secretary, 
or the bureau chief knows that his or her relationship with Congress 
may determine how much money he or she has to spend within that agency. 
If we do a continuing resolution, there is little reason for an agency 
head, a Cabinet Secretary, or a bureau chief to pay attention to 
Congress, and that is contrary to the constitutional provisions giving 
us the responsibility to appropriate money, and

[[Page S1175]]

it continues the practice of an administration expanding their role in 
the lives of Americans and its businesses.
  We need an appropriations process different from just a continuing 
resolution. We need to have the opportunity for agency heads to know 
that the appropriations process is going to matter to them. It causes 
them to have conversations and discussions with us, gives us the 
ability to tell an executive branch official: This doesn't work in my 
State. This is very damaging. This rule or regulation you are proposing 
is harmful. Can you go back and do it in a different way? Do you 
understand what this means in this circumstance?
  Again, our leverage to have those conversations is often whether or 
not we are going to appropriate money and what that level of spending 
will be for that agency.
  The other aspect of this is that in the absence of that dialogue and 
change of heart by that agency head, we then have the ability to say as 
a Congress that no money can be spent to implement this idea, this 
regulation, this rule.
  While we focused attention--rightfully so--on the Congressional 
Review Act and its ability to limit and in this case repeal and reject 
regulations, the long-term ability to rein in any administration that 
exceeds its authority and operates in a way that develops regulations 
that lack common sense or an appreciation of how they might affect 
everyday Americans is through the appropriations process, and a 
continuing resolution will once again take away the constitutionally 
mandated, the constitutional responsibility we have in doing our jobs 
to protect the freedoms and liberties of the American people.
  We have had a lot of conversations about what we are going to try to 
accomplish. One of the things that I want to make sure is on the agenda 
is, when the time comes, which is now, the conversation is--I hope the 
conversation is not ``Well, we have run out of time. We are just going 
to do another continuing resolution and fund the Federal Government for 
the next few months at the same level as we did last year.'' We need to 
exert our authorities to make sure the American people are out of 
harm's way from what government can do. The Constitution was created to 
protect Americans from an ever-expansive government, and it only works 
when Congress works.
  The time is short. We hear that the administration is going to offer 
supplementals or amended requests for additional spending, especially 
in the defense arena. We need to get our appropriations work completed 
so that they have an opportunity to supplement, to make suggestions to 
Congress about what that appropriations bill should finally look like. 
We are close to failing in our responsibility to do that. Congress 
needs to do its work.
  All 100 Members of the U.S. Senate can have their opportunity to have 
input in how money is spent. We can defend and protect the taxpayer; we 
can defend and protect the consumer; we can defend and protect the job 
creator; we can defend and protect the employee--but not if we don't do 
our work, not if we don't do appropriations bills and we rely once 
again on this technique of shrugging our shoulders, throwing our hands 
in the air, and saying that the best we can do is tell an agency that 
their spending authorities will be the same next year as they were last 
year.
  We need to do our work. We need attention. The appropriations process 
should begin. And I ask my colleagues to give serious thought to 
helping accomplish that.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________