Legislation and Guidance
- Congress Works on Budget and Supplemental Compromises
- Farm Bill is Close, Despite Another Extension
- Facility Financing Markup
News
Legislation and Guidance
Congress Works on Budget and Supplemental Compromises
This week, House and Senate budget leaders reached an agreement with the Blue Dog Democrats, a group of almost fifty fiscally conservative members of Congress who are adamant about offsetting any additional spending this year. Since adopting Pay Go (Outside Source; PDF; 97KB; 11pp) in 2007 for the 110th Congress, the leadership has consistently found ways around these self imposed rules in order to pass legislation. This year, however, Blue Dog Democrats are determined to hold Congress to the Pay Go rules and they are paying special attention to any plan to fix the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which will end up costing many middle income families millions of dollars unless it is revised.
The current AMT fix would cost about $70 billion, but there are currently no offsets in the House or Senate budget resolution. Because the Blue Dogs are necessary for a majority in the House, budget leaders agreed that the joint budget resolution will include language asking appropriators to find offsets. The language does not bind appropriators, but it does put them under the microscope to adhere to Pay Go. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) also agreed to place another point of order into Senate rules, which can be called against any legislation that costs more than $10 billion and does not include any offsets. This point of order can be waived with a 60-vote majority, but it places public attention on the Senate’s adherence to Pay Go. Senator Conrad also agreed to drop a provision from the bill that called for a no-offset stimulus package at $35 billion.
The Blue Dog Democrats are also pleased with a new agreement to refrain from passing the AMT fix, or other funding measures as part of a budget reconciliation bill. If the budget resolution called for a reconciliation package, it would require whichever committee holds jurisdiction over the topic to produce legislation based on the reconciliation language in the budget bill. Majority parties use this as a way to circumvent the minority because a reconciliation bill is not subject to points of order or a filibuster in the Senate. This takes away any power the minority party has over the legislation. In order to placate both Blue Dog Democrats and Senate Republicans, budget leaders agreed not to use budget reconciliation bills in this year’s budget resolution.
While budget leaders remain focused on setting the annual spending caps, appropriators are getting ready to mark up a supplemental appropriations bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, before the Senate Appropriations Committee can begin its markup, lawmakers must agree if they will allow domestic spending into the war spending bill. The White House has warned against adding domestic spending, but may allow it simply because they do not want to delay funding to troops in war zones.
In Congress, the debate is more about what kind of spending will be included, not if it will be included. For example, House Education and Labor Chairman George Miller has stated his desire to include language that provides school construction funds to the supplemental. Senate appropriators are set to begin their markup soon, possibly next week.
Resources
David Clarke and Chuck Conlon, “Blue Dog’ Reach Deal on Offsets,” CQ Today, April 29, 2008.
David Clarke and Liriel Higa, “The Slow Start on Fiscal 2009 Has Some Seeing a Truncated Appropriations Season,” CQ Today, May 1, 2008.
The House’s Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) Rule in the 110th Congress (Congressional Research Service: January 31, 2007).
Vicki Needham, “Reid Noncommittal About Markup Plan, Timing for War Supplemental,” Congress Now, May 1, 2008.
Farm Bill is Close, Despite Another Extension
Lawmakers, once again, extended the Farm Bill for an additional week. They claim that they are closer to a final deal than ever before, but the White House remains opposed to the bill. Even if Congress can pass a final conference report by next week, a possible veto may delay the effort to finish work on the nation’s largest agricultural legislation.
Conferees met this week to discuss both direct payments to farmers as well as funding for the nutrition title of the bill. Efforts to eliminate the two percent cut in direct payments for 2009, 2010 and 2011 failed. However, the conference approved a $10.36 billion nutrition title, but deferred the difficult debate over how that funding will break down until next week. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) said that discussion over unresolved issues will continue over the weekend and the conference will reconvene Tuesday.
School nutrition advocates remain concerned with funding over the fresh fruit and vegetable snack program. Senator Harkin called for $225 million in annual appropriations for the program, but Congressional aides are guessing that final spending will be somewhere between $100 million and $200 million. If conferees adopt the Senate language for the program, the annual appropriations will be divided between all 50 states, with each state receiving one percent of the total funding. The remaining 50 percent will then be doled out based on the percentage of the national number of students eligible to receive free or reduced price lunches under the National School Lunch Program. School nutrition administrators are also lobbying for the adoption of a House provision that includes a five percent set aside for administrative purposes. Despite having a total amount of spending in place for the nutrition title, the smaller programmatic details require completion.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) hopes to have the conference report through both chambers by next Friday. This schedule will give the President only one day to sign the bill or follow through on his veto threat. If he decides to veto the bill, Congress will have to pass another extension while they work on overriding the veto or creating a new proposal. If this occurs, Congress may decide to move forward with a one or two year extension, giving interested parties some satisfaction in finally knowing what they can expect to receive over the next year. This will also allow Democrats to wait for a new President who might be more willing to support their proposed bill.
