April 17, 2007: Congress Reconvenes
War Supplemental and FY '08 Budget Resolution Top the Agenda
BUDGET PROCESS: STEP-BY-STEP™
March 23: Senate passed S.Con.Res. 21, the FY
2008 Budget Resolution 52-47. House passed H.R. 1591, the FY 2007 War
Supplemental 218-212.
March 29: Senate passed H.R.
1591, the FY 2007 War Supplemental (w/ Senate Amendment) by a vote of
51-47. House passed H.Con.Res. 99, the FY 2008 Budget Resolution,
216-210.
March 30: On March 30, the Senate Budget Committee released a CRS report projecting the Army could finance its operations "through the end of May” with funding already appropriated and through
June or July by using its authority to transfer funds among accounts. CRS Report
April 3: President reiterated
veto threat against House- and Senate-passed war supplementals: “…if
either the House or Senate version of this bill comes to my desk, I will
veto it.” President's April 3 Veto Threat
April 11: Senate Finance
Committee hearing with CBO Director Peter Orszag on Medicare's managed
care program, “ Medicare Advantage ,” which may be a target for
budgetary savings needed to finance the scheduled rollback of physician
fees, SCHIP expansion, and other unfunded initiatives set forth in the
Budget Resolution. Orszag informed the Committee that “Medicare's
payments for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans are
higher than what the program would spend if those beneficiaries were in
the traditional fee-for-service” Medicare program. Testimony on Medicare Managed Care
Week of April 16: House-Senate Conferences on FY 2007 War Supplemental and FY 2008 Budget Resolution.
Context: Chairman Spratt is
aiming for completing action on a Budget Resolution conference report by
May 1. Timing on the supplemental conference is less clear.
Appropriators could have a quick conference leading to a veto and then
negotiations, or (less likely and depending on the April 18 White House
meeting) negotiations with the White House could take place within the
context of conferencing the House and Senate bills.
April 18: Congressional
Democratic leaders scheduled to meet with President Bush to discuss the
impasse over the timetables and benchmarks included in the FY 2007 War
Supplemental. Also scheduled for Wednesday is a Senate cloture vote on
the Medicare Rx drug bill (explained below).
April 27: House Appropriations Committee deadline for submission of FY 2008 earmark requests.
Early May: Following adoption of
a Budget Resolution Conference Report, House and Senate Appropriations
Committees make critical discretionary spending allocations (known as
302(b) allocations) among their 12 subcommittees. This is a key step in
setting Federal spending priorities.
THE WAR SUPPLEMENTAL
WBR Table Comparing President's Request, House-passed, and Senate-passed Bills
This week House and Senate negotiators begin the
process of melding the House- and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 1591,
the FY 07 War Supplemental, building on pre-conference discussions by
senior staff.
Tomorrow (Wednesday) Congressional leaders are scheduled to meet with President Bush to discuss Iraq policy.
In the meantime, the war of words continues. House Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer (D-MD) released a statement yesterday which said, in part,
“Unfortunately, the President once again today repeated false assertions
that call into question the sincerity of his invitation to sit down and
talk on a bipartisan way forward. He wrongly blamed Congress for
delaying a bill for Iraq...and continues to disingenuously link the war
in Iraq with 9/11. The fact is, this Administration's failed policy has
left our troops mired in the middle of a civil war..."
In Saturday's radio address, the
President said: “68 days ago, I sent Congress an emergency war spending
bill that would provide the vital funds needed for our troops on the
front lines...Democrats in Congress...passed bills that would impose
restrictions on our military commanders and set an arbitrary date for
withdrawal from Iraq, giving our enemies the victory they desperately
want. The Democrats' bills also spend billions of dollars on domestic
projects that have nothing to do with the war...”
Context: Congress typically
passes a supplemental funding bill each spring, which is half-way
through the fiscal year, to cover unanticipated funding needs. The
principal reason for the large size of this year's supplemental is the under-funding of war expenses in the regular FY 2007 defense
appropriations bill. (The President requested only $50 billion for the
war, Congress appropriated $70 billion, and five months into the fiscal
year the Administration requested an additional $100 billion.)
It is not unusual for Congress to include both defense and non-defense supplemental funds in the same bill.
The non-defense supplemental funds include (largest amounts first):
Katrina recovery aid; farm disaster assistance; military base
realignment & closure funding; veterans health services; low-income
energy assistance; funding for mid-year shortfalls in state children's
health insurance; wildfire suppression; rural schools; and smaller
items.
Likely outcome: a bill with no
mandatory withdrawal or draw-down dates, but requirements that the
President report to Congress periodically on specific benchmarks.
Major war supplemental conference issues include:
(1) Whether to send the House Iraq language or the Senate language to the President (the House language mandates withdrawal by September
1, while the Senate language establishes a nonbinding goal of March 2008
but mandates that a withdrawal begin within 120 days); (2) whether to include the $1.5 billion added by the Senate for mine-resistant vehicles; (3) the size of the small business tax relief package that accompanies the minimum wage; (4) the amount of Defense Operations and Maintenance funding; (5) the amount of LIHEAP (Low Income Home Energy Assistance) emergency funding; (6) the amount of farm disaster funds; and (7) the amount of Katrina assistance.
House-passed Bill
House Committee Report
Senate-passed Bill
JCT Revenue Estimate of Senate Bill
UPCOMING HOUSE-SENATE CONFERENCE ON FY 2008 BUDGET RESOLUTION
WBR Table Comparing President's Budget, S.Con.Res. 21, and H.Con.Res. 99
Context: The Budget Resolution
is an internal procedural mechanism of the Congress—guiding subsequent
action on spending and revenue bills—and does not go to the President
for signature.
