An alternative funding timeline

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Tuesday the 17th of September.

Thanks for joining us for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher.

Up first, the government funding deadline.

Last week, Congress returned from August recess with appropriations at the top of the to-do list. Here’s House Speaker Mike Johnson.

MIKE JOHNSON: We have two obligations right now, Congress has a lot of responsibilities, but two primary obligations: responsibly fund the government and make sure that our elections are free and fair and secure.

House Republicans had planned to pass a bill to extend current funding levels until after the election, but Johnson pulled the bill because it couldn’t pass.

REICHARD: As happens nearly every year, lawmakers have until the end of this month to fund the government and keep federal agencies open.

But some lawmakers are hoping to avoid these regular showdowns by extending the timeline for debating and approving spending from one year to two years.

Here’s WORLD’s Washington Bureau reporter Leo Briceno.

LEO BRICENO: Capitol Hill is once again hurtling towards a government shutdown at the end of the month. And once again, the most immediate solution would be to extend the government’s current spending levels. If it sounds familiar, that’s because that’s exactly what happened last year. And the year before that.

THOMAS MASSIE: We’ve seen it—I’ve been here 12 years; I’ve seen it 12 times.

That’s Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, protesting a bill that would temporarily prevent a government shutdown called a “continuing resolution.” The House hasn’t voted on it yet, but Massie thinks it's only a matter of time before one comes down the pipe, followed by an all-at-once spending bill known as omnibus package.

MASSIE: I’m going to call out both sides right here. We always get a CR in September and then we get an omnibus. Sometimes there’s a twist on that where we might get the omnibus before Christmas, but that’s what’s gonna happen. And in the meantime, it's political theater.

Massie and other conservatives on Capitol Hill want to return Congress to “regular order.” According to the 1974 Congressional Budget Act, lawmakers are supposed to pass 12 separate bills that each fund a distinct area of government. And they are supposed to do that before October 1—the start of the new fiscal year. But that so-called “regular” order is extremely irregular. It’s only ever been done on time once, way back in 1996.

That’s why some Republicans, like Rep. Chip Roy of Texas believe Congress should do itself a favor and change the rules.

CHIP ROY: This is one of the reasons why I support a two-year budget, two-year appropriations cycle, it’s ridiculous. I think the years are past of us being able to get appropriations done in a single calendar year So, I think we should go to a two-year process, two-year budget, two-year appropriations. We would be able to get that done in a single Congress, hold that Congress accountable, vote, and do it again.

Changing the spending process from one year to two wouldn’t necessarily cut spending. To members like California Rep. Mike Garcia, the upside in other areas is obvious. He sits on the Appropriations subcommittee on defense.

MIKE GRACIA: The reality is that most countries around the planet, China is certainly looking at a 20-year paradigm when it comes to their spending. So, the fact that we’re looking at it through a fiscal year paradigm that doesn’t align to a calendar year which is also subject to the ebbs and flows of election years makes it, so these budget discussions become political rather than functioning.

Rep. Michael Cloud of Texas sits on the appropriations subcommittee for financial services and the general government…He says the Appropriations Committee did good work scrutinizing legislation this year, but…

MICHAEL CLOUD: It’s a pretty massive bureaucracy and getting into the details of are the dollars accomplishing what we’re supposed to – are we getting an ROI for the taxpayers? All these are questions that should be answered if we’re looking at funding things. You know, there’s just so much more to be done every single cycle.

On the other side of the coin, some Republicans worry that the gains of a two-year funding cycle would be outweighed by the drawback of reduced Congressional oversight.

Here’s Michigan Rep. John Moolenaar. Like Cloud, he also sits on the subcommittee for general government and financial services.

JOHN MOOLENAAR: In my view, the appropriations process allows that because you have ongoing committee hearings, oversight of different agencies, and the ability to ask questions on how funds were spent in the previous year, and it provides accountability. If you’re passing legislation every two years, I’d be concerned that you’re giving up some of the accountability that Congress has for oversight.

So, clearly, year-to-year oversight is a concern for lawmakers. But what does that mean, exactly?

David Ditch, senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, explains.

DAVID DITCH: Year to year, if Congress doesn’t like a particular policy the administration is putting forward, they can put language in the appropriations bills to say, ‘no you can’t use tax dollars towards such and such purpose. If you do a two-year bill, and then the presidential administration does something underhanded or nefarious, Congress in many cases is going to have to wait until the next cycle to go after it because it can be very difficult to pass what they call ‘riders’ as their own separate piece of legislation.

Analysts expect the composition of Congress to change following this year’s election…but the margins will likely remain tight. Connecticut Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro is a long-time member of the appropriations committee. She doubts Republicans would stick to a two-year spending deal—even if one could be struck. She pointed to current Republican efforts to cut spending when, two years ago, they promised to raise it slightly.

ROSA DELAURO: Look, we had a two-year deal on the Fiscal Responsibility Act. One percent increase for defense and one percent increase for the non-defense. They don’t hold to the bargain.

Ditch from Heritage says he’s not in favor of the idea of switching to a two-year funding cycle, but he’s not strongly opposed to it either, because he’s focused on a larger problem : the nation’s deficit.

DITCH: I fundamentally think this is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The solution isn't between do we do these spending bills every year or every other year? The solution is the thing that, unfortunately, most members of Congress don't have the courage to really go after, which is we need to make the federal government substantially smaller. There are far too many programs. There are far too many bureaucracies for a couple 100 members of Congress and their staff to really stay on top of.

Reporting for WORLD, I’m Leo Briceno in Washington, D.C.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.