Resources
Geof Koss, “Chambliss Privately Presses Bush to Back Farm Bill; Senate Backs Extension,” Congress Now, May 1, 2008.
Geof Koss, “Conferees Plow Through Farm Bill Amendments in Marathon Session,” Congress Now, May 2, 2008.
Facility Financing Markup
On Wednesday, The House Committee on Education and Labor approved the markup of HR. 3021, the 21st Century Green High-Performing Public School Facilities Act. The committee approved the bill by a split vote of 28-19, with only two Republicans joining in the minority.
The bill would provide grants that are proportional to the amount received by all local educational agencies in the state under Title I Part A of No child left Behind (NCLB). The funding would then flow through to districts for the purposes of school construction, modernization or repairing public kindergarten, elementary and secondary educational facilities. The majority of authorized funding would have to be for projects that meet recognized “green” building standards. States would be able to reserve 1% of its allocation for administration purposes. Title II of the bill also provides supplemental grants for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama for renovating or repairing damage to schools caused by Hurricane Katrina or Rita.
The bill would authorize $6.4 billion for the state facility finance grants and $100 million for the hurricane supplemental.
The outcome, however, is far from certain. Republicans oppose the potential economic inefficiencies that would results from an expanded federal role. According to a report produced by the minority staff of the House Education and Labor Committee in advance of the markup: “Federal intervention into school construction carries with it significant burdens. For instance, the Depression- era Davis-Bacon wage mandates can drive up the cost of federal projects y an average of 22 percent;” and
A massive and unproven federal school construction program would undermine efforts to increase funding for the Title I program for low income students and IDEA, weaken efforts at the state level to fund school construction, dramatically increase the cost of elementary and secondary schools, and significantly expand the size and scope of the federal government.
To be sure, the Republicans are not waffling in their opposition.
Resources
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 3021 offered by Mr. Loebsack, April 28, 2008.
It Doesn't Add Up: the Dangers of a Federal School Construction Mandate (Minority Staff of the House Education and Labor Committee, in Advance of a Markup of H.R. 3021: April 2008).
News
Reading First Report
This week, the United States Department of Education (ED) released Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report (Outside Source), a report that is required under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This report is the first of two. ED will release the final report in early 2009.
The report examines the impact of the Reading First (RF) program in the 2004-2005 school year and the 2005-2006 school year. It examines the program’s impact on student reading comprehension and teachers’ instructional practices and use of scientifically-based reading instruction.
The results are not what Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings or RF advocates desired. The key findings include:
- The estimated impacts on reading comprehension test scores were not statistically significant.
- On average, the program increased instructional time spent the five essential components of reading instruction that include phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension.
- The average impact on reading comprehension and classroom instruction did not change systemically over time as sites gain experience with Reading First.
Some newspapers have already placed an unattractive frame on the report. The New York Times ran a story on Friday entitled "Initiative on Reading is Rated Ineffective" and the Washington Post’s story "Study Questions No Child Acts Reading Plan" (Outside Source) states that the program, which is at “at the heart” of NCLB, has failed. Critics and supporters of the RF are now rolling out their own reactions.
Most important, however, is how David Obey (D-WI), the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, will use the report to determine RF’s fate in the fiscal year 2009 (FY09). Last year, he chose to cut the program by 61%. Whether he will maintain that reduced funding or restore the program is not clear because the Budget Committees have not yet settled on the Budget Resolution for FY09 (see “Congress Works on Budget and Supplemental Compromises” in this week’s Update for more on that topic). Once the spending caps are set, House and Senate appropriators will then begin to allocate funding to particular programs such as RF. At that point, we will know if its supporters have been able to overcome both last year’s cuts and, now, this latest report.
Resources
Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report (United States Department of Education: 2008).
Maria Glod, “Study Questions 'No Child' Act's Reading Plan,” Washington Post, May 2, 2008.
Sam Dillion, “An Initiative on Reading Is Rated Ineffective,” New York Times, May 2, 2008