Major conference issues will include:
(1) Whether to adjust revenues to allow for an AMT fix for any years beyond FY 2007; (2) whether to accept the Senate's Baucus
amendment that adjusts the Budget Resolution to make room for extension of certain tax cuts including marriage penalty relief, the child credit, adoption tax
credit, and the 10% bracket; (3) whether to let the estate tax bounce
back to 2001 levels after 2010, or whether to accept the Baucus
provision to extend the 2009 estate tax rate (45%) and exemption level ($3.5 million);
(4) whether to set the non-defense discretionary total for FY 2008 at
the Senate's $448 billion level, or the House's $454 billion level; (5)
whether to accept the Senate's Baucus amendment that provides $15
billion in additional funding for SCHIP, the State
Children's Health Insurance program, or require that any funding for
expansion of SCHIP coverage must be fully offset; (6) whether to include
the House's “Budget Reconciliation” instruction that would place student loan reforms on a filibuster-proof fast-track; and (7) which of the Senate Resolution's new points of order to retain.
Link to H.Con.Res. 99
Link to House Committee Report
Link to S.Con.Res.21
Link to WBR Revenue Chart
SENATE FINANCE REPORTS MEDICARE Rx BILL
Senate to consider bill this week: cloture filed
CBO says budget savings will be “negligible”
Last Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee voted 13-8 to report a
bill (S. 3, as amended by Chairman Baucus) to strike language in the
2003 Medicare Rx law that prohibits the HHS Secretary from involvement
in Rx price negotiations (known as the "noninterference clause"). However,
the current ban on establishing government formularies (lists of Rx
drugs available to participants) and price controls would remain in
place.
The issue of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug
prices with pharmaceutical companies has important budgetary
implications. The Senate Finance Committee and the House Committees on
Ways & Means and Energy & Commerce (which share jurisdiction
over the Medicare Rx drug program) need to find budgetary savings to offset various initiatives such as expansion of the State Children's
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and rolling back scheduled reductions
in Medicare physician reimbursements.
However, prior to the Finance Committee action, the Congressional
Budget Office released two letters casting doubt on how much savings
can actually be achieved from the Baucus proposal. The CBO
letter to Senator Baucus, which you can link to below, states in part
"that modifying the noninterference provision would have a negligible
effect on federal spending because we anticipate that under the bill the
Secretary would lack the leverage to negotiate prices...that are more
favorable than those obtained by prescription drug plans under current
law."
CBO also stated in a letter to Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) that significant savings can be achieved only by allowing Medicare to establish a formulary or set prices administratively--which the Baucus bill and the Medicare Rx bill that already passed the House--do not do.
The Medicare Rx bill is on the Senate's agenda
for Floor action this week. Senator Reid filed a cloture petition on
Monday, hoping to garner 60 votes to prevent a filibuster when the
cloture vote occurs on Wednesday.
Summary of the Bill
Chairman's Mark: Amendments to S.3
Grassley's Response
CBO: Baucus Letter
CBO: Wyden Letter
House-Passed Bill: H.R.4
BEWARE OF THE HEADLINES
If one were to skim through last week's headlines, the conclusion
would be that the U.S. fiscal outlook is good. On April 11, the Associated Press reported “Federal deficit down from last year”; the Wall Street Journal reported “Budget Deficit Eases in First Half”; the Boston Globe reported “U.S. budget gap shrinks in 1st half of fiscal '07;" and the San Diego Union-Tribune reported “Federal budget deficit running lower than last year even with big March spending.”
These headlines run the risk of obscuring
reality; there is broad-based agreement that the long-term fiscal
outlook for the U.S. is extremely serious due primarily to rapidly
rising health care costs and, secondarily, to retirement of the boomers.
In January of this year, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned the Senate Budget Committee that, because of rising entitlement
costs, a "vicious cycle may develop in which large deficits lead to
rapid growth in debt and interest payments, which in turn adds to
subsequent deficits...Ultimately, this expansion of debt would spark a
fiscal crisis...(T)he effects on the U.S. economy would be severe."
GAO Comptroller General David Walker told the Senate Budget Committee that "our long-term fiscal outlook is
both imprudent and unsustainable…driven primarily by rising health care
costs and known demographic trends," namely the baby boom. The
Government Accountability Office chief projected that by 2030, interest payments, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, alone, would consume all or nearly all Federal revenues.”
And the Congressional Budget Office stated that "the aging of the population and continuing increases in
health care costs are expected to put considerable pressure on the
budget in coming decades. Economic growth alone is unlikely to be
sufficient to alleviate that pressure as Medicare, Medicaid, and (to a
lesser extent) Social Security require ever greater resources under
current law."
WORTH READING
Restoring Fiscal Sanity 2007: The Health Spending Challenge, edited by Alice M. Rivlin (former Director of CBO and OMB and Vice-Chair of the FED, now at Brookings) and Joseph R. Antos at American Enterprise Institute).
“...if current programs remain in place and recent health spending
trends continue, within a generation the cost of Medicare and Medicaid
alone will exceed the amount of national resources historically devoted
to financing the whole federal government...Health care spending
dominates the future federal budget crunch.” (p. 2 )
Estimated Cost of the Administration's Proposal to Increase the Army's and the Marine Corps' Personnel Levels,
Congressional Budget Office, April 16, 2007. (Increasing Army by 65,000
and Marine Corps by 27,000.) CBO estimates the cost through 2012 at
$108 billion. CBO Report
|