Congressional Budget for the United States Government for the Fiscal Year 2006

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Pennsylvania bringing this amendment forward. I know of his deep commitment to NIH and education, and as chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee which has jurisdiction over both of these accounts on the discretionary side, it is challenging, to say the least. He has the second largest appropriating account in the Senate after defense, but he probably has the job with the most demands on it well beyond defense, and he has attempted to balance those demands very effectively. However, in this instance, I believe we should stay with the basic numbers we have put forward in this budget.

It is critical if we are going to have fiscal discipline around here to have a top-line discretionary number which we have agreed to--843--and that we not within the budget process try to redirect funds within that number in a way that either negatively impacts other accounts or positively impacts accounts. That would be a unilateral activity of the Senator from Pennsylvania when he starts marking up the bill.

The 920 account, if it is used here, will have the practical effect of an across-the-board cut on all other accounts in the Government that are discretionary so that it creates a pressure that will be difficult to handle if it is put forward in this way.

On the specific issue of funding, we all recognize NIH is a premier institution and has done an extraordinary job, but we have to recognize this Congress has been extraordinarily generous over the last few years with NIH. Beginning at the beginning of the Bush administration, there was a decision to double the funding of NIH, and that is exactly what happened. It has grown at rates of 13 and 14 percent annually compounded. It has gone from $13 billion to a $27 billion account and $28 billion account in the last 5 years, a huge expansion in the commitment to research in the area of health care.

There are some concerns with whether we should not take a brief breathing period and make sure dollars are being used efficiently. The President has proposed an increase for NIH but not as much as maybe NIH believed it would like, but certainly in the context of the dramatic increase in funding over the last few years it is appropriate.

In the education accounts, this President has committed huge increases in education. The numbers are staggering, quite honestly. It is the commitment the administration has made relative to the prior administration. In the area, for example, of the overall discretionary budget, the Department of Education has gone up 33 percent since the Clinton years. In the area of No Child Left Behind, it has gone up 46 percent, title I has gone up 52 percent, IDEA has gone up 75 percent. The way the President structured the budget was to say let's take a look at the miscellaneous educational programs that are targeted that have a small impact and see whether those priorities, in comparison with the big programs in which the Federal Government has a major role, such as No Child Left Behind, special education, Pell grants, and title I, the President decides to put more money into those programs rather than to the specific targeted programs.

Obviously, it will be up to the Senator from Pennsylvania, working with his committee and working with Senator Enzi, chairman of the Education Committee, to make decisions as to how that should shake out. But in this budget the President has proposed significant increases in the core educational programs. In special education he is up $450 million; in title I, he is up $1 billion; and in No Child Left Behind, up $1 billion; in Pell, which is not reflected appropriately, in my opinion, in this budget, or has not been discussed appropriately, he is up half a billion. We have specifically raised the cap--hopefully, it will end up there, but we have no control over how the allocations occur--to give Senator Specter's subcommittee an additional half billion specifically for Pell. So the grants can go from $4,150 and give it authority to allow the Pell grants to be restructured so you can get a $5,100 Pell grant under the new structure which is being proposed under this bill should Senator Enzi's committee decide that is how they want to proceed.

In addition, we have set aside $5.5 billion in the budget in a reserve fund specifically to fund a new Higher Education Act, the purpose of which is to dramatically expand the Pell grants and take them up to $5,100 for those who go to school 4 years and dramatically expand borrowing for students through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program.

Education is strong in this budget and I hope we will stay within the terms of this budget rather than expanding beyond that.

I recognize the problems the Senator from Pennsylvania has are difficult, probably the most difficult of any of the Appropriations subcommittees, and I understand why he brought this amendment forward.

I presume I have used all my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself time off of the resolution.

The representation by the Senator from Massachusetts that somehow this is outside the rules to proceed within the rules is a very unique view of the rules. We are using the rules of the Senate. That is what they are. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions.

The fact is, all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation, support that position.

Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so. The reason the Budget Act was written in this way was to allow certain unique issues to be passed with a majority vote. That is all that is being asked for here.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GREGG. No, I will not yield.

