Have the Debate

For those keeping track of the comings and goings of Washington DC, you recently saw an agreement to continue to fund the government for 45-days.

On the one hand, it is good that an agreement was reached. Many would have been hurt and our security would have been put more at risk if a resolution to continue funding the government at fiscal year 2023 levels was not passed. On the other hand, there is a major problem – we are not having the debate.

We must have the debate – a debate on the size, scope, and purpose of our government; the United States’ role in the world; and the deficit – rather than lurching from crisis-to-crisis. Such a debate would not only bring more efficacy to our governance, but it would also bring more legitimacy to our government and political system.

Yet, a substantive debate on the issues did not unfold during the recent continuing resolution process. Rather, if there was any form of debate, it was about process, pure politics, and theatrical in nature.

Further missed in much of the commentary surrounding this recently passed resolution to continue to fund the government was a dialogue of what it all means for our system of government.

Why was a continuing resolution needed in the first place?

A continuing resolution is required to continue the functions of government because Congress has not taken up and passed all twelve of the appropriations bills. The House has only considered a handful on the House floor, and the Senate has considered none on the floor to date.

What does this suggest about our legislative process?

The government has been annually appropriated through what is termed an omnibus bill, which pulls all 12 appropriations bills into one giant piece of legislation and is voted on once. Those in opposition to the recent continuing resolution argued that Congress should no longer pass omnibus bills. It should instead take up the twelve appropriations bills individually so that elected members can debate the merits of each program in a “regular order” process, which is DC-speak for the legislative process we learned in civics as kids. This would be a notable change because there is only one bill that annually follows something close to regular order: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The NDAA has passed for 62 years in a row – the so-called “do-nothing” Congress does do something. Both chambers annually pass this comprehensive piece of national security legislation that not only addresses the US Department of Defense but, increasingly, other national security agencies of government such as the State Department, Department of Energy, and others. It is a herculean effort to develop, write, conference, and pass the NDAA through regular order each year (believe me, I was part of it as a House Armed Services Committee staffer). But through regular order, the NDAA gains bipartisan support.

The NDAA achieves this bipartisan support because debates – thousands of them – occur through the regular order process. At every step of the development of the NDAA, arguments are made, negotiations occur, and differences are hashed out. This allows members of Congress – from both sides – to have a program-by-program opportunity for input.

Therefore, instead of the policy question being: “should we have a Department of Defense?”, the critical policy questions become more manageable, more reasonable, more nuanced, and more measured: “should we authorize program X to do Y or Z?” Regular order enables Members (and staff) to consider each governmental program, in conjunction with the President’s budget request, and in relation to their policy objectives. This not only makes for better legislation but also better policy.

45-days from now, Congress will have to consider another continuing resolution, or the government will shutdown. But, in the same 45-days, the rancor will be louder; the mistrust will be greater; the process will be even more complex with the motion to remove the Speaker of the House, unresolved Ukraine aid, and continued disagreements over border security and immigration.

Congress may well get through the continuing resolution process again in 45 days but not through a substantive debate. Rather, it will be through framing each side of the debate; characterizing the motives of each side; procedural and process-based tactics to advantage one party, one side, one faction over the other; and adjusting positions not through substantive dialogue and negotiation but through expediency given the impending deadline.

Instead of doing this yet again, I say…

Let’s have the debate.



Alex Gallo is the author of “Vetspective,” a RallyPoint series that discusses national security,
foreign policy, politics, and society. He is also a fellow with George Mason University’s National Security Institute, an adjunct professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University, and a US Army Veteran. Follow him on Twitter at @AlexGalloCMP.