Both the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations subcommittee will be marking up their respective Labor-Health and Human Services-Education spending bills for fiscal year 2004 today.

In the House, there is a pending $470 billion spending bill which would provide $138 billion in discretionary spending. This is a $5.6 billion increase over fiscal year 2003.

In the Senate, the subcommittee will mark up their bill which is $440 million less. The full Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark up tomorrow.

There are big debates over IDEA funding. The House would provide $9.9 billion in state grants to provide for the education of disabled children. While it is a $1 billion increase over fiscal 2003, House Democrats find the amount insufficient, as both the FY 2004 budget resolution and the House bill that reauthorized IDEA called for a $2.2 billion increase.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee is marking up S 1248 which bipartisan legislation today that will reauthorize special education. The legislation renews the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which guarantees disabled students a free public education in the “least restrictive environment.” The bill does, however, avoid dealing with mandatory funding for the program.

Senator Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) wants to lock in special education as a mandatory spending. He is likely to offer an amendment during debate on the floor.

Democrats argue that mandatory funding is the only way to ensure that federal aid will reach 40% of total special education costs, the level set in the 1975 law. Right now the federal government pays for about 18%. Republicans say funding can increase with discretionary funds.

The House passed the first-ever Homeland Security appropriations bill Tuesday night by a vote of 425-2. The $29.4 billion measure will finance border and transportation security, immigration control, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, first responders, and dozens of related programs.

A number of amendments were introduced during yesterday's debate. Many were withdrawn or had points of order raised against them and five went to a vote. The following is a quick listing of these amendments:

Agreed to:

• To increase funding for first responders by $20 million with $10 million for grants to State and local law enforcement for terrorism prevention activities and $10 million for firefighter assistance grants with offsets of $20 million from the Transportation Security Administration
• To insert Buy American provisions into the bill
• To prohibit use of funds to approve, renew, or implement any aviation cargo security plan that permits the transporting of unscreened or uninspected cargo on passenger planes.

Failed:

• To increase funds for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by $5 million
• None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to provide assistance to any State or local government entity or offical that restricts any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from the organization assuming the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status, as prohibited under section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

Withdrawn:

• To increase Coast Guard funding by $110 million
• To increase funds for ODP by $300 million
• To increase funds for high risk and high density areas by $200 million
• To simplify and expedite the grant process so that a percentage of funds is provided directly to local first responders and organizations
• To provide a $3million grant to the Univ of TX to establish a homeland security training center

The House also passed, 415-0, a bill that would make minor changes and technical corrections to the 2002 Homeland Security Act. The bill, sponsored by Christopher Cox, (R-California), chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, was taken up under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote for passage. The only substantive change in the bill was an amendment by Edward J. Markey, (D-Massachusetts), adopted 278-146, to require the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to devise a plan to inspect all cargo that is placed on passenger jets. Agency rules do not require inspection of paid cargo that travels on passenger jets, and several members of the House and Senate have been trying to change that system.

On Tuesday, the House will likely pass its first Homeland Security appropriations bill. The bill contains $29.4 billion in discretionary spending, which is $1 billion more than the President asked for in his FY 2004 budget request. If the Senate and President acquiesce to the House number, Homeland Security would receive a 1.8% increase in discretionary funding over the fiscal 2003 level.

Among the winners in the bill are state and local “first responders”, who are on the front lines in responding to potential terrorist attacks. For the past year, cities have been lobbying the federal government for increased first responder funding. First responder money is administered by the Office of Domestic Preparedness within the Department of Homeland Security. The bill (H.R. 2555) provides $4.4 billion in first responder funding, which will enable police, fire and emergency crews throughout the country to spend additional funds on preparing for a potential attack. In his budget proposal, the President recommended 25% less in first responder funding.

Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee have heeded the outcry from cities and generally feel that cities have not been properly compensated for enhancing their anti-terrorist capability. According to David Sirota, a Democratic Spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, “they (cities) have not been adequately funded and they continue not to be funded in a way that President Bush promised after September 11.”

