Key senator blasts White House budget practices

A normally reserved Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., came out swinging Tuesday, blasting the White House for "irresponsible" and "unrealistic" budget practices. Citing election-year pressures, he was bearish on President Bush's proposals to cut Medicare and other entitlements through the reconciliation process.

"I don't know that there will be reconciliation," Gregg said. "I don't sense the House has any interest at all in a reconciliation bill. And there's not a lot of appetite for it on our side either. I'm for it, but you need 51 votes to pass it, and I think it'll be very difficult to do a major reconciliation bill."

In an interview with CongressDaily, Gregg said the Bush administration has paid scant attention to homeland security, while supporting massive increases for defense augmented by emergency funds that do not have to fit within budget caps. Gregg said to expect "a reasonably vanilla year in the area of budgeting," but one of his goals will be to rein in "this new shadow budget called emergency spending" that has been a regular Bush practice.

"It's a very strange approach to budgeting that they've taken. Because essentially what they're saying is, 'Everything else in the government is going to be subject to severe limitations in spending, but the area that we're interested in is going to have no budget process at all, it's simply going to be done outside the budget process through emergencies,'" said Gregg, who is also chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. "And I don't think they have any credibility on budgets. I've made my points very clear to the White House."

OMB spokesman Scott Milburn defended the practice, citing unexpected costs that crop up during the year. He also said that building war costs into the base budget would make it "nearly impossible to reduce that funding as needs decline, whereas supplementals can simply cease."

Under President Bush's fiscal 2007 budget request, the Defense Department would see a $24 billion increase over this year's budget, to $423.2 billion. That is not counting emergency funds, for which Bush has requested another $115 billion for this year and next to finance wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By contrast, Homeland Security Department funding would increase only about 1 percent over last year, to $30.9 billion -- almost 14 times less than the Pentagon budget. At the same time, the Bush administration rejected Gregg's call to include $1.1 billion for border security as part of its $92.2 billion in supplemental requests, $65.3 billion of which is for defense.

"Having a secure border, having a functioning immigration system and a functioning port security system is as big a part of the fight on terrorism as anything else we're doing and yet this administration continues to play games with the financing and under-finance it," Gregg said. "It's absurd and it's inexcusable and it's, in my opinion, gross malfeasance of responsibility."

Milburn replied that the homeland security budget has seen steady increases under Bush. "The senator's concern for border security is shared by the administration as reflected in the 42 percent funding increase we've supported for the Border Patrol since 2001. This year's budget requests a 10 percent increase for Customs and Border Protection, including funding for 1,500 new agents, new technology and new border infrastructure," he said.

As Gregg drafts the fiscal 2007 budget resolution, which his panel might consider as early as next week, he said he will stick to the president's top-line discretionary funding target of $870.7 billion, which might shift slightly after it is re-scored by CBO.

"They've made their bed, I'm going to try to make them sleep in it and show us they can accomplish what they claim. They've sent up a budget that's unrealistic," Gregg said. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said Tuesday he might seek to up the ante on the floor, particularly in healthcare spending.

One area Gregg and the White House agree on is the need to address increased entitlement spending, particularly Medicare. That can only be done through reconciliation. Last year's $39 billion spending cut bill encountered serious resistance from the moderate wing of the party, and this year Bush has proposed shaving nearly that much, $36 billion, from Medicare alone.

"Last year was an extremely aggressive budgeting year, though there were a lot of people who pooh-poohed it. This year being an election year, I'd be happy to do another aggressive budget, but I've got to have 51 votes and I don't think I have them," he said.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was not as quick to dismiss the prospects for reconciliation this year, at least in the House, noting many Republicans feel doing a small reconciliation bill each year would avoid the heavy lift marked by last year's $39 billion measure. "I can't speak for the Senate," Blunt said, "but it'll happen in the House."

Senate Finance Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has expressed doubts about Congress' willingness to tackle Medicare in such a fashion this year, and Gregg said it was up to Grassley and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., on how to proceed.

"We'll get as much money in Medicare as Mr. Grassley tells me. He's got to do the votes, he's got to get it out of committee, whatever he tells me he can get out of committee, that's the number we'll put in the bill," Gregg said.

Grassley said that would depend on two sometimes troublesome moderates on his panel. "It's exactly what I can get [Gordon] Smith [R-Ore.] and [Olympia] Snowe [R-Maine] to agree to," he said.