Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Year 2006
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (Senate - March 14, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam President, the Senator from New Mexico and I have a number of common interests in energy and science technology, and one of our common interests is making certain as we move into a more competitive world marketplace that we maintain our brain power in the United States of America because over the last period of time since World War II, about half of our good new jobs have come from there. I look forward to continuing the work within this budget, to set priorities that do that.
In this first year of a little bit of fiscal discipline, which is about all we are exercising this year, we may not do as much of that as we may be able to in the future, but I for one want to make sure that over the next 5 to 10 years while we are dealing with unsustainable growth in what we call mandatory spending--Medicaid and Medicare, spending that is on automatic pilot--as we try to deal with that growth, we do not squeeze out the investments in science and technology and higher education and advanced computing that we need to maintain our standard of living.
This budget is, in my view, a good budget. It does begin to exercise some fiscal discipline, but it is a modest exercise of fiscal discipline.
The bottom line is if we were to adopt the budget as presented, we spend $2.6 trillion--a number none of us can imagine. One way to get it into reality is to say it is $100 billion more than we spent this year. So, $100 billion, how much is that? It is enough to run the State of Tennessee for 8 years, and the State of Tennessee is not the biggest State; it is the sixteenth largest State. It collects about $12.5 billion a year of State taxes. We are spending a lot more money next year. We are not cutting the amount of money the Federal Government is spending of taxpayers' money; we are increasing it by $100 billion next year within this budget.
The Senator from North Dakota, who is as compelling and persuasive a speaker as we have on the Senate floor and has a wonderful way of presenting his charts, was making the point repeatedly. I heard him today saying that the debt is going up. He is right. The debt is going up. We are arguing about proposing to reduce the size of the annual deficit and to cut that amount in half, which means that every year we do not take down to zero the annual deficit, the debt goes up. I suppose his chart includes Social Security funding, too, so the debt goes up.
But this is a modest effort at fiscal discipline that means if this budget were adopted, we believe the deficits each year would be cut in half.
Now, these spending constraints are never easy, and they involve setting priorities. The President is right. I believe the budget we have proposed is right, to start, by trying to be as committed to the military men and women of this country as they are to this country. So it raises overall defense spending by 4.8 percent so we can provide our military with the equipment they need to safely and successfully finish their jobs of spreading democracy in the world.
The President's tax initiatives are continued. But within this budget there are significant investments other than for military and homeland security, which are our first priority.
Let me see if I can talk a moment about education since that was the subject of the statement by the Senator from New Mexico. Some of the figures that were used I did not quite understand because I have done my own calculating. For example, there is this constant reference to shortfalls in funding of No Child Left Behind. Now, I was not here when that happened. I do not know what the deals were that were made, what arrangements were made, and with whom. But the Senator from New Mexico said there was a $39 billion shortfall. I cannot imagine where that figure comes from because this year we only spent $37.8 billion on all of K-12 education.
The U.S. Government only contributes about 7 percent of the funding for our local schools in 15,000 school districts across the country. That is all it has ever contributed. It is not likely to contribute a much larger percentage. So there cannot be a $39 billion shortfall in No Child Left Behind since we only spent less than that total amount of money from the Federal Government.
In addition to that, let's look at what happened over the last five Bush budgets. There has been a 46-percent actual increase in Federal spending on No Child Left Behind. By comparison--I don't know what period of time that is for the Clinton years, so I won't say. But let's talk about President Bush. There has been a 46-percent increase over 5 years.
I checked in the State of Tennessee, where I am from, and the amount of increase in State spending for kindergarten through the 12th grade, through this period of time, would be more like 15 or 16 or 17 percent. Federal spending for kindergarten through the 12th grade during the Bush years, the last 5 years, has increased at the rate of about three times of what State spending has been. So if there is a tin cup, it is not in Washington, it is at the State capital.
I think it is very important that even in this time of fiscal restraint, when we cannot increase spending this year as much as some of us might like, that over the 5 years it has increased 46 percent.