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-Kentucky), chairman of the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, has dismissed the criticisms of his Democratic colleagues. Rogers cited budget constraints in defending the subcommittee’s bill. “Of course we can spend more, but this is the best we can do,” said Rogers. “There’s an insatiable appetite for this type of funding.” Republicans also continue to highlight that first responders have received a total of $20.8 billion in annual spending bills and supplemental appropriations since September 11th.

Beyond first responder funding, Democrats also feel that port security has been neglected. The Coast Guard has estimated it has at least $1 billion in short-term needs to fully protect our nation’s largest seaports. The House bill provides $100 million in port security grants.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has not released its appropriations bills, but did announce that the Homeland Security allocation would be $28.5 billion in discretionary spending.

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will get two more chances to criticize broadcast regulators in a June 25 hearing on consolidation in the radio industry and a June 26 markup of S 1264 which would authorize the commission’s operations for the next three years and make more changes to the FCC’s mass media rules.

The committee voted last week to reverse the controversial Federal Communications Commission decision on media ownership.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, (D-New Jersey), proposed an amendment that would revise the way in which the FCC counts TV stations towards its ownership caps. It would do away with the so-called UHF discount, which is a holdover from when those stations were relatively small, with weak signals.

Along with Senator Lautenberg’s amendment, Arizona’s Sen. John McCain (R) has proposed an amendment that would reauthorize the FCC until fiscal 2007. The bill would give the agency more flexibility in dealing with media mergers.

Also on the agenda is S 865 which would streamline the government auction of electromagnetic spectrum by setting up a trust fund to reimburse government agencies for vacating spectrum.

The Senate is going on its second week of floor debate on Medicare prescription drug benefit legislation this week while the House begins its consideration tomorrow. Lawmakers are predicting that each chamber will pass its version by week’s end, before the July 4 recess.

Sponsors of the Senate measure hope to address concerns of the chamber’s conservatives – who say the bill does not go far enough to create incentives for seniors to join private health plans – without antagonizing Democratic supporters. In the House, Republican leaders will have to fend off attacks from Democrats who say the bill offers skimpy drug coverage while undermining the foundations of Medicare. The House must also reconcile differences between two committee versions of the bill and build up support for the measure among rank and file Republicans. The vote on the bill is likely to be June 26.

Last week the House Ways and Means Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved their respective versions of the bill. One Democrat on each panel supported the legislation.

Some conservative Democrats were concerned that House Republicans had not responded to their concerns. Conservative Democrats want the government to provide a fallback health benefit option if two private plans do not enter a geographic area. The House bill does not include such safeguards.

The two House versions of the bill are similar but contain a number of provisions that must be reconciled. Each version has a slightly different mix of payments to health care providers. For example, the Energy and Commerce Committee bill has different subsidies for low-income individuals in its transitional discount card program, and it does not include a new co-payment for home health care. In the Senate, conservatives have become frustrated with the Finance bill saying supporters are catering to moderate Republicans and Democrats to win broad support for the measure. The following amendments are expected to be offered in the Senate this week. They are as follows: an amendment by Sen. Bob Graham (D-Florida) to suspend seniors’ premium payments while they are in a coverage gap; an amendment by Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) to create a $300 million grant fund to give seniors access to discounted drug prices available at some public health institutions, such as hospitals and community health centers, while in the gap; an amendment from Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) to provide more help to low income seniors in the coverage gap by paying half of the drug costs of seniors with incomes between 160 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level; and amendments offered by Sen. Bingaman (D-New Mexico) to eliminate the bill’s assets test in FY 2009 and Sen. Lincoln (D-Arkansas) to put the government fallback drug plans on the same contracting cycle as private plans so seniors could stay in them for at least two years, if they chose.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will mark up two significant rail passenger bills this week. The first, an Amtrak authorization, would provide $2 billion annually for three years to the beleagured rail carrier. The bill's language tracks closely to that included in the FY03 Omnibus appropriation (which provided Amtrak with nearly $1.82 billion) calling for continued funding accountability restrictions and transparency. The bill does not condition receipt of the funds upon significant structural reform in management or route restructuring.

The second bill, the Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act of the 21st Century (RIDE-21), calls for providing high-speed rail projects with $24 billion through a combination of tax-credit and tax-exempt bonding authority and the expansion of the RRIF program to $35 billion, both over ten years. Last session, RIDE-21 was pulled minutes before it was to be marked up by the T&I Committee because of a disagreement between two unions. Railroad labor wanted a provision added that would have restricted the labor pool for railroad work to railroad emplyees, eliminating jobs for contract union workers. Committee staff indicates that a resolution is imminent and that the markup will proceed as scheduled.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, (R-Tennessee), has replaced Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), as the lead Senate negotiator on the stymied child tax credit bill. Grassley has shifted his focus to his committee’s impending Medicare drug coverage legislation.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Senator Frist hopes to work with House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, (R-California), to iron out the differences between the House’s version of the child tax credit, HR 1308, and the Senate’s own version before the July Fourth recess.

HR 1308, the $82 million House provision which was passed by the house on June 12, offers no offsetting revenue increases. The Senate bill includes $10 billion in tax cuts that would be fully offset.

Two Frist aides say that it is likely that he will seek a compromise that would split the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill by extending the tax credit at $1,000 per child for two or more additional years. The newly enacted package increased the child credit from $600 to $1,000 for 2003 and 2004, but it is scheduled to drop to $700 in 2005.

Both versions of the bill include provisions that would allow more low-income and upper-income families to get the full benefit of the recently increased credit. The refund formula for low-income families would be made more generous, and the income threshold at which the credit begins to be phased out for couples would be increased.

The point of contention preventing compromise between the House and Senate versions of the bill are in the battle over offsets. House Republicans want to test the will of Senate moderates to insist on offsets for all tax breaks. However, Senate Republicans are reluctant to bring a measure without offsets to the Senate floor because they doubt that it can muster the 60 votes needed to break a possible Democratic filibuster.

Some Conservatives have expressed dismay that the White House appears to be in favor of the narrower Senate bill. Frist and Thomas are expected to try to iron out the differences between their versions of the bill this weekend as both are scheduled to attend a leadership conference in Boulder, Colorado.

Senate and House Appropriations committees will both be marking up their respective Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bills on Wednesday, June 25.

Partisan debates abound particularly over special education. The House bill that came out of subcommittee would provide $9.9 billion in state grants to provide for the education of disabled children. House Democrats say that funding level is insufficient because the fiscal 2004 budget resolution and a House passed bill that would reauthorize the federal program regulating special education

The House Appropriations Committee will mark up its $470 billion spending bill. Last week, the subcommittee approved a draft that would provide $138 billion in discretionary spending – a $5.6 billion increase over fiscal 2003.

The Senate Appropriations’ Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee passed a bill which has $435 million less in available funds than their House counterparts.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy in law school admissions. But on a second University of Michigan case relating to its undergraduate admissions policy, the Supreme Court ruled that the school’s point system is unconstitutional.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Michael Powell ruled that media companies could expand their ownership of television stations 17 days ago. However, yesterday, the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved legislation to overturn the decision.

Although passage by the full Senate has yet to occur, similar action in the House is highly improbable. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin, R-Louisiana, has said he opposes the Senate bill.

The FCC decided to liberalize ownership rules so that any one media company could own television outlets that reach up to 45 percent of the national audience. The previous law set the cap at 35 percent.

The FCC provision also paved the way for companies to acquire TV stations and newspapers in the same market, a practice that was previously illegal. Senate Committee members from both parties criticized the FCC’s ruling.

Even before the FCC ruling, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, introduced legislation as details of the FCC’s deliberations emerged. His bill, S 1046, attracted over 31 cosponsors including a number of Democrats and was approved by voice vote.

Critics of the FCC ruling argue that it threatens the competition, localism and diversity of the media. They were encouraged by the speedy turnaround of the Senate legislation.

On June 19, the Senate Committee on Appropriations officially announced allocations to subcommittees. The Senate Committee is allotting $784.7 billion in discretionary budget authority to its 13 appropriations subcommittees. The Senate Appropriations subcommittees will begin to mark up spending bills during the week of June 23.

More than a week ago, the House Appropriations Committee allocated $785.6 billion in discretionary budget authority to its subcommittees. Both the Senate and House Appropriations Committees discretionary spending proposals are less than the President’s request of $788.1 billion.

Upon release of the allocation proposal, Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia) immediately rebuked the committee’s discretionary spending blueprint. “We need more money,” said Byrd. “I cannot support shortchanging so many of our country’s needs in order to make room for huge tax cuts.”

In an unprecedented move, committee Democrats demanded a debate and a vote on the proposed spending blueprint. Republicans on the Appropriations Committee defeated a Byrd amendment on a 15-14 party-line vote that would raised the fiscal 2004 budget cap by $5.6 billion and offset the cost by rescinding portions of the just recently enacted tax cut. Byrd’s amendment would have added $2.86 billion to the Labor-HHS-Education allocation, $1.8 billion to the VA-HUD allocation and $909 million to the Homeland Security allocation.

To assuage members concerns about “inadequate” levels of spending, the White House agreed last week to allow lawmakers to move $5.2 billion in the President’s defense spending request to domestic spending programs. However, Senate Democrats still label the proposed funding levels as “insufficient.” Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) feels the subcommittee allocations sufficiently address the nation’s needs in the context of a ballooning budget deficit. “We are fairly constrained as far as our actions are concerned,” said Stevens. Senators Stevens predicted that not all subcommittees will use their full allocations, so leftover money from one subcommittee could be transferred to another.

Here's the breakdown of the allocations:

• AGRICULTURE: $17 billion; $18.1 billion this year ; $16.9 billion under Bush.
• COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE: $37.0 billion; $39.2 billion this year; $37.7 billion under Bush.
• DEFENSE: $368.7 billion; $364.2 billion this year; $371.8 billion under Bush.
• DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $495 million; $509 million this year; $421 million under Bush.
• ENERGY AND WATER: $27.3 billion; $25.8 billion this year; $26.8 billion under Bush.
• FOREIGN OPERATIONS: $18.1 billion; $16.2 billion this year; $18.9 billion under Bush.
• HOMELAND SECURITY: $28.5 billion; $21.2 billion this year; $27.5 billion under Bush.
• INTERIOR: $19.6 billion; $19.5 billion this year; $19.56 billion under Bush.
• LABOR-HHS-EDUCATION: $138 billion; $132 billion this year; $137.6 billion under Bush.
• LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: $3.6 billion; $3.3 billion this year; $3.8 billion under Bush.
• MILITARY CONSTRUCTION: $9.2 billion; $10.5 billion this year; $9.1 billion under Bush.
• TRANSPORTATION-TREASURY: $27.5 billion; $27.23 billion this year; $27.5 billion under Bush.
• VA-HUD: $90 billion; $86.7 billion this year; $89.5 billion under Bush.
• TOTAL: $784.7 billion; $765.8 billion this year; $787.1 billion under Bush.

Senate leadership is indicating their desire to be on a track to get all appropriations work done in time for the beginning of the new fiscal year on October 1.

On Thursday, the House cleared legislation ensuring that AmeriCorps can put 50,000 volunteers in service this year. Senate voice vote approval of the bill, S 1276, came a day before the House approved it by unanimous consent.

According to Congressional Quarterly, the bill cleared up a disagreement between the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) over how to deal with the National Service Trust which funds volunteers. The bill also gives AmeriCorps the ability, using “conservative estimates”, to hand out more volunteer grants than it technically has the money to fund.

Under the auspices of the bill, the chief executive officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service would have to certify that there is enough money available to fund all the volunteer grants that AmeriCorps has promised.

A spokesman for the corporation which oversees AmeriCorps said that Congress’ swift action on the bill “clarifies once and for all the proper way to do accounting for the National Service Trust, which allows us to move ahead with additional grants this summer.”

AmeriCorps had been under fire for approving 70,000 more grants last November than it had money in the National Service Trust to fund.

Yesterday, the House Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education approved a $332 billion spending bill by a party-line 11 to 7 vote. The bill, for the upcoming year, is about 3% larger than the current year’s version.

The bill is the largest of the 13 appropriations measures.

The bill increases the amounts for education for disabled students, aid to poor school districts, heating aid for low income households and biomedical research by the National Institutes of Health.

The measure also includes $200 billion in mandatory spending for such entitlement programs as Medicare and Medicaid.

However, the bill would restore most of the Bush administration’s proposed cuts to dislocated workers assistance and migrant and seasonal worker programs.

Democrats on the committee claimed that the Republicans were shortchanging schools and other programs in favor of tax cuts. Chairman of the subcommittee, Representative Ralph Regula (R-Ohio) understood there may be some concern over the allocations to certain popular domestic programs, but that it was the best that could be done because of the increasing budget deficit and the aftermath of the war in Iraq.

Here are a sampling of the allocations:

Health and Human Services:

• SSBG is level-funded at $1.7 billion.
• Child welfare services is down slightly at $291.9 million.
• Child Care and Development Block Grant is level-funded at $2.1 billion, which is up $13.4 million.
• Safe and Stable Families is level-funded at $305 million.
• Immunizations is up $14 million to $650.58 million.
• Preventative Health Block Grant is level-funded at $134.1 million, down slightly from the President's request.
• Family planning is level-funded at $273.4 million, $9 million more than the President requested.
• The HRSA State Planning Grant program is level-funded at $14.9 million, which reversed the President's request to zero-fund the program.
• Maternal and Child Health Block Grant is up slightly to $732.97 million.
• Ryan White (under HRSA) is up $38 million to $1.09 billion.
• HIV/AIDS, STD and TB programs (under CDC) up $61 million to $1.25 billion.
• Nursing Workforce Development level-funded at $26.8 million.
• Consolidated Health Centers up slightly to $1.6 billion.
• Rural Hospital Grants are level-funded and $10 million above the President's request at $39.7 million.
• CDC's Environmental Health Program is up $2 million to $184.8 million.
• Substance Abuse Block Grant up almost $83 million to $1.77 billion.
• On aging programs, level-funded Supportive Services and Centers, Congregate Meals, Home Delivered Meals and Nutrition Services. The Family Caregivers program was increased, but the Seniors’ Preventative Health and the Senior Community Service Employment programs were cut slightly.
• It is unclear what they have done on bioterrorism. Total HRSA homeland security funding is put at $545.9 million, down from last year and the President's FY04 request. Similarly, CDC funding for homeland security is $1.1 billion, down from $1.2 billion last year. There would be overhead in those numbers and it is unclear where the smallpox program is accounted for. Bioterrorism grants last year totaled $940 million and the Bioterrorism Hospital Grants were funded at $578.1 million.

Department of Education:

• Title I is funded at $12.4 billion, $6 billion below the authorized level.
• IDEA is increased by $1 billion.
• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants is level-funded at $2.9 billion.
• Safe and Drug Free Schools appears to be level-funded at $468,949,000.
• Head Start is kept at HHS and increased by $148 million to $6.816 billion.
• 21st Century After School Centers is level-funded at $1 billion.
• Educational Technology State Grants is down $62 million to $695.9 million.
• Adult Basic Skills is up $13 million to $600.3 million.
• Carl Perkins is funded at $1.2 billion.
• On blind programs, the subcommittee decided to keep the Supported Employment separate from the Basic Support Grant program and, together, they are fully funded.
• The Older Blind program got a $4 million increase, to $32 million.

Department of Labor:

• Unemployment Compensation Insurance level-funded at $2.6 billion.
• Wagner Peyser level-funded at $796.7 billion, but lower than the President’s request by $5 million.
• WIA level-funded at $1.15 billion.
• WIA – youth programs up $6.5 million to $1 billion.
• WIA – adult programs up $1.2 million to $900 million.
• Veterans Employment and Training up slightly to $162.4 million. The subcommittee kept the Local Employment Veterans and the Disabled Veterans Outreach programs separate, against the recommendation of the President.
• One-Stop/ALMIS is level-funded at $99.4 million.
• OSHA is level-funded at $144 million.

The full House Approprations Committee will markup the bill on June 25.

According to Congressional Quarterly, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce approved legislation on Thursday to reauthorize and overhaul the Head Start program, granting states more authority over early childhood education programs.

After defeating several Democratic amendments that sought to increase funding and eligibility for Head Start, the committee approved H.R. 2210 on a party line vote of 27-20. The committee did, however, approve several amendments to include homeless families in the program, strengthen the role of fathers in program activities and to integrate existing services with state ones.

Head Start has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan backing. However, Democrats charge that H.R. 2210 is essentially a block grant and that it would not require state run program centers to offer the same comprehensive services provided by the existing Head Start.

The bill authorizes $202 million in new funding for fiscal 2004.

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce is expected to approve legislation Thursday that would enable eight states to take over their portions of the federally funded Head Start program.

The markup, which began Wednesday, featured sharp, partisan divisions concerning the future of one of the Great Society’s most famous programs which has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support.

Michael N. Castle, (R-Delaware), sponsored the bill, HR 2210, which would allow states to coordinate their own early childhood programs with Head Start centers which would be operated by a public and private agencies while still receiving federal funding. More than 900,000 children are enrolled. The bill also authorizes $202 million in new funding for fiscal 2004 as wells as requiring that all new Head Start teachers must have an associate’s degree in early childhood education within three years. The bill also requires that 50 percent of the program’s teachers have a bachelor’s degree by 2008.

The administration contends that HR 2210 would ensure that states do not duplicate early-childhood services and that children do not go without Head Start service in some areas. Under the auspices of the bill, states would be able to tailor their pre-kindergarten programs to ensure that economically underprivileged students do not continue to lag behind their more affluent peers in math and literacy skills when they enter elementary school.

However, the bill’s Democratic detractors counter that HR 2210 is nothing more than a block grant that would spell the end of Head Start amidst rising budget shortfalls in state revenues. They say that state-operated centers would not require comprehensive services required by Head Start like health and nutrition programs.

“This is a risky experiment with no evidence to back it up,” said Democrat George Miller of California, the ranking minority member of the Committee. A Democratic substitute introduced by Miller that would have scrapped the state plan was defeated, 21-26.

Democrats also proposed an amendment to prevent a faith based initiative that would allow Head Start centers to be run by church groups. It was defeated, 20-25.

The staff at the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies indicates to us today that mark-up will NOT take place during the week of June 23. There is a good chance mark-up will take place the week of July 7, immediately following the Independence Day recess.

We will have more details for you as they become available.

Also from our friends over at APHSA, here's a look at the impace the proposed Medicare prescription drug benefit will have upon Medicaird.

Some of the major provisions of the Medicare prescription drug bill to date are:

• A $250 per year deductible
• a $35 monthly premium
• 80% cost-sharing for the cost of the prescriptions between $251 to $2,000
• Low-income individuals will receive subsidies for premiums and cost-sharing
• After a total prescription drug cost of $4,900 ($3,700 paid by the beneficiary), the prescription plan will pick-up all remaining prescription drug cost for the year.
• Effective date for the new “Part D” prescription drug plan is January 1, 2006.
• Within 90 days of the passage date until January 2006, there will be a prescription drug discount card for seniors without prescription drug coverage that the Secretary will administer. The card will either be a straight discount or act as a debit card.

There are several areas where Medicaid is modified or affected by this prescription drug plan.

1. Dual Eligibles:
   1. The prescription drug plan provides the federal phase-in of the costs of premiums and cost-sharing subsidies for dual eligibles.
   2. Over the 2006 – 2020 period, the federal matching rate for these costs would be increased to cover 100% of what would be otherwise state costs.
   3. States would be required to maintain Medicaid benefits as a “wrap around” to Medicare benefits for dual eligibles. However, states could require that these persons elect Part D drug coverage. Once enrolled in Part D, the drug costs would be federalized.
2. Eligibility Determinations:
   1. States would be required to make eligibility determinations for low-income premiums and cost-sharing subsidies as a condition for receiving federal Medicaid assistance.
   2. The plan would provide for the phase-in federal assumption of associated administrative costs.
   1. In 2005, the federal matching rate would be increased by 10 percent.
   2. In 2006, the federal matching rate would be increased by 20 percent.
   3. In each subsequent year, the percentage would be increased by 10 percentage points, but never to exceed 100 percent.
3. DSH - Furnishing Hospitals with Information to Compute DSH Formula – The Medicare drug plan would require the Secretary to provide information that hospitals need to calculate the number of Medicaid patient days used in the Medicare DSH payment formula.

Thanks to our friends over at the American Public Human Services Association we now have a comparison between the different Medicare Prescription Drug Plans. Here goes:

Premiums

• Senate: $35 average monthly premium (10% adjustment – geographic rates)
• House: $35 monthly premium (based on a formula – cost can go up or down)

Yearly Deductible

• Senate: $275 yearly deductible
• House: $250 yearly deductible

Cost-Sharing Percentage and Total Expense Range Before Gap in Coverage

• Senate: 50% cost-sharing for the cost of the prescriptions between $276 to $4,500
• House: 80% cost-sharing for the cost of the prescriptions between $251 to $2,000

Low-Income Subsidies for Premiums and Cost-Sharing

• Senate: Low-income individuals will receive subsidies for premiums and cost-sharing
• House: Low-income individuals will receive subsidies for premiums and cost-sharing

Out of Pocket Expenses for Beneficiaries

• Senate: The maximum out of pocket amount is $3700.
• House: The maximum out of pocket amount is $3700.

“Catastrophic”Coverage Provisions

• Senate: Plan covers 90% of costs after out of pocket maximum.
• House: Plan covers 100% of costs after out of pocket maximum.

Effective Date

• Senate: Effective date for the new “Part D” prescription drug plan is January 1, 2006.
• House: Effective date for the new “Part D” prescription drug plan is January 1, 2006.

Discount Card Provisions

• Senate: From passage until January 2006, there will be a prescription drug discount card for seniors without prescription drug coverage that will entitle them to a 10-25% discount on all of their prescription drugs.
• House: Within 90 days of the passage date until January 2006, there will be a prescription drug discount card for seniors without prescription drug coverage that the Secretary will administer. The card will either be a straight discount or act as a debit card.

Dual Eligibles Benefits

• Senate: State Medicaid programs will continue to be responsible for all of the costs associated with providing a drug benefit for the dual eligible population. Beginning in January 1, 2006, states agreeing to provide a drug benefit for the dual eligibles that was equivalent to minimum standards would be relieved of their responsibility to pay Medicare Part B premiums for Medicaid and QMB eligibles between 74% and 100% of the federal poverty level.
• House: The prescription drug plan provides the federal phase-in of the costs of premiums and cost-sharing subsidies for dual eligibles. Over the 2006 – 2020 period, the federal matching rate for these costs would be increased to cover 100% of what would otherwise be state costs. States would be required to maintain Medicaid benefits as a “wrap around” to Medicare benefits for dual eligibles. However, states could require that these persons elect Part D drug coverage. Once enrolled in Part D, the drug costs would be federalized.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) appears to be moving for a conference with the House to resolve differences between the two versions of a child tax credit bill, according to senior GOP aides yesterday.

Earlier in the day, Frist and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley said they were considering another strategy which is to amend the House bill, which amended the Senate’s original version of the measure and send it back to the House.

Both versions of the bill would expand benefits from refundable child credits for low-income gamilies and increase the number of upper income families eligible for the $1,000 per child tax credit.

There are major differences that need to be worked out between the House and the Senate.

The Senate’s $10 billion bill would be fully offset by extending expiring Customs Service user fees. The House wants language close to its $82 billion version of the bill which includes an extension of the newly increased $1,000 child tax credit through 2010.

If this becomes a partisan fight, it could disrupt the consensus that the Senate is trying to build on the Medicare drug bill.

Supporting State and Local First Responders

The mark provides $4.4 billion for the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Firefighters, and Emergency Management; this is $888 million above the amounts proposed by the President. Since September 11th, and including the amounts requested by the President for grants funded outside the jurisdiction of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, this brings total support of First Responders to $20.8 billion. Specifically, the mark includes:

• $1.9 billion for the Office for Domestic Preparedness’ basic formula grant program;
• $500 million for state and local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants;
• $500 million for high-threat, high-density urban areas;
• $200 million Infrastructure Grants;
• $750 million for Firefighter Grants;
• $168 million for Emergency Management Performance Grants;
• $35 million for a new competitive grant program for Centers for Emergency Preparedness;
• $125 million for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium: and
• $134 million for technical assistance, national exercises, standards, and testing.

Protecting our Nation’s Borders

The Chairman’s mark provides $9 billion for border protection and related activities, an increase of $400 million over fiscal year 2003 enacted levels (excluding Liberty Shield Coast Guard port security operations). This includes $2 billion for U.S. Coast Guard homeland security activities. Specific initiatives and efforts for border security include:

• $100 million for TSA port security grants, bringing the total to $488 million since September 11th;
• $129 million for inspection technologies for vehicles and cargo;
• $61.7 million for the Container Security Initiative;
• $12.1 million for the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism;
• $175 million for Air and Marine Interdiction for border and airspace security; and
• $530 million for “Deepwater”.

Enhancing Transportation Security

The mark includes $5.172 billion for TSA, $360 million above the amounts requested by the President (including port security grants), funding for both aviation and non-aviation security:

• $1.673 billion for passenger screening;
• $1.284 billion for baggage screening efforts, including $235 million for the in line installation of explosive detection systems and $100 million for procurement of additional systems;
• $50 million for air cargo security;
• $10 million for intercity bus security;
• $22 million for highway and trucking security; and
• $10 million for transit security and training.

Using Science and Technology to Protect our Nation

The mark includes $900 million for Science and Technology, $97 million above amounts requested by the President. Funds are targeted to research, development, and deployment of innovative technologies, including those proposed by universities, national laboratories, not-for-profit organizations, and private companies:

• $484 million for development of nuclear, chemical, biological, and high explosives countermeasures;
• $80 million for the rapid development and prototyping of homeland security technologies;
• $60 million for research, development, and testing of antimissile devices for commercial aircraft;
• $40 million to deploy sensors to detect aerosolized bio-threats in large metropolitan areas; and
• $35 million for university-based centers of excellence.

Protecting the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure

The mark includes $776 million for protecting the nation’s critical infrastructure and key assets, an increase of $591 million over fiscal year 2003 enacted levels.

• $76 million for intelligence and warnings to develop timely, integrated, and accurate assessments of terrorist threats;
• $536.8 million for reducing the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing the damage, and assisting in the recovery from terrorist acts; and
• $163 million for administrative and outreach activities with federal, state, and local governments, and with the private sector which owns and operates 85 percent of the nation’s infrastructure.

Supporting Traditional Missions such as Immigration, Disaster Mitigation and Relief, Drug Interdiction, Law Enforcement, Maritime Safety and Security, and Trade

• $918 million for modernization of border, customs and immigration information technology, including $350 million for the US VISIT program and $318 million for the Automated Commercial Environment;
• $2.611 billion for traditional Coast Guard operating activities, including maritime safety, drug interdiction, fisheries, environmental, and humanitarian missions;
• $1.15 billion for the U.S. Secret Service;
• $1.8 billion for Disaster Relief