news

By Ben Weyl and Matthew Nussbaum

Rep. John Culberson eagerly exercises his power of the purse when it comes to the agencies under his purview.

As chairman of the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, the Texas Republican is pressuring the Obama administration to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary cities” that disregard immigration law. And as he told POLITICO in an interview, he plans to provide a budget boost for NASA in hopes it will lead to the moment “when we discover life on another world.”

Here is a transcript of the interview, lightly edited for length and clarity:

Will the Brussels attacks affect your spending bill in terms of funding for the Justice Department and the FBI? And do you think the bill will now be brought up sooner for consideration?

The FBI was and is my highest priority for the bill, to ensure they have the resources they need to protect the country and flush out these cowards, and I’ll continue to support them.

I do not anticipate the bill will come up any earlier.

Tell me more about your priorities for the bill.

FBI No. 1. Law enforcement in particular is top priority in the [fiscal] ’16 bill. It will be again in the ’17 bill. I also intend to do whatever is necessary to ensure that NASA has the resources they need to accomplish everything they’ve got on their plate. NASA has been underfunded and overloaded for far too long. I made certain in the ’16 bill that NASA had the largest vote of confidence that Congress has ever given the agency in its history. It’s the largest appropriations NASA has received since they were created in 1958, and they desperately needed it. They have a lot to do, and have been neglected for far too long by this administration.

It’s a tight budget environment, with nondefense discretionary spending essentially flat from last year. Are you going to be able to give boosts to some of these programs?

One of our primary responsibilities as appropriators is to prioritize funding and to ensure that those agencies that are essential to the nation’s security and prosperity are funded first. And that’s why I keep law enforcement at the top of the list, and NASA and the National Science Foundation right behind them.

Where do you see the possibility for savings? I know the Commerce Department has often been a target for the committee.

I do my best to protect law enforcement and scientific research and space exploration. There are a lot of functions at the Department of Commerce that are less important. In a difficult budget environment and flat funding, I’m compelled to prioritize.

On NASA, how do you feel about the agency’s progress on the Space Launch System and Orion?

I’m very encouraged that NASA has made the progress they have, and now that they’ve got significant boost in funding, I am going to hold the agency accountable to ensure that they meet their deadlines and keep both SLS and Orion on time and on target.

You had a hearing on the Justice Department’s budget last month. The attorney general testified. How do you feel the department is doing?

I am particularly grateful to the attorney general for responding positively to my request that DOJ begin an audit of cities and counties and states that have policies that prohibit cooperation on immigration matters with federal authorities.

One of my guiding principles as chairman is for all of the grant recipients to understand that if they will not follow federal law, they should not ask for federal money. One of my highest priorities is to ensure that if sanctuary cities continue to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities, that they will lose their access to federal grant dollars. I don’t want them to lose their money; they just need to change their policy.

The attorney general responded positively to that, and I am very grateful and encouraged that she agreed to begin an audit of sanctuary cities and jurisdictions across the country and to identify those that are not complying with federal law. When a county, a city or a state is identified as a sanctuary for illegal aliens, they’ll be notified by the department and given an opportunity to change their policy, but if they won’t change their policy and cooperate with federal authorities, they will lose their federal funding.

It seems like the Obama administration might be resistant to going along with that. Are you thinking that might be more useful for the next, potentially Republican, administration?

No, I’m actually already making great progress on this right now. I have a lot of leverage at my disposal as chairman that the founders entrusted to Congress through the power of the purse, that the Congress then entrusted to the appropriations committees, and then the committee has entrusted to the individual subcommittee chairman. There’s a whole variety of tools that I have available that enable me to put intense pressure on the agencies that we fund to enforce federal laws as written by Congress.

I did this successfully last spring when I first got the job. I persuaded the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to drop their proposed ban on .223 rifle ammunition using these same pressure points, these same tools. I have had a good working relationship with ATF and Department of Justice. I’m working with them cooperatively, but they understand that this is something I’m very earnest and serious about, and that I will use every tool at my disposal to ensure that federal laws are enforced and that sanctuary cities must change their policy or they will lose their access to federal grant dollars.

I am doing that right now, without an explicit amendment in my bill, without specific legislation, using my inherent authority as subcommittee chairman and the tools that were entrusted to the Congress by the Constitution.

Of all the things that we’ve discussed, my highest priority as chairman is to ensure that federal law is enforced by ensuring that grant recipients follow federal law or lose access to the federal grant money, beginning with sanctuary cities.

Would it be fair to say that you’re enjoying the powers of being a cardinal?

I’m putting them to good use.

I have a duty to ensure that our hard-earned tax dollars are spent to enforce federal law as written by Congress. I’m aggressively and successfully pushing to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities unless they change their policies. That’s my top priority right now. I’m doing that right now, under existing authority. I don’t even need a new bill to do what I’m doing.

On the Census Bureau, they’re asking for a relatively big increase in preparation for the 2020 Census. Is that going to be possible?

It’s going to be very difficult in this environment. Also, the president’s budget has made this year’s appropriations process even more difficult because his budget assumes massive tax and fee increases that will never happen. He assumes new mandatory, automatic spending programs that are not going to happen. The administration has built in these phantom fees and taxes into their budget recommendations for almost every agency in the federal government and it makes it more difficult and that’s going to make it even more difficult for, for example the Department of Commerce, because we’re simply not going to have the money to fund everything that’s being asked of us.

I have to prioritize and I think it’s self-evident and unavoidable that the Department of Commerce is going to fall behind our federal law enforcement efforts and scientific research and space exploration.

I noticed in the president’s budget, he shifts a bunch of discretionary spending into mandatory for both NASA and the National Science Foundation.

Zero chance. And it’s absurd. It’s got zero chance of happening; it’s destructive to the entire appropriations process because it puts those agencies in a terrible bind. They have to defend the budget and they all know in their hearts, this isn’t going to happen, so it’s just very frustrating.

Let me ask you a couple questions on policy riders that are often considered on your bill. Do you expect language to prevent the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to U.S. prisons?

Well, that language is already in the bill. And I’ll be enforcing it, already am enforcing it aggressively. And that’s why it’s, again, absurd for the administration to even talk about closing Guantanamo or moving any of those prisoners because there’s an ironclad prohibition against moving them, closing Guantanamo, in both the defense appropriations bill and in the CJS bill. So that language has been there for years, it will stay there, and I’m using the persuasive powers that I have as subcommittee chairman to aggressively enforce it, to ensure that Guantanamo is not closed.

Do you foresee a debate on riders regarding the president’s executive action on immigration deportation relief? I know that’s come up on CJS before.

It’s more likely on the Homeland Security bill, [but] there will undoubtedly be some amendments. But the president’s executive amnesty right now is no longer in effect, the Fifth Circuit has shut it down. And it’s on appeal to the Supreme Court, but I will accept and intend to pursue amendments that will ensure that executive amnesty never takes effect, because it’s illegal, unconstitutional and exceeds his authority.

Are there any particular riders that you would give a high priority, things we haven’t discussed already?

There are undoubtedly others, but no need to broadcast that this early.

House Republicans are currently still deciding whether they can get a budget together. But Appropriations subcommittees are obviously moving forward. Are you concerned that appropriations bills won’t get to the floor if there’s no budget?

Each subcommittee is going full speed ahead to get our bills ready for floor consideration and we’ll be ready and are working hard in the meantime to win the support of our colleagues to get a budget passed and achieve the minimum $30 billion in savings that we all want to see accomplished to ensure that we’re not increasing the deficit.

We are working to make sure our bills are ready for the floor when the time comes, that we have the votes ready for the budget, which I feel very confident we’ll get there.

One more space question, since I know you’re a big proponent of the space program. Do you expect NASA to undertake a serious Europa mission in the coming years, and would they have the funds for that?

Yes, in fact the Europa mission — it’s illegal for NASA not to fly the Europa orbiter and lander. That mission, it has been one of the top priorities of the decadal survey of planetary scientists, the last decade and this decade. We have the best chance of finding life in the Europan oceans of any nearby planetary body.

When we discover life on another world, that will be a transformational moment in human history that will electrify the country and the nation will instantaneously become even stronger supporters of the space program than they already are. I have always understood how important the search for life is in the universe, always understood that the best chance to find it was going to be in the oceans of Europa and also understood that to restore NASA to the glory days of Apollo there has to be a transformational moment that will re-ignite the instinctive passion the country has for the space program and the best way to trigger that, re-ignite that passion is with a monumental discovery like life on another world.

It’s absolutely essential that NASA undertake the mission to Europa, and they do have the money for it. And it’s going to be a flagship mission, one of the biggest and best that NASA has ever flown. It will involve a lander that will have the ability to detect organic molecules in that ice and in geyser that are going to be undoubtedly coming up from below. So I am very excited about it and optimistic that the mission will be a success and I am confident that Europa is going to hold incredible and amazing discoveries that will be in the history books and the science textbooks for a long time to come.

Any final thoughts on this year’s budget and appropriations process?

All the subcommittees are working aggressively to get our bills done as soon as possible so we’re moving full speed ahead and I’m very optimistic that we’ll get the budget resolved and be in a position to bring the bills to the floor, certainly this summer.

Do you know yet when you’ll get your allocation?

No, not yet.

And I don’t suppose you know when you’ll have a markup then?

I have a general idea, but not for publication yet.