Hearing of the House Committee on Government Reform - Is Uncle Sam Still Passing the Buck? The Burden of Unfunded Mandates on State, County, City Gov..
HEARING OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM - IS UNCLE SAM STILL PASSING THE BUCK? THE BURDEN OF UNFUNDED MANDATES ON STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY GOVERNMENTS
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
I just want to pick up on a point that Mr. Waxman mentioned in his opening statement with respect to some of the education programs, which although they don't come under the strict definition of these unfunded mandates, I think if you talk to people in the States, and I know we're going to have testimony from people representing local jurisdictions and State jurisdictions, and certainly as someone who came from a State legislature, you look at these as mandates from the Federal Government. Specifically, No Child Left Behind, the IDEA special education legislation.
In both cases, I think the Federal Government, on balance, had the right policy, especially with IDEA, ensuring that every child, regardless of his or her disabilities, gets a good education. At the time, with that law as well as No Child Left Behind, the Federal Government made certain commitments.
We talked about what the significance and authorization level is or is not, but I would say that especially with respect to those two programs, the commitments that the Federal Government made, 40 percent funding with respect to special education, and the authorized levels that went back and forth through quite a bit of negotiations between the Congress and
the White House were considered by many to be a commitment and obligation made by the Federal Government that is not being met. The most recent budget submitted by the White House with respect to No Child Left Behind is $12 billion underfunded. Special education is nowhere near the 40 percent commitment that we have made.
When you review these obligations, do you make any assessment as to what impact, whether they should be somehow discussed within the overall umbrella of unfunded mandates or just say, that's kind of too bad and you're on your own?
Mr. Graham. We look hard at the question of the appropriate Federal funding role. Just to get some facts on the table, the actual fiscal year 2006 budget request from the President represents a 46 percent increase for No Child Left Behind programs, compared to 2001. With the money targeted particularly at those programs, with the greatest promise for improving student achievements, such as Title I, Reading First, and the President's High School Intervention Initiative.
Specifically, the total request for No Child Left Behind programs in 2006 is $25.3 billion, an increase of nearly $1 billion or 4 percent over the 2005 level, and nearly $8 billion, or 45 percent over the 2001 level. Now, whether by some people's definition that's fully funded or not funded enough, let there be no mistake about where the President is on this subject of expansion in Federal support for No Child Left Behind.
Mr. Van Hollen. Well, I guess the question is whether the additional funds match the mandates and obligations that were placed on the States. At the time that those decisions were made, the policy committees, Education and the Workforce Committee in the House, the other committees in the Senate and the President in negotiations with the Congress determined that in order to meet the requirements, expectations within No Child Left Behind, the full authorized level would be the amount that people set out as the appropriate amount.
So while there is no doubt there have been increases in funding under the No Child Left Behind bill, the issue when you are discussing unfunded mandates is whether or not the amounts provided are sufficient to match the obligations placed on the States. Clearly there is a big gap between what the White House budget has in it and the amount that the Congress, that was in the bill signed by the White House originally.
I think you will have testimony later, and I don't want to belabor this point, but we are hearing from our constituents who have a much broader definition of unfunded mandates than is suggested in this particular analysis. Those are the unfunded mandates that people are having to struggle with every day at the State and local level. I just think it's important that when we put together our budgets and establish our priorities here in Congress, we do a better job of meeting the promises that we made at the time that we undertook these obligations, imposed these obligations on the State.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for your testimony. I also want to welcome my old friend Gerry Connolly. As he said, we worked many years together on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff. Now he's doing a great job over in Fairfax County.
Let me just ask a question of Mr. Hurson, actually Chairman Davis asked a question regarding Medicaid. My question was, as you probably know, the President has a proposal that is in formation that would essentially result in a $45 billion reduction over 10 years in Medicaid payments to the States. You referenced that in your testimony.
Just taking our State of Maryland as an example, what impact would that have on Maryland budget, the decisions that have to be made in the Maryland legislature?
Mr. Hurson. It's going to have a huge effect, Congressman. Just to give you a small example, one of the things that's in the President's proposal is that they would start limiting what are called sort of indirect governmental transfers. We are facing in our State, in order just to keep our budget balanced, a massive cut in nursing home funding. One of the proposals that's been put on the table by folks prior to the President's proposal was for us to do a provider tax, which 30 other States actually do.
Well, let me tell you, we've taken it off the table as a way to solve this problem, because frankly, because of the President's budget cuts. We see that direction of cutting back on Medicaid a direct impact upon States, where we are going to have to fill in the gaps. We can't leave people who are at 45 percent of the Federal poverty level on eligibility in our State in the streets.
We are going to have to find a way to pay for that out of State dollars.
Mr. Van Hollen. Right. Given the fact, I don't know what the exact percentage is, but a great amount of the Medicaid budget, as we know, goes to people who are in nursing homes, in some cases people who spend down in order to become eligible for Medicaid. There has been discussion, clearly from the State perspective, I can understand this, about whether or not some of that spending more properly belongs in the Federal Medicare program. Could you comment on that from a policy point of view, not just as cost shifting point of view?
Mr. Hurson. I think the States and the Federal Government at some point have to renegotiate our partnership on health care. Part of that renegotiation is going to be Medicare and Medicaid. But frankly, most of the elderly costs in this country are in the final stages of life, which often are taking place in nursing homes. The theory behind Medicare was that would be a Federal responsibility. Frankly, we all know that in fact, that has shifted to a Medicaid program, where people spend down and now it is frankly a State and Federal partnership. If we are ever going to solve the problem on the elderly in nursing homes, we are going to have to figure out a new relationship between the Federal and State governments. That is just inevitable.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to apologize, I'm already late to a meeting. Thank you
all for your testimony.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source