This budget does include enough money for another $1 billion for No Child Left Behind, another $500 million for special education.
This is not an isolated commitment. Let's take another example of what has happened over the last 5 years. There has been a 34-percent increase in total U.S. Department of Education discretionary funding.
Title I was mentioned. Title I is the Federal education program that is directed, with a lot of flexibility, toward poor children. Now, it may not be reaching the poorest children. It goes directly to schools. And my guess is that the reason why the Senator from New Mexico was able to point out that some States were getting less and some States were getting more is that maybe No Child Left Behind is directing more of the Federal dollars where they are supposed to go; which is, to help our poorest children who are not learning reading and math.
In any event, there has been a 52-percent increase in title I spending over the last 5 years, at a time when State spending has been increasing at less than 20 percent, which is 35 or 40 percent of the Federal spending increase.
It is the same story with special education.
There has been a 75-percent increase in Federal spending on special education over the last 5 years. Improving teacher quality: a 38-percent increase over the last 5 years under President Bush and this Congress.
Let's remember, the President does not appropriate a penny. We are shortchanging ourselves when we stand here and say No Child Left Behind was not properly funded. We do all the appropriating. They do not do any of it down at the White House. They send a budget up here, and we don't have to pay any attention it to at all. We do what we want to do.
What we have done over the last 5 years--I was only here for 2--is increase Federal spending for education at a Federal rate of two or three times as fast as it has increased in the States.
Let me give an example of improving teacher quality. There is an account in Washington in No Child Left Behind that gives about $50 million a year to the State of Tennessee for improving teacher quality. If all that money were spent on teachers, it would give each teacher in Tennessee about a $900 pay increase. It is a lot of money. Now, half that money came from closing another account. So let's say there is only $25 million new No Child Left Behind dollars for the teachers of Tennessee. That would be $400 or $500 per teacher. That is a substantial investment by the Federal Government, on an annual basis, to help those teachers improve their quality and become highly qualified teachers.
Now, if the State of Tennessee chooses to spend that on some other purpose, whether it is education or something else, that is the business of the State of Tennessee. But the money was appropriated here in Washington for that purpose.
And finally, all of us are interested in continuing higher education for the largest number of Americans. Sixty percent of our college students have a Federal grant or loan that follows them to the college or university of their choice. It is perhaps the most successful set of grant and loan programs anywhere in the world. It has created an opportunity for more Americans, a higher percentage of them, to go to college than anywhere in the world. We have the best system of colleges and universities anywhere in the world, primarily because we respect the autonomy of those colleges, and we appropriate a lot of Federal money, and we let students choose the college or institution of their choice to attend.
What has this Congress done over the last 5 years, including this budget that is proposed? There has been a 56-percent increase in actual Federal dollars for Pell grants. So when we talk about education, let's not sell ourselves short. We have been putting a very high priority, urged on by President Bush, on education over the last 4 years, and in this budget as well.
Let me mention three other areas about this budget. One has to do with opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. Over the next few weeks, gasoline prices across this country are going to go up by about a quarter. Gas prices are already pretty high. We are bringing in oil from other places in the world, 70 percent of our nation's need. That does not make a lot of sense when we have a lot here on our own. We could bring in a million barrels of oil a day from Alaska if we would only vote to do it. That is about as much oil as Texas produces. We could begin to reduce our dependence on the rest of the world and lower our gasoline prices. We ought to do that.
In 1985 and 1986 I was chairman of President Reagan's Commission on Americans Outdoors. We recommended that we begin taking some of the money we use for drilling oil and gas on Federal lands and putting it into conservation purposes. Specifically, we said, let's create a billion-dollar fund for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
I am pleased to say that under Chairman Gregg's leadership, this budget includes a provision that begins to follow that recommendation of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. It says if this Congress decides to allow exploration of oil in Alaska in the ANWR area that for 4 years $350 million will come from those revenues into a conservation reserve fund, and that then will be used for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, for wildlife preservation, for coastal protection, and for other purposes.
