After a marathon markup that ran late into the evening, the House Republicans passed the bill out of the Budget Committee along a party line vote this morning. Late last night, the House Republican caucus seemed sharply divided between defense hawks and those committed to cutting spending.
According to an analysis from the Committee for Education Funding, the House Republicans’ proposed 2016 budget would make cuts to student aid that are deeper than meets the eye and would hurt funding for major education programs. The budget would eliminate expansions to the income-based repayment program, public sector loan forgiveness and in-school interest subsidies for undergraduate Stafford loans. The three changes, in addition to cuts to the Pell Grant program, would add up to tens of billions of dollars in federal savings.
The House budget also plans changes to non-defense discretionary spending in future years that will squeeze other education programs, which will more than likley lead to cuts to Head Start, Title I, IDEA and other programs.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-WY) introduced the Senate Budget today, whihc differs in big ways from a House GOP blueprint introduced yesterday. Both aim to balance the budget (the Senate in 10 years, the House in nine) and both cut over $5 billion in spending (the Senate cuts $5.1 trillion and the House would cut $5.5 trillion). It proposes an additional $236 billion in cuts to non defense discretionary spending from FY2017-FY2025 and it would leave the defense discretionary caps at the sequester levels.
Most importantly, and a point that goes directly to the contention in the House Republicans, the Senate GOP budget only provides $58 billion for a war funding account known as the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund — much less than the $90 billion included in the House GOP budget. In a move to appease House defense hawks, the House Budget had a huge increase in the OCO, which is not subject to the Sequester caps. The budget resolution effectively draws a line in the sand over war funding by creating a point of order against raising Overseas Contingency Operations account funding above $58 billion next year. Points of order require 60 votes to pass. That means any move to boost the OCO funding would need the support of Senate Democrats. Obama has proposed $51 billion in war funds for the military.
As for policy directives, the Senate proposal includes reconciliation instructions for the Senate Finance and Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committees to each find no less than $1 billion of savings over 10 years to put toward deficit reduction by no later than July 31, 2015. It also creates a Deficit-Neutral Reserve Fund (DNRF), a budget gimmick that allows Committee chairs to break budget constraints and will not result in a budget point of order, for the HELP Committee to reauthorize the Higher Education Act (HEA). The budget proposal also creates a DNRF for improvements in medical research, innovation and safety, among other health reforms. The budget also calls for a DNRF for energy legislation, which could include reforms to research programs at the Department of Energy.
Similar to the House Republican Budget, the Senate budget would cut Pell — and cut $90 billion from the Pell grant program over 10 years. Additionally, the proposal would set non-defense discretionary spending at $493 billion for 2016.
House Budget Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) released the House Republican budget draft today, which in recent years has been largely a political document. The House Democrats are expected to release a competing draft soon. The federal budget, while it does not become law, does have to pass both chambers of Congress and will guide the House and Senate on federal spending. In addition, the budget typically charges the respective legislative bodies on sweeping policy initiatives, such as tax reform, which is what then-Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) suggested last year. This year, Chairman Price includes the repeal of Dodd-Frank and Obamacare, proposes a premium support system for Medicare, asks for a bipartisan study and report to Congress on the problems facing the Social Security program, and would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Additionally, the final budget will guide the respective House and Senate Appropriations Committees on how much funding is available to begin work on the 12 annual appropriations bills.
The details are not yet clear, but at first blush, the bill would aim to balance the budget in nine years and create a surplus by 2025. The measure would also cut $5.5 trillion over the next decade. This would be achieved by eliminating duplicative programs and eliminating programs within agencies that are not “core functions” of the federal government. Examples of these duplicative, beyond the scope or “corporate welfare” programs cited include, job training programs, and eliminating the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Program and Trade Promotion Activities at the International Trade Administration.
Redundancies and misuse of tax dollars called out include:
There are 92 different anti-poverty programs.
There are 17 food aid programs.
There are 22 housing assistance programs
An Inspector General report revealed that employees at the Environmental Protection Agency are taking paid leave after work-related violations.
The Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, two of the most important agencies in our national security apparatus, currently spend part of their budget studying climate change.
For higher education, the legislation proposes a new framework to use “federal dollars more efficiently” in higher education — but details on what that framework would be are thin. Pell grant awards would both be capped for next decade and limited to the neediest borrowers.
The bill would also replace or prevent Sequester cuts — although how is unclear. The measure would keeping the 2011 budget ceilings, and would impose a $1.017 trillion ceiling on spending in the fiscal year beginning on Oct. 1. Domestic discretionary programs would get $493 billion, with $523 billion allotted for the Pentagon’s base budget. The GOP budget ignores Obama’s request for $74 billion in additional spending.
Already, the GOP members of the House Armed Services Committee has been less than committal to the measure. It remains to be seen if the measure will enjoy unified Republican support.
1. Republicans are on a collision course over DoD spending: The long-brewing squabble between GOP defense hawks and fiscal hawks over defense spending is coming to a head, with the House Budget Committee planning to move a budget resolution that sets base defense spending next fiscal year $35 billion below what the Pentagon requested. But the defense hawks are lobbying furiously to avoid that outcome, and Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) is even vowing to personally oppose a budget resolution that doesn’t increase military spending above what’s allowed under the Budget Control Act of 2011. Sequester? What sequester?
And on the House side, Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) is asking the House Budget Committee to boost defense spending, which would bust the BCA caps by more than $50 billion. In a letter he plans to send to the Budget panel today, Thornberry will seek $577 billion in defense spending for the House’s budget resolution and argue that “the lowest acceptable level is $566 billion, the amount identified for 2016 in last year’s House budget,” the aide said.
Thornberry’s request of $577 billion is the amount that was projected for the Pentagon in FY2016 before the 2011 Budget Control Act was approved and sequestration took effect. It’s higher than President Barack Obama’s FY2016 request of $561 billion, which includes base Pentagon funding as well as other spending considered part of the “national security” budget. The GOP aide said that Thornberry’s letter is signed by 31 of the 36 Republicans on the Armed Services panel.
2. Government shutdowns are still a thing: Shortly after the November midterm elections that gave Republicans control of the Senate, then-incoming Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, “We will not be shutting the government down.” Now here we are, just three months later – with the Department of Homeland Security set to run out of funds at midnight. And House and Senate leaders remain at an impasse over whether to pass a “clean” DHS spending bill or continue pushing to tie DHS funding to the president’s executive order on immigration.
House leaders are now looking at staving off a shutdown by passing a three-week continuing spending resolution for DHS. Read more here.
Today, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearing on smarter federal regulations for colleges and universities. In November of 2013, Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Richard Burr (R-NC) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) appointed the Task Force on Federal Regulation of Higher Education. Sixteen college presidents and CEOs were charged with reviewing Education Department regulations and reporting requirements for the country’s 6,000 institutions.
The report, which was sponsored by the American Council on Education, was released last week. It acknowledges the importance of federal regulation in ensuring institutional accountability. Overall, the report states that “reporting requirements that have an excessive reach, or that are unnecessarily costly and difficult to implement — or worse still, that hinder student access to college and drive costs up — are counterproductive.” Areas of concern include institutional accreditation, uniform definitions of Clery crimes and verification of student eligibility for financial aid, among other issues.
With reauthorization of the Higher Education Act on the horizon, the task force’s report asks policymakers to follow a series of “guiding principles” to govern the ED’s development, implementation and enforcement of regulations. Among the recommendations: Rules should be relevant, clear and purposeful, and their costs and burdens should be accurately estimated. Penalties for violations should be appropriate. And the department should “take all necessary steps to facilitate compliance” on the part of institutions.
The issue has turned into a hot button one and multiple organizations have come out opposing the report.