The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win. Fifty-one votes to say there should not be drilling, that there should not be exploration, that this small postage stamp of land in this vast area of land should not be looked at for the purposes of giving us some independence in the area of energy, addressing our energy needs as a nation--if you have 51 votes to say that, you win.

If, on the other hand, the Senators from Alaska, who feel that in good conscience they had a commitment from the Senate for many years that they would be allowed to pursue this initiative and that they can do it in an environmentally sound way, have 51 votes for their position, they win. That is the way the rules of the Senate are set up.

So it is totally inappropriate for a Senator to come to this floor and represent that this is some sort of unethical act, as was implied by the Senator from Massachusetts. We are using the rules of the Senate as they are set up to be used, and that happens to be the rule of the Senate.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a list of the times the reconciliation process has been used for actions very similar to this, many of which were in periods when the Democrats controlled this Senate.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment is like a lot of other amendments that are being brought forth. It is well-intentioned. I don't deny that. But its practical implication is that it significantly raises spending and significantly raises taxes and it does not necessarily accomplish the goals which the Senator from Iowa wishes to accomplish.

The Senator from Iowa states he wishes to allocate more money to vocational education. The budget does not do that. The budget has virtually no impact on that other than to set a top-line number which in this case is $843 billion, which is divided between the Defense Department and the nondiscretionary defense spending of the Federal Government. The nondefense discretionary number is approximately $444 billion. Within that are a lot of accounts, one of which is vocational education. How that money flows is not controlled by the budget. The budget has no legislative, statutory effect on those accounts other than to set a top-line number and then allow the committees of jurisdiction to make the decision as to how that money will be spent.

In fact, the history has been that although the Budget Committee makes suggestions as to how money should be spent, and it actually has a number of different functions, those functions do not correspond to the various appropriating committees of the Senate and the Appropriations Committee, and the authorizing committees tend to generally ignore the suggestions of the Budget Committee relative to specific programs. If they did not ignore us, I would be much more specific, but I have learned it is a pointless exercise to try to tell appropriators or authorizers what to do relative to specific programs.

We give the Appropriations Committee a top-line number and we say to the authorizing committees they have to reconcile or you have this much money available under the mandatory accounts. But beyond that, we do not have a whole lot of impact on how they spend that money other than to say this is how much you have.

So it is the Appropriations Committee that makes that decision. The Senator from Iowa actually has a unique role relative to education because he has been both the chairman and he is now the ranking member of the subcommittee on Appropriations. I am sure he takes the position, as I am sure his ranking member has, because he has already offered an amendment that has been adopted, that there is not enough education money that is going to be allocated to his subcommittee for him to do everything he wants to do or for the subcommittee to do everything they want to do. I serve on that subcommittee. But that is our role around here. The priorities should be set by us, the different chairmen of the different appropriating committees and the ranking members, and we should move forward from there.

We should not, however, in my opinion, do a general raising of spending and a general raising of taxes which is what this does. Rather, we should live within the proposed levels of spending.

In the area of education, it should be pointed out this administration has sent up their ideas and, yes, in their ideas they suggest vocational education should be adjusted in the way it is funding. But this administration has a unique position over education. They have dramatically increased funding for education over the last 4 years. They increased it over the Clinton years by something like 40 percent. They have chosen as an administration, and I think it is probably the right choice, to pick certain elements of Federal activity and to fund those elements aggressively and recognize the Federal Government cannot be all things to all people, but it does have responsibility in specific areas and it should pursue those responsibilities aggressively. That is what they have done. They have increased funding for special education by somewhere around 60 percent; increased funding for title I by 45 percent. They have increased funding for No Child Left Behind by 46 percent. They have increased funding for the Pell grants, and I don't remember the exact figure, but it is a double-digit increase. Those are the accounts they have decided to focus on.

This bill assumes they will continue that effort, but that is not necessarily what will happen. The Appropriations subcommittee of which the Senator from Iowa is ranking member will have the opportunity to do what they wish. They can put the extra money into title I, they can put the extra money into special education, they can put the extra money in No Child Left Behind, or they can put more money in the Pell grants or into the program they decide is appropriate and that they think is a priority.

This budget itself has significantly focused on education. We set a reserve for higher education with $35.5 billion made available to the Education Committee to allow them to put in place a new and more aggressive higher education bill.

We have proposed in this bill an additional almost half a billion over what the President requested as the top line--in other words, instead of having a top line of $843 billion, we have a top line of $843.5 billion and the reason is because we expect that extra $500 million to be put into the Pell grants for next year and raise those grants from $4,050 to $4,150.

In addition, we suggested in this bill a proposal to the Education Committee--I hope they will follow it; they don't have to--which would allow them to increase Pell grants up to $5,100, a massive increase in Pell grants for students who go to school over 4 years either to a community college and vocational college and then move on to traditional college. Huge commitments which we have suggested can be accomplished under this budget.

The budget is aggressive in the context of a fiscally restrained effort in the area of education. This administration's record on education has been strong and vibrant over the last 4 years, uniquely so compared to the Clinton administration before and the budget itself, and I have to reinforce this point, does not address line items. So when you offer a bill, an amendment like this, all you are doing is spending more and taxing more. You are not necessarily in any way adjusting the budget.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I do not wish to take time off of Senator Salazar's time, but I want to affirm what the Senator from North Dakota has said. I also want to thank the ranking member of the Senate committee and the Democratic leader and, of course, the Republican leader for working very hard to bring about this understanding as to how we are going to proceed on the budget. I think it is the fairest way to proceed, and it does allow the Members to get many of the core issues up and debated. That has been the key here, to make sure the high-visibility issues and the issues that are critical get up and get debated, in the context of the fact that we know these vote-athons take a huge amount of time.

Right now, if we start voting on the present number of amendments we have pending, we will have to vote for 30 straight hours. Obviously, we hope that will not happen, but that is a distinct possibility, that a large percentage of that time will have to be consumed in votes. So we need to get started fairly early tomorrow. That is the purpose of this agreement, so that we can get out of here very late, probably, or very early Friday morning.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator. I will give her the opportunity to rebut briefly. I will speak briefly in opposition, so that we can move to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, this amendment is well-intentioned. Obviously, first responders and the homeland security issues are major issues for us as a nation. We have done a significant amount in this area and, of course, there is a supplemental bouncing around the hallways that has a significant amount of increase for a number of homeland security initiatives.

Earlier this evening, we did an amendment offered by the Senator in the chair and the Senator from Texas, which would add 2,000 border agents. This adds 1,000 border agents. I am not sure when we stop adding border agents tonight. I am thinking maybe there should be a budget point of order that you can only add up to, say, 10,000 or 20,000 border agents in any one given evening.

But as a practical matter, it seems to me that we are getting a little carried away with the border agent additions--even in the context of making political statements.

The amendment itself takes the money out of the 920 fund. I think it is important that people understand that the 920 fund--when you authorize funds out of the 920 fund, you are saying essentially there will be an across-the-board cut in all other accounts of the Federal Government.

This amendment, which has approximately $800 million in it--or something like that--would mean that since it is a discretionary number, half of that would be assessed against the Department of Defense, which would mean you would be cutting DOD by $100 million, education by around $20 million, health care by about $140 million, $150 million. You would be cutting environmental protection by probably $100 million--and so on and so on because it is an across-the-board cut. It has to come from these other accounts on the discretionary side of the ledger. In fact, the education cut would be bigger, much bigger.

Obviously, we have to make choices, and this amendment has decided that homeland security and adding another 1,000 agents on top of the 2,000 already proposed is a priority. But I think it is important that people understand that this is not a situation where the money grows on trees. It comes from taxpayers, and we are trying to limit the amount of money that taxpayers have to spend. Therefore, choices have to be made.