Our Commission thought, in 1985 and 1986, it made sense when we place any environmental burden that we balance it with an environmental benefit. We believe this is a sensible way to do it, and I hope other Members of the Senate will notice this important provision.
There is also in this budget something I want to talk about in a moment that has to do with unfunded mandates. But the last part of the budget I want to mention has to do with Medicaid.
There is a serious attempt in the budget proposed by our Budget Committee to begin to deal with what we call mandatory spending, the spending that is on automatic pilot. It is basically Social Security, which the President is urging us to deal with, Medicaid, and Medicare. The health care programs are about to consume all the money we have. If they are left on automatic pilot, as they are, we won't have any money for first-class universities, for preschool education, for implementing No Child Left Behind, for national parks, for local policemen, for local firemen.
The testimony we heard in the Budget Committee showed that unfunded Federal liabilities over the next 75 years will begin to take 25 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. The whole Federal budget today takes less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product.
We can't sustain that. So this budget suggests that we restrain the growth of Medicaid spending by $14 billion over the next 5 years. We will be spending $1.12 trillion on Medicaid from the Federal Government over the next 5 years, and we are suggesting a $14 billion restraint in growth. No one should get a very big merit badge for that much fiscal discipline, but at least a little merit badge for trying.
That won't work unless we are willing to change some Federal laws because Medicaid is administered partly by the Federal Government and partly by the State government. But the trouble is, from a Governor's perspective, that the Federal Government sets the entitlement criteria. There are a dozen or so programs that States must offer in their Medicaid programs. The Federal Government decides--the bureaucracy--whether Governors get a lot of flexibility or none, and then the Federal courts increasingly have been saying that Governors can't take steps even to change or amend or reduce optional services as a way of restraining the growth of Medicaid so there will be money, for example, for pre-kindergarten.
Let me suggest the principles on which I believe this body could help the Federal Government and the State governments at the same time slow the growth of Medicaid a little bit. We are only suggesting that we slow the growth from a projected 41-percent growth in funding over the next 5 years to 39 percent. It is not much, but it is enough to cause some discomfort unless we make some changes. The principles we should follow then are: One, any reforms that we require ought to save money for both the States and the Federal Government. Two, the reforms must be voluntary. The Governors who manage these programs have to have flexibility. Three, we should not be cutting people off Medicaid who won't have any other health options.
There are some ways to do that which I will talk more about at another time. But, for example, we could change the law to make it easier for Medicaid to avoid overpaying for prescription drugs. We could change the law to permit States to crack down on Medicaid spend down abuses when wealthier individuals give away their money with the expectation that Medicaid will cover their health care costs. We could change the law to allow Governors to require copayments for benefits from those optional Medicaid programs which Governors choose to offer that the Federal Government doesn't require. We could change the law to give States more flexibility to allow mothers and children to enroll in what we call the SCHIP Program. And finally, we could make it easier for States to provide home- and community-based care for beneficiaries who prefer it to more costly nursing home care.
It is never pleasant to restrain spending, but it is absolutely necessary. Fifteen years ago, I spent my time as Governor trying to restrain health care spending so I could create centers of excellence at the universities, so I could maintain low tuitions, so we could pay teachers more. We were successful. But when I left the Governor's office in 1987, we were spending 51 cents out of every State dollar on education. Today it is 40 cents. Why? Because then we were spending 15 cents on health care. Today it is 31 cents on health care and headed up. If we don't begin to try to control mandatory spending in Medicaid and then Medicare, we will not allow the States or ourselves to invest in those programs that have to do with job creation that help us maintain our standard of living.
There is one other area I would like to mention. It has to do with a provision in this budget which increases to 60 votes the number of votes it would take to impose on State and local government what is called a Federal unfunded mandate. Tomorrow, March 15, is the 10th birthday of the Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, affectionately known around Washington as UMRA.
