House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday he is revamping the appropriations process to include input from the entire Republican conference, abandoning the top-down approach traditionally used to write spending bills.
“Because we want to reopen the appropriations process and we want to bring back the power of the purse, I wanted to lay out options in front of the conference,” Ryan said Thursday after polling the rank-and-file. “We are asking members how they want to proceed going forward.”
“We are going to make this an open process and members are going to have a say on how we move forward,” Ryan said.
Congress faces a Dec. 11 deadline to pass an omnibus spending measure to fund the federal government for fiscal 2016. While Congress and President Obama recently agreed to top-line budget numbers for both 2016 and 2017, the House and Senate must agree on appropriations legislation that outlines specifically how the money will be spent.
Instead of just a handful of House GOP leaders deciding what is in the omnibus, Ryan said all Republicans would get a say in a series of executive sessions held by the House Appropriations Committee.
Ryan was elected House speaker one week ago. He secured the gavel after promising a group of House conservatives he would end the top-down approach to governing and allow them a greater level of influence on process and legislation.
Ryan pointed to Thursday’s passage of a highway funding bill as an example of how he is changing the way the House operates. The bill allowed debate on more than 100 amendments.
“This is a good start,” Ryan said. “It’s a glimpse of how we should be doing the people’s business. But we still have a ways to go.”
The appropriations process has become politically treacherous for Republicans who have over the years tried to use the “power of the purse” to defund Obamacare or stop President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. This year, many Republicans want to insert a provision in the spending legislation to defund Planned Parenthood.
Ryan said he wants to strip taxpayer money from the organization but did not signal whether such a provision would be included in the spending legislation, which would automatically trigger Democratic opposition and a presidential veto.