This amendment essentially requires that other accounts of the Federal Government, which have some priority also, such as defense, education, health care, and environmental protection, will be reduced were this amendment to actually be carried to its natural fruition, which I hope it will not be. That being the case, I will reserve my time and, hopefully, we can move on to the Senator from Louisiana.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. I would be pleased to enter into such a colloquy.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. As I understand it, the budget resolution before us today assumes a total reduction in Agriculture Committee mandatory spending programs of $5.4 billion over the five-year period covering fiscal years 2006 through 2010. I further understand that $2.8 billion of this total is to be achieved by the Agriculture Committee by changing laws governing mandatory spending programs within its jurisdiction through the budget reconciliation process. Assuming the Agriculture Committee complies with its reconciliation instruction, this leaves an additional $2.6 billion in assumed, but un-reconciled, mandatory spending reductions in Agriculture Committee programs. My understanding is that the additional $2.6 billion in assumed reductions will not impact such programs if the Agriculture Committee chooses not to achieve them. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. GREGG. Yes, your understanding is correct. If the Agriculture Committee complies with its reconciliation instruction, the budget resolution contains no budget enforcement mechanism to achieve the additional $2.6 billion in assumed mandatory spending reductions.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. I would like to explore this a little further because it is an important point. It is possible that subsequent to the completion of the budget reconciliation process, the Agriculture Committee may wish to move legislation that affects programs within its jurisdiction. My understanding is that no budget points of order will lie against such an Agriculture Committee bill as long as it is spending neutral. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. GREGG. Yes, you are correct.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. This clarification is helpful. Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion on this point. Yesterday, all Senators were sent a letter that among other things suggested that the budget resolution's assumed additional, but un-reconciled, reductions in Agriculture Committee mandatory spending would generally allow a budget point of order to be raised against Agriculture Committee bills subsequent to the completion of the budget reconciliation process. Have you had an opportunity to read this letter?

Mr. GREGG. I have and the letter is very definitely incorrect on this point.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. While I would prefer to not alter any programs under the Agriculture Committee's jurisdiction this year to achieve mandatory spending reductions, our committee has been willing in the past to contribute its fair share to help restrain mandatory spending in previous efforts to reduce the budget deficit. I believe our committee will be willing to do that again this year. In my view, a $2.8 billion reduction over five years in Agriculture Committee mandatory programs is a reasonable contribution given the President's proposal to reduce overall mandatory spending by $61.6 billion. Unfortunately, the House budget resolution instructs the House Agriculture Committee to achieve $5.3 billion in mandatory spending reductions. I strongly request that you keep the Agriculture Committee's reconciliation instruction in the final budget resolution conference report from rising above the Senate's $2.8 billion figure during conference with the House.

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. GREGG. I will do my best to maintain the Senate position in conference with the House.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, we are now at the end of the day. It has been a long day, especially for staff. We appreciate their effort and their courtesy.

I note that there are now pending approximately 25 amendments to this resolution. There are still approximately 70 or so amendments that we have been told may be offered. Tomorrow, when we begin voting, which will occur, it appears, around 1:20, we have to vote those 25 amendments, and that in and of itself would take 8 hours. If any percentage of the ones that are still pending have to be voted, you can presume a significant additional amount of time. So we could be here quite late tomorrow night, and our colleagues should be aware of that as they move into tomorrow.

It also should be noted that almost all the amendments that have been offered today--there have been one or two exceptions, or maybe three or four exceptions--have essentially attempted to increase spending. Some have offset that spending increase with reductions in accounts which actually exist. A couple of the amendments, such as one of the amendments on Border Patrol, takes the money that it spends on Border Patrol and moves it over from other accounts in international affairs. Most of the amendments spend additional funds by raising taxes or by doing what is known as the 920 account, which amounts to an across-the-board cut, for all intents and purposes, of other accounts within the Government.

It is going to be interesting to see when we have completed this budget process whether there really is a willingness to fiscal discipline within the Congress, especially within the Senate which is controlled by a party that alleges itself to be fiscally disciplined. We are going to determine that sometime very late tomorrow night or early Friday morning. But clearly the issue is in question.

http://thomas.loc.gov/