Highway Bill Likely to Cut into
Funding for Other Non-Defense Discretionary Programs
by Sam Elkin and Robert Greenstein
Summary
The highway bill now in a conference committee between the Senate and House threatens to precipitate large reductions in the next several years in the non-defense discretionary part of the federal budget. Programs in areas ranging from education and child care to environmental, agricultural, rural, veterans, and foreign aid programs, as well as scientific research, are likely to be affected adversely.
The versions of the highway bill that both the House and Senate have passed would sharply increase highway spending to levels well in excess of what was agreed to during last year's budget negotiations between Congress and the President. Due to the binding caps the budget agreement placed on expenditures for discretionary (i.e., non-entitlement) programs, increased highway spending must automatically lead to reductions in other discretionary programs unless the increased highway spending is offset in some other manner.
That the highway bill will have this effect on other discretionary programs is not well understood. There is a widespread — but wholly mistaken — view that the increased highway spending is being financed out of the highway trust fund in a way that does not affect funding for other programs. The highway trust fund, however, is essentially a bookkeeping mechanism. Its existence does not alter the fact that discretionary spending on highways is counted under the discretionary spending caps — and an increase in highway spending consequently requires reductions in other discretionary programs so that overall discretionary spending remains within the cap.
The budgetary realities related to these matters are as follows:
- The Balanced Budget Agreement established legally binding caps on spending for discretionary programs for each year through fiscal year 2002. If the relative proportions of overall discretionary spending that go to defense and non-defense programs remain relatively stable (as the budget agreement assumes they will), the caps will reduce spending for non-defense discretionary programs by a cumulative total of $39 billion over the next four fiscal years. In fiscal year 2002 alone, spending for non-defense discretionary programs will be $24 billion — or eight percent — below the fiscal year 1998 level after adjusting for inflation.(1)
- Increasing funding for any discretionary program means that the
amount left for other discretionary programs must be reduced. As a result, the increase in
spending in the highway bill will almost certainly lead to a decrease in spending for
other discretionary programs. If the House version of the highway bill becomes law,
highway (and related mass transit) spending will rise 26 percent by 2002, after adjusting
for inflation. Over the same period, spending levels for other non-defense discretionary
programs will fall 12 percent in inflation-adjusted terms (assuming the reductions needed
to offset the increased highway expenditures come from the non-defense portion of
discretionary spending). The overall reduction in non-defense discretionary programs for
fiscal years 1998 through 2002, other than highway and mass transit programs, would be
about 50 percent deeper than the reduction that last year's budget agreement, by itself,
will cause in these programs.
Spending on highways and mass transit would be about one-third higher in 2002 under the House version of the highway bill than the Balanced Budget Agreement assumed.(2)
- The crunch that will face non-defense discretionary programs over the next several years may be even sharper than these figures indicate. The budget agreement places separate caps on defense and non-defense discretionary spending in fiscal years 1998 and 1999; starting in fiscal year 2000, however, these separate caps disappear and are replaced by one overall cap on total discretionary spending. Many budget and Congressional observers expect Congress to increase spending levels for defense after 1999, causing still-deeper cuts in non-defense discretionary programs. Reductions in non-defense discretionary programs made as a result of increased highway spending thus would be in addition to both the reductions precipitated by the budget agreement and any additional reductions caused by increases in defense spending.
- Furthermore, the highway bill's sponsors seek to guarantee that no matter how severe the crunch becomes on other areas of non-defense discretionary spending in coming years, highway programs will get every penny of the increased funding the highway bill calls for, and other programs will be reduced correspondingly. Rep. Bud Shuster, chairman of the House Transportation Committee and principal author of the House highway bill, is apparently seeking in conference to place a "firewall" around highway and mass transit spending. This would insure that even if the increases in highway spending are perceived in coming years to be overly generous when compared to the painful reductions being meted out to other discretionary programs, no reallocation of funds from highways to other areas is permitted. This Shuster proposal would prevent Congress from making budget priorities decisions on a level playing field, locking in the spending increases in the highway bill through at least 2002.
