Relating to Consideration of S. 1932, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF S. 1932, DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - February 01, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Budget Deficit Act of 2005 has the noble goal of being a first step in a long time toward bringing fiscal sanity to the federal budget. Forty billion dollars is a small but correct step in regaining control of our budget, and we can not retreat and drop this burden on the backs of our citizens. For that reason it is important to pass this legislation, but like all bills with multiple titles there are some negative aspects hidden within the 700 plus pages of monetary policy.
I am very disturbed at the introduction of a certain new entitlement program with new mandatory spending in this reconciliation bill. The Academic Competitiveness Grant Program, inserted in Conference under Title VII, section 401 of S. 1932, authorizes $3.5 billion in new spending. It is wrong!
This new entitlement offers scholarships to worthy kids who have completed a ``rigorous secondary school program of study''--that part is justifiable--``established by a state or local government education agency''--that part is obvious--``and recognized as such by the Secretary.''--that part is illegal and indefensible. Current law specifically prohibits this control of state curriculum by the federal government. It reads, ``No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.'' (US Code, Title 20, Chapter 31, Subchapter ill, Sec. 1232a) The simple phrase, ``recognized as such by the Secretary'' will potentially extend federal intrusion into what is Constitutionally a state and local responsibility. The language does not openly insert the federal Education Secretary into education curriculum control, but opens the door for such control for the first time in history. A state not willing to subject itself to the deadening hand of federal control and regulation, will seriously harm students in that state and in their ability to finance a higher education. No state will be able to resist this type of financial extortion, and will ultimately succumb to the control of the federal Education Secretary. One can only hope this was not the subtle intent of the Senators who snuck this provision into the Conference Report, but it is the practical result.
Also frustrating is the lack of deliberation over the merits of this new program and its new spending. The Academic Competitiveness Grant Program was slipped into the Conference Report for S. 1932 after versions without the program passed both the Senate and House. This new federal program of mandatory spending was never heard by a committee in the House or Senate. It was never voted on the floor of either House or Senate. It is a clear violation of the Senate's ``Byrd Rule.'' This program managed to bypass the scrutiny, input, and deliberation of regular order and was unwisely attached to a must-pass savings bill. In a bill dedicated to limiting spending, The Academic Competitiveness Grant Program creates a new almost $4 billion spending entitlement, diminishing the savings or making even deeper reductions in other legitimate programs.
Even if the Academic Competitiveness Grant Program is the panacea for poor student scores in math and science, it is the wrong approach. It threatens to undermine the responsibility of states over education; it threatens to undermine federal law; and it threatens to undermine freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov