June
2006
Budget Moving Forward
After
months of delays, the House of Representatives passed its FY2007 budget resolution by a vote of 218-210 in another late night
(1am!)
vote on May 18th. The overall funding level for the House budget resolution
remains the same as that of the President - $873.8 billion. This level has concerned
advocates because it is roughly $10 billion below levels needed to maintain current services in the next fiscal year. While moderate Republicans did push for and extract promises from the House leadership
of roughly $7.2 billion in additional funding for labor, health, and human services programs, this increase is dependent on
lawmakers being able to find “offsets” or “savings” in entitlement programs. As mentioned in a previous update, some of this additional funding for domestic human needs programs also
comes at the expense of needed increases in funding for international humanitarian assistance.
Essentially, the budget resolution remains unchanged from the version passed by the House Budget Committee and provides
insufficient funding for programs that the National Advocacy Center cares about.
Appropriations
Process Begins, Despite Lack of Overall Budget Agreement
Typically,
once the House and Senate have each passed a budget resolution, a conference committee would be formed to work out the differences
between the two. However, it remains unlikely that a conference committee will
even meet this year because the House and Senate budget numbers are so far apart. Without
a final budget agreement between the House and Senate, the annual appropriations process becomes more complicated, but not
impossible. The budget resolution generally sets the annual spending guidelines
for the appropriations bills that fund discretionary programs. Absent a final
budget resolution, the House and Senate each have to pass a “deeming resolution,” through which spending limits
are “deemed” to be in effect.
With
House leaders wanting to move forward quickly with the annual appropriations process, a deeming resolution was included in
a special provision in the first appropriations bill to be brought to the floor - before the House budget resolution was even
passed. It places the same limit on overall funding as the House budget resolution
($873.8 billion) and has opened the door for passage of four appropriations bills by the House already. The Senate has yet to “deem” its own spending limits or even begin committee work on the annual
appropriations bills, but if they follow their own budget resolution, funding levels will be higher than those in the House. This will make resolving the differences between the House and Senate appropriations
bills this year extremely difficult and will provide yet another opportunity for advocates to fight for additional funding
for and prevent cuts to critical human needs programs. The National Advocacy Center
will work to keep you posted on important developments.
Changing
the Budget Rules and Why It Matters
Sometime
within the next two months Congress is again planning to take up legislation that would significantly change the set of rules
that govern the federal budget process. Although budget rules and processes aren’t
much fun to talk about and can seem arcane and a bit removed from our regular advocacy work, if we don’t pay attention
and speak up to prevent the changes, programs that we care about could be dramatically impacted.
Line-Item
Veto
After
mentioning the line-item veto in this year’s State of the Union address, in March President Bush sent a proposal to
Congress for the “Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006”. This proposal
was then introduced in Congress by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) as S. 2381 and by Representative Paul Ryan
(R-Wis.) as H.R. 4890.
What does it do?
Unlike
the President’s current veto authority*, the “legislative line-item veto” would allow
the President to strike or to modify any spending-related provision within any bill passed by Congress. This authority would include the ability to cancel or reduce funding for particular programs within large
appropriations bills and change the rules or benefits in any entitlement (Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, etc.) legislation
passed by Congress. For example, the President could choose to veto funding for
the Juvenile Accountability Block (which he has tried to eliminate in his recent budgets) without vetoing the entire Justice,
Commerce, State appropriations bill. Or, the President could make changes to
eligibility or strike certain benefits from the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (an entitlement) when Congress
passes legislation to reauthorize it in the next year.
After
a line-item veto is issued by the President, Congress would have 13 legislative days to respond and override the veto if so
desired. The President’s veto could include a package of different spending-related
provisions from different bills, but Congress would only be able to vote “yes” or “no” on the entire
package—unable to pick and choose among the items vetoed. In addition,
the legislation would give the President the authority to withhold the funding for the provisions/programs he vetoes for up
to 6 months, even if Congress votes to override the veto.
What’s wrong with the
“line-item” veto?
Though the details are complicated,
this proposal would effectively allow the President to act as what some have called a “super-legislator.” Even after Congress has carefully negotiated spending decisions, the “line-item”
veto would allow the President to rewrite the legislation by eliminating or reducing funding for particular programs—further
shifting power away from Congress. In recent years, members of Congress have
fought off proposals from the President to eliminate, drastically reduce or fundamentally alter programs such as the Community
Development Block Grant, the Community Services Block Grant, and a variety of education and housing programs—the “line-item
veto” would give them less ability to do so and weaken democratic input into the federal budget process.
This
analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities further explains the problems presented by the line-item veto.
* The current system of governmental checks and balances allows the President to
veto any bill (the WHOLE bill) that Congress passes. Congress can then reaffirm
its support for the legislation by a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers, overriding the veto.
Sunset
Commission
As part
of an effort to secure conservative support for this year’s House budget resolution, Republican leaders in the House
promised to hold a vote this summer on the Republican Study Committee’s proposal to create a “sunset” commission—an
idea also embraced by the White House. Like the “line-item veto,”
the sunset commission legislation is billed as a way to control spending, but it really represents another dramatic shift
in power to the Executive Branch.
The
current situation:
In creating government programs, Congress
generally authorizes them for a certain number of years. When a program is due
to expire, Congress goes through a lengthy process of hearings, negotiations, and dialogue with the Administration before
deciding whether to continue, modify, or eliminate the program. For example, Congress recently reauthorized the Violence Against
Women Act and during the process (committee hearings, opportunities for public comment, debate on the House and Senate floor,
negotiations in a conference committee, and final debate and passage) made changes to some of its current programs and also
created several new programs – all of which it will review again in 5 years.
What will the sunset commission
do?
Bills proposed by the President (H.R.
3277 introduced by Rep. Brady (R-TX)) and by the Republican Study Committee (H.R. 2470) would add on top of the congressional
reauthorization process a requirement that every 10 years programs be reviewed by a “sunset commission” appointed
by the President. This commission would be given the authority to recommend whether
programs continue or are eliminated with little congressional oversight or input. During
the sunset commission’s review process, representatives of a program would be given the opportunity to appeal before
the commission to demonstrate a program’s worth of effectiveness, but public participation is not required and there
are far fewer opportunities for input than in the current congressional reauthorization process. Once the commission makes a decision, its recommendations would be hurried through Congress on a fast-track
process that limits debate and provides no opportunity for amendment—Congress must simply accept or reject the recommendation
of the commission and cannot propose alternatives. If Congress fails to act before
the program’s deadline, it would automatically be terminated.
Problems with the Sunset Commission:
The
main objection to the sunset commission proposals is that they cede substantial authority over legislative decisions to an
unelected body controlled by the President. One of Congress’ main functions
is oversight and review of the programs it creates and in this duty legislators are held accountable by and have to respond
to the constituents that elect them. While Congress would still exercise this
authority to some degree, every 10 years programs it has created, reviewed and revised would have to undergo an additional
assessment by the sunset commission and Congress would only be able to respond by a “yes” or “no” vote on the commission’s recommendations
without the benefit of the input provided by the regular reauthorization process. Other
concerns include the restrictiveness of the sunset commission’s evaluation criteria, the added bureaucracy of the review
process, and the poor track record of such commissions in the states.
OMBWatch
has compiled a helpful series of articles and talking points that provide additional information about and critique
of the sunset commission proposals.
Why the National Advocacy
Center is Concerned
As imperfect
as the current congressional budget process is, it offers a series of checks and balances and opportunities for public and
expert input that help ensure oversight and public accountability. Rather than
addressing, as they claim to, the real fiscal irresponsibility currently on display in our government, the line-item veto
and sunset commission proposals remove public accountability by taking important spending decisions away from Congress and
placing them in the hands of the President or a commission appointed by him/her. Such
a shift in power reduces the openness of government and threatens the democratic process by severely limiting who can participate
in critical government decisions regarding funding and the structure of programs.
As part
of our strong belief that all budget decisions should be viewed through a moral lens and with particular attention to their
impact on the most vulnerable in society, the National Advocacy Center is deeply concerned about these proposals because they
make important budget decisions even less accessible and accountable to the American public and especially to those who would
most likely be impacted by them—low-income families and children. It is
programs serving low-income and vulnerable populations that have most frequently been targeted for budget cuts and other “reforms”
over the past several years and it has only been the public outcry and pressure put on members of Congress by advocates across
the country that have prevented the worst of these from occurring. Both the line-item
veto and the sunset commission proposals would significantly reduce the opportunity for such advocacy, which means that those
likely to be most affected by budget decisions will be even further removed from the decision-making. This is not good government and it is not the way to address the serious fiscal issues our country is facing.