Now, the Federal Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was supposed to stop the one thing that made me mad as Governor, and that was some Congressman coming up with some big idea, passing a law, holding a press conference, bragging about it, and then sending the bill back to Tennessee for me and the legislature to pay. And then the next weekend that same Congressman would usually be back in Knoxville or Memphis making a big speech about local control. The Unfunded Mandates Act was supposed to discourage the Federal Government from imposing new laws and new rules on State and local governments without paying for them.
I am sorry to say that it was a noble idea that was hard to pass 10 years ago. It got a big vote in the end. But it hasn't worked very well. It is raising property taxes to pay for new EPA storm water runoff rules. School boards are taking money out of one classroom and putting it in another to meet Federal requirements for children with disabilities. The National Council of State Legislatures has identified $29 billion in Federal cost shifts to States in transportation, health care, education, environment, homeland security, election laws, and in other areas. And last year, in the name of lowering Internet access taxes, some in this Congress tried to take away from State and local officials local control over how to pay for governmental services.
Not long ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that will soon be before us that would turn 190 million State driver's licenses into national ID cards with States paying most of the bill. And last week, Governors asked the President, when they met with him at the White House: Mr. President, how can we reduce the growth of Medicaid spending in the States when Federal laws dictate eligibility standards, Federal bureaucrats limit State flexibility, and Federal courts just say no? These are just the unfunded Federal mandates I was describing.
Just as ominous a threat to a balanced partnership among Federal, State, and local governments is Congress's failure to act on important areas of policy which also are running up the cost to State and local governments. For example, Congress's failure to deal with 10 million illegal immigrants fills up hospital emergency rooms, schools, and jails. Our failure to reform Medicaid has allowed a 40-percent increase in caseloads over the last 5 years to soak up State and local revenues that might have been spent for schools, colleges, police, parks, and roads. And then the Federal courts have piled on, using outdated consent decrees to run Medicaid in Tennessee, foster care in Utah, transportation in Los Angeles, and the teaching of English to children in New York City.
During the last 10 years about the only part of the Federal Government that has recognized the importance of strong State and local governments in our Federal system is the U.S. Supreme Court, which has rediscovered the 10th amendment to the Constitution that reserves to States powers that are not expressly granted to the central government.
So here is the picture of Federalism today. In Washington, DC, Democrats still stuck in the New Deal are reflexively searching for national solutions to local problems. We Republicans, having found ourselves in charge, have decided it is more blessed to impose our views rather than to liberate America from Washington's views. And across America, Federal judges have discovered the joys of acting like Governors and mayors without having to run for office.
Meanwhile, in the States and cities, Federal funds make up as much as half of State and local budgets, bringing with them more and more rules that direct and limit what mayors and Governors are able to do with revenues raised from State and local taxes.
As a result, the job of mayor and Governor is becoming more and more like the job of university president, which I used to be; it looks like you are in charge, but you are not.
That is why to celebrate the 10th birthday of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act, I propose 3 steps to give mayors and Governors, legislators and local councils, more authority to do what they were elected to do.
The first of those steps is in this budget resolution. It would amend the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act to increase to 60 the number of Senate votes it takes to enact legislation that imposes unfunded Federal mandates. This proposal was approved last Thursday by the Senate Budget Committee. For the last 10 years, the number has been 50, and it hasn't been used once as a budget point of order. It was said that this point of order with 50 votes would become like a penalty flag. Well, it has become a penalty flag that hasn't been thrown for 10 years. Make it 60 votes and it may do some good.
Second, I would propose making it easier for Governors and mayors to change or vacate outdated Federal court consent decrees. This legislation introduced last week by Senator Pryor of Arkansas, Senator Nelson, Senator Kyl, Senator Cornyn, and myself would do that. It would put term limits on consent decrees and shift to plaintiffs the burden of proving that decrees need to be continued, and require courts to draw decrees narrowly, with the objective of putting responsibility back in the hands of the elected officials as soon as possible.