- In theory, the conference committee on the highway bill could adopt
the approach set forth in the Senate budget resolution, which attempts to pay for highway
spending increases through reductions in entitlements and other mandatory programs, rather
than through deeper cuts in discretionary programs. But the approach reflected in the
Senate budget resolution is, at best, likely to offset only a modest share of the
increased highway spending. That would still leave reductions in discretionary programs
bearing most of the load of paying for the highway bill.
This is true for several reasons. First, the Senate budget resolution does not appear to contain enough mandatory spending reductions to pay for the full cost of the highway bill. Second, the Senate budget resolution assumes the appropriations committees will make significant cuts in mandatory programs over which they normally lack jurisdiction to produce savings sufficient to offset the additional highway spending. That, however, is likely to prove difficult politically for the appropriations committees. Nothing in the budget resolution would obligate them to make these reductions in mandatory programs, and some of the cuts are highly controversial. For example, more than half of the mandatory programs savings the Senate budget resolution assumes the appropriations committees will make to pay for the added highway spending would come from a contentious proposal to deny veterans' disability compensation benefits to veterans who smoked while in the armed forces and later developed smoking-related disabilities. Although this proposal also is in the Administration's budget, numerous Members of both parties oppose it, and the House has gone on record against it. If this proposal is not enacted, half of the mandatory savings that the Senate budget resolution assumes will be used to pay for highway spending increases will evaporate. Under the Senate budget resolution approach, any savings that are assumed to come from mandatory programs reductions but are not enacted must be made up by cuts in discretionary programs instead.
The approach reflected in the Senate budget resolution also would be likely to run into roadblocks in the House. The Senate budget resolution approach uses savings in mandatory programs to offset highway spending costs so that discretionary programs do not have to be reduced further. Conservative House Republicans apparently would prefer to use mandatory program reductions to pay for tax cuts and seem ready to make deeper reductions in non-defense discretionary programs. In fact, the draft House budget resolution that House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich has recently produced is widely reported to include further reductions in non-defense discretionary spending of $100 billion to $150 billion over five years, on top of the reductions in last year's budget agreement.
- One other point also may be noted about the Senate budget resolution approach. To the extent that some reductions in mandatory programs are used to pay for a modest portion of the increased highway expenditures, these savings become unavailable to pay for initiatives in the President's budget. Most of the mandatory program reductions that the Senate budget resolution assumes would help pay for the added highway spending are reductions the President's budget would use to finance Administration initiatives. The combined effect of losing financing for Presidential initiatives and having to make deeper reductions in overall funding for non-defense discretionary programs (other than highways and mass transit) would likely mean that some discretionary program areas that the President's budget proposed to increase would instead find themselves subject to cuts in the years ahead.
CBO Affirms that the
Highway Trust Fund Will Not "Pay" On April 28, 1998, June O'Neill, director of CBO, wrote to Senator Pete Domenici, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, in response to several questions the Senator posed regarding the highway bills. In its letter, CBO dispels the myth that the increases proposed in the Senate and House highway bills would be offset by gas tax receipts earmarked for the Highway Trust Fund or by cash balances in that trust fund. The CBO letter states that discretionary spending on highways falls under the discretionary caps and an increase in such spending necessitates corresponding reductions in other discretionary programs. Excerpts from the CBO letter follow.
|
Background on the Discretionary Caps
In negotiating the Balanced Budget Agreement, Congress and the President agreed to extend the strict spending limits on discretionary programs that have been in place since 1991. These limits, known as caps, were set in law through 2002.
Defense and non-defense discretionary programs operate under separate caps until the end of fiscal year 1999. After that, defense and non-defense discretionary programs are subject to a single cap. The discretionary part of the federal budget encompasses a wide range of government responsibilities, including the military, international programs, NASA, civilian energy, agricultural and biomedical research, environment, national parks, community and economic development, education, job training, Head Start, public health programs, housing, veterans hospitals, law enforcement, rural programs, general governmental operations, and highways, among others. Funding for these programs as a whole cannot exceed the amount of the caps without triggering automatic across-the-board cuts in discretionary programs.
The caps the Balanced Budget Agreement established are quite restrictive; under these caps, the total amount of inflation-adjusted spending available for discretionary programs shrinks over the next several years. Programs must be reduced or eliminated if overall spending is to fit within the caps. If Congress continues to abide by the defense spending levels assumed in last year's budget agreement (which assumed that the relative shares of discretionary spending that go to defense and non-defense programs would remain essentially stable), expenditures for non-defense discretionary programs (including highway spending) will by 2002 be 8.4 percent below the 1998 level, after adjusting for inflation.
The Highway Bill Takes Substantial Funding Away from Other Programs
The highway bill would deepen the cuts required in discretionary programs other than highway and mass transit programs, because it would increase highway and mass transit spending and leave less money for other discretionary programs under the discretionary spending caps. The highway bill the House has passed would raise highway and mass transit spending to a level 25.7 percent higher in 2002 than its 1998 level, after adjusting for inflation. As explained below, the House version of the highway bill also would wall off highway and mass transit spending from other discretionary spending, thereby guaranteeing that deeper cuts must be made in other discretionary programs.
| The Effect of the
Highway Bill on Discretionary Spending Discretionary spending, in billions of FY 1998 dollars |
||||||
| Fiscal year | Percent change, | |||||
| 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 1998 to 2002 | |
| Discretionary spending levels agreed to in the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997 | ||||||
| Highways and Mass Transit* | $25.2 | $25.3 | $25.1 | $24.6 | $24.1 | -4.6% |
| Other non-defense programs | $261.2 | $261.3 | $257.5 | $249.9 | $238.4 | -8.7% |
| Defense | $266.8 | $260.9 | $257.5 | $253.0 | $249.2 | -6.6% |
| Total | $553.3 | $547.5 | $540.2 | $527.5 | $511.7 | -7.5% |
| Discretionary spending levels under House version of the highway bill. | ||||||
| Highways and Mass Transit* | $25.2 | $27.2 | $29.7 | $31.6 | $31.7 | +25.7% |
| Other non-defense programs | $261.2 | $259.4 | $252.9 | $243.0 | $230.8 | -11.7% |
| Defense | $266.8 | $260.9 | $257.5 | $253.0 | $249.2 | -6.6% |
| Total | $553.3 | $547.5 | $540.2 | $527.5 | $511.7 | -7.5% |
* Highways and
other discretionary programs covered by The House highway bill (H.R. 2400) |
||||||
Each extra dollar in discretionary spending the bill gives to highways and mass transit must be taken from other discretionary programs, unless the extra spending is offset by cuts in mandatory programs. Since defense spending is unlikely to be reduced below the levels assumed in the balanced budget agreement (and may be raised to levels higher than that), increases in discretionary spending for highways and mass transit programs will, in all probability, need to be paid for through deeper cuts in other non-defense discretionary programs.
As the table above shows, if the House version of the highway bill is enacted, total spending on all non-defense discretionary programs other than highways and mass transit will have to be cut a cumulative total of $58.8 billion between 1998 and 2002. In 2002 alone, spending on these programs will have to be $30.4 billion — or 11.7 percent — below the 1998 level, after adjustment for inflation.
The House bill also would ensure that Congress could not lessen the magnitude of the reductions in non-defense programs in future years by paring back the highway and mass transit spending increases. The House bill would take highway and mass transit spending "off budget" and result in lower caps being applied to other discretionary spending.(3) Rep. Bud Shuster, chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has suggested an alternative approach for conference, but the alternative approach would have essentially the same effect. It would place highway and mass transit spending under a separate cap and lower the cap for other discretionary spending accordingly.
In either case, the impact on other discretionary programs would essentially be the same — these programs would be reduced by the amount the highway bill increases discretionary spending for highway and mass transit programs. Other discretionary programs would have to be cut dollar for dollar by the amount the legislation boosts discretionary spending on highways and mass transit.
The Balanced Budget Agreement itself accorded somewhat more favorable treatment to transportation programs than most other programs, largely due to Chairman Shuster's efforts last year. (See table above.) The pending highway legislation goes much further. In the year 2002 alone, discretionary spending on highways and mass transit under the House highway bill would be $7.7 billion, or 31.9 percent, above the level the budget agreement envisioned. Other non-defense discretionary spending would have to be cut $7.7 billion below the level the budget agreement assumed for 2002.
Defense Spending Increases May Further Erode Funding for Non-Defense Discretionary Programs
The estimates cited above assume that defense and non-defense programs will retain approximately the same shares of total discretionary spending over the next five years. Beginning in 2000, however, the budgetary mechanism that prevents Congress from cutting non-defense programs more deeply to increase funding for the military (and vice versa) will disappear.
Defense spending has been reduced over the course of recent years, and proponents of a larger military clearly intend to push for increases in defense spending at the expense of non-defense programs as soon as the opportunity arises. (Some, including Representative Floyd Spence, chairman of the House National Security Committee, are even urging Congress to reopen the budget agreement now to increase defense spending. Spence recently declared: "How are the military services supposed to stabilize their downsized post-Cold War force structure, protect quality of life and readiness, and end the decade-long procurement 'holiday' when they lose purchasing power every year?"(4)) Many budget observers, including the authors of this paper, believe it is likely Congress will raise defense spending over the next few years to levels exceeding those assumed in the budget agreement. Doing so would mean that reductions in non-defense discretionary programs would be larger than the figures cited here.
Military spending thus is likely to grow at the same time that highway spending would increase. If defense spending is raised to higher levels than those the budget agreement assumed and the House highway becomes law, non-defense discretionary programs will need to be cut more than 11.7 percent by 2002.
Furthermore, some non-defense programs Congress favors may receive special treatment. If such programs receive additional funding, or if they simply receive enough to keep up with inflation and are not reduced, that will further shrink the funds available to other non-defense discretionary programs.
Despite the likelihood of reductions in discretionary programs, some in the House are proposing still deeper cuts in the overall amount available for non-defense discretionary programs. According to news reports, the budget resolution that House Budget Committee chairman John Kasich has written and is discussing with other House Republicans would lower the discretionary caps and cut non-defense discretionary funding by an additional $100 billion or more over the next five years, on top of the reductions in last year's budget agreement.
The Senate Budget Resolution and Increased Highway Spending
Both the Senate and House versions of the highway bill increase highway spending substantially over the levels reflected in the budget agreement. Neither version of the highway bill pays for these increases by making offsetting cuts in other programs.
Some in the Senate have said the Senate version of the budget resolution would pay for increased highway spending without requiring additional reductions in other discretionary programs. The Senate budget resolution envisions that Congress would accommodate the increased highway spending by writing offsetting cuts in entitlements and other mandatory (i.e., non-discretionary) programs into this year's appropriations bills.
There is strong reason to believe, however, that only a modest portion — if any — of these mandatory savings will actually materialize as offsets to the increased highway expenditures. The budget resolution is not a piece of legislation; it cannot make these cuts itself. The appropriation committees would have to do that. But some of the assumed mandatory cuts are highly controversial and will be politically difficult to achieve. It is far from clear that appropriators will be willing — or more important, will be able — to make some or all of these cuts. In addition, the process of using cuts in mandatory programs to offset increased discretionary spending might not be acceptable to the House, where a number of conservative Members would prefer to use savings from reductions in mandatory programs for larger tax cuts and appear ready to exact further reductions in non-defense discretionary programs.
A budget resolution is only a framework for the development of legislation and generally can enforce reductions in mandatory programs only through "reconciliation instructions." This year's Senate budget resolution contains no reconciliation instructions. Even if the Senate budget resolution approach for financing highway spending increases is ultimately written into the final budget resolution that both the Senate and House adopt, there likely will be no enforcement mechanism to require that the proposed reductions in mandatory programs actually be made.
Moreover, the Senate budget resolution does not actually contain these mandatory program reductions. The Senate Budget Committee report accompanying the budget resolution simply lists reductions in mandatory programs that it assumes the appropriations committees will make during the appropriations process.
Some of the mandatory savings listed in the Senate Budget Committee report will be difficult to secure. More than half of the mandatory savings the Senate budget resolution assumes will be used to pay for increased highway spending — $10.5 billion out of $18.5 billion — comes from a proposal to deny veterans disability compensation to veterans with smoking-related disabilities. Although this proposal appears to have merit and also is included in the President's budget, it seems unlikely to pass.
The upshot is that there appears to be little chance that the highway spending increases will be largely or fully offset by reductions in mandatory programs. To the extent that increases in discretionary transportation spending are not offset by reductions in mandatory programs, other discretionary programs must be cut.
Presidential Priorities Endangered
A final point is that if some of the mandatory savings listed in the Senate Budget Committee report are used to offset a portion of the increase in highway spending, that will have other consequences. Virtually all of the mandatory savings measures the Senate Budget Committee envisions using to pay for added highway spending are proposals included in the President's budget to pay for Administration initiatives. To the extent these savings are used to pay for highway spending increases instead, various initiatives will be left without a financing mechanism.
The impact of the highway bill both on discretionary programs in general and on the Clinton initiatives in particular does not appear to be well understood. Supporters of some discretionary programs that the President's budget would increase may assume the question is what portion of the proposed increase these programs will receive. But in many cases, it appears such programs may more likely to be reduced over the next five years than expanded.
The President's budget substantially increased the discretionary caps; it used a combination of anticipated tobacco legislation revenue, revenue from closing certain tax breaks, and mandatory program savings to pay for the increase in the caps. The Congressional majority is rejecting that approach and, as noted, it may seek to reduce the caps. (In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated the President's budget falls $32.3 billion short over five years of fully offsetting the cost of its initiatives.)
The bottom line is that if highway spending is increased without raising the discretionary caps, other discretionary programs must be cut. There is no way around that budgetary arithmetic. The question increasingly appears to be how large the additional cuts in discretionary programs will be.
Conclusion
Since highway spending falls under the discretionary caps, increases in it must come at the price of reductions in other discretionary programs, unless mandatory offsets are found. Neither the House nor the Senate highway bills include mandatory offsets. The Senate budget resolution assumes mandatory offsets but cannot make these reductions itself. And it is likely the appropriations committees will not be able to make many of the mandatory program reductions the Senate budget resolution assumes.
Non-defense discretionary programs consequently are likely to bear the brunt of most of the increased spending in the highway bill. Furthermore, the emerging question regarding many of the initiatives in the Clinton budget is not what portion of the initiative will be salvaged but how much more deeply discretionary programs overall — including some of the discretionary programs the Administration has proposed to expand — may be sliced over the next five years.
End Notes
1. The documents setting forth last year's Balanced Budget Agreement, released May 15, 1997, included agreed-upon levels for various categories of discretionary spending through 2002. Among these were specific levels for defense and non-defense discretionary spending; these levels kept the relative shares of discretionary spending going for defense and non-defense programs essentially stable. However, for fiscal years 2000 through 2002, these specific defense and non-defense levels were not set into law. For those years, only the overall ceiling on all discretionary spending is written into law.
2. The documents setting forth the terms of the Balanced Budget Agreement include assumptions for discretionary spending levels for transportation (Function 400 of the budget) for each fiscal year through 2002. These figures were not written into law. This paper estimates the highway and mass transit share of overall transportation spending that is reflected in the budget agreement by assuming a five-year freeze on spending for transportation expenditures other than highways and mass transit, with the increase above a freeze level in overall transportation spending assumed to go for highways and mass transit. If we had assumed instead that all transportation programs were expected under the budget agreement to grow at the same rate, the levels used in this analysis for the spending levels the budget agreement assumed for highways and mass transit would have been lower, and the amount by which the highway bill would increase highway spending above the budget agreement levels would have been larger than the figures cited here.
3. Under the Budget Enforcement Act, if a program is taken "off-budget," there is a corresponding reduction in the discretionary caps.
4. "Rep. Kasich Stirs up a Low-Calorie Budget", Washington Post, April 26, 1998.
