Congress completed work late yesterday on a budget for the 2016 fiscal year – marking both the first budget resolution to be completed in six years and the first joint congressional budget plan since Republicans took control of both chambers earlier this year. The budget’s framework stays within the constraints of sequestration, mostly maintaining the current level of topline discretionary spending, while cutting more than $5 trillion to bring the budget into balance by 2025. To provide for additional Defense Department spending while retaining sequester caps, the FY16 budget provides an “off-budget” pot of money for the Defense Department through a special war account not subject to spending caps.

The resolution was negotiated by Republican budget leaders from both chambers and approved yesterday by the Senate on a 51-48 vote, with all Democrats opposing. The House had already approved the resolution last week with a vote of 226-197, which also split the parties.  Since it is a resolution, not a bill, it does not go to the President, but it will shape the Congress’s work on fiscal matters for the rest of the year and provide guidance for appropriations bills which follow. Leaders in the House have already begun floor consideration of two of the year’s 12 funding bills, even before the House adopted the budget itself, and approved them before recessing at the end of the week.  Whether the Senate, with filibuster considerations that require 60 votes to move individual bills, will follow with a series of approved Appropriations bills remains to be seen.

The Budget Resolution

The resolution maintains FY16 discretionary spending at the sequester level as set under the 2011 Budget Control Act. Appropriators therefore have $1.017 trillion–about $3 billion more than FY15 spending—to split between all annually-appropriated agencies and programs for the fiscal year beginning October 1. However, as evidence of many Republican lawmakers’ belief that sequester-level spending is too restrictive at least for defense, the resolution also provides $96 billion of additional, off-budget spending for the Pentagon through a special war account that is not subject to Budget Control Act limits.

In addition to setting the spending level for FY16, the budget resolution includes a ten-year plan to reach balance in FY25, although does not include binding instructions to meet these goals; so, though it may illustrate a set of changes that would lead to balance, those prescriptions are not binding mandates. Among the approaches listed to achieve this deficit reduction, the budget plan includes $496 billion in additional cuts over ten years to non-defense discretionary spending as well as significant cuts to entitlement programs – including higher education spending on the mandatory-side of the ledger. Specifically, the resolution looks to the elimination of the mandatory portion of funding to Pell grants, elimination of undergraduate student loan subsidies, elimination of public service loan forgiveness, and changes to other repayment options. However, it does not follow through with the binding authorities to make these cuts. These changes to mandatory programs must be made by the committees with jurisdiction over these programs. Republican leaders could have mandated policy changes in order to achieve the prescribed savings by including instructions in the Budget Resolutions (known as reconciliation instructions), and, in so doing, could have provided procedural protections requiring only a simple majority to pass these provisions. Notably, the FY16 resolution does not do this; instead, it limits reconciliation instructions specifically to those committees necessary to repeal the Affordable Care Act and for that purpose only.

The budget was strongly opposed by Democrats in both houses, and some in the Republican Party were also dissatisfied with it – though for differing reasons. Some GOP members believed the resolution did not go far enough to reduce spending, while others were concerned that it went too far. This dissatisfaction has already shown signs of complicating and slowing the appropriations process.

The Appropriations Year Ahead

House leaders, eager to get a start on annual funding measures, began consideration of two appropriations bills before final approval of the budget. However, consideration of those bills was slower and more divisive than expected. Disagreements over additional funding provided through the off-budget war account nearly derailed the normally non-controversial VA-Military Construction bill.  In addition, the President has promised to veto any bill that comes to his desk funded at the sequester level, such as the Energy and Water bill, the other funding bill that passed the House on Friday. That bill underfunds, relative to the Administration’s request, important research-sponsoring agencies like the Department of Energy Office of Science and ARPA-E. On the other side of the Hill, Senate Democrats are vowing not to support any appropriations bill that is funded at the sequester level.  Because Republicans in the Senate need some Democratic support to reach the 60 vote threshold to impose cloture, it may be that little if any progress will be made until the fall, when the need to fund the government may, according to many members, lead to some kind of bipartisan agreement to address the spending caps.

We continue to press the case for improved research and education funding through various efforts, from the engagement of President Faust in Washington, to the work of higher education and scientific associations, as well as through our leadership in advocacy groups, such as The Science Coalition and United for Medical Research. Increasingly, we are gratified to see underinvestment in research being cited by members and thought leaders from both parties as a key concern and reason to reexamine inadequate funding levels and reinvest in these core activities.

Contact

If you have any questions regarding this update or the Office of Federal Relations’ work in Washington, please feel free to be in touch with Suzanne Day or Jon Groteboer at (202) 863-1292.