Finally, the third proposal is do not allow any new Federal statute to preempt a local law, unless the new Federal law specifically states there is a direct conflict with State and local law.
I am still optimistic about our Federal system. I am optimistic because I believe excessive centralization of Government runs against the grain of what it means to be an American. Americans do expect Washington to take care of war, welfare, Social Security, health care, and debt. Americans do not want Washington running schools, colleges, law enforcement, fire departments, cities, parks, and most roads.
Lest anyone think I am wrong, I invite them to step out with me on the campaign trail. I remember our last referendum on federalism in the mid-1990s. Newt Gingrich and 300 Republicans stood on the Capitol steps and said: no more unfunded Federal mandates. Bob Dole, the new Republican leader in the Senate in 1995, made the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act S. 1, and then Senator Dole campaigned across the country reading the 10th amendment to his audiences.
I was doing my part. I was running for President, too--not so successfully. I was walking across Iowa and New Hampshire wearing a red-and-black shirt, proposing to abolish the U.S. Department of Education as we knew it, move the Agriculture Department from Washington, DC, to Des Moines, and to cut the pay of Congress in half and send them home for 6 months each year to spend more time with their neighbors instead of Washington lobbyists. You can imagine how popular I was in these chambers while proposing to cut their pay and send them home. I can clearly remember in a Washington Post editorial meeting, when the late publisher Kay Graham asked me:
Governor Alexander, if you so dislike Washington, DC, why would you come here?
That was a good question, and there is a good answer. One of the most important reasons to come to Washington to serve is to remind those already here that a plane ticket to Washington doesn't make you any smarter.
The parents and teachers of 50 million students in 15,000 districts usually can do more to improve a child's education than some national school board. If Washington says you must spend more for Medicaid, that usually means less for preschool education, and someone who is elected and is closer to the problem ought to make that decision.
In some countries, that arrangement might work. In those countries that are smaller and ethnically more the same, it may be possible to have a national school board, state church, and a central government calling most of the shots. We know that doesn't stand a prayer of working in the United States. De Tocqueville, in his early writings about America, pointed out that our country works community by community. We are so big, we have so many different views, we come from so many backgrounds, we need a lot of places to work things out in different ways. Put too many one-size-fits-all jackets on Americans and the place explodes.
In our country, such explosions, thankfully, still occur at election time. That is why most candidates for President run against Washington, DC. That is why U.S. Senators from Washington are rarely elected President and Governors from outside Washington often are. That is one reason why Americans elected the Republican Congress in 1994.
I am optimistic about federalism because Democrats are now looking for a way to get into office, and we Republicans are looking for a way to stay in office. I believe that whoever wins that argument will have to get on the right side of the federalism issue. So as a good Republican I am using this birthday celebration tomorrow of the Unfunded Federal Mandate Act to remind my Republican colleagues that we promised the people no more unfunded mandates. We said, ``If we break our promise, throw us out.'' I am sure if we forget our promise, our Democrat friends will remind us of it.
Most of our policy debates in Congress involve conflicting principles. The principle of federalism should not always be the trump card. There are other important principles to weigh: liberty, equal opportunity, laissez faire, and many others.
But the federalism that the Republican Congress was elected to protect in 1994 has gotten lost in the weeds. It is time for us to find it and pick it up and to put it back up front where it belongs. Step No. 1 would be to pass this budget, which would increase to 60 the number of votes it takes to enact an unfunded mandate. Then we should move to put term limits on Federal court consent decrees, which has strong bipartisan support in the House, as well as the Senate, and then require Congress to announce when it decides to preempt State and local law.
If we in Congress do that, then maybe on the 20th birthday of the Unfunded Federal Mandate Act, 10 years from now, we can celebrate an American Federal system that has the kind of respect for mayors and Governors, legislators and local council members that the Founders of this great Republic envisioned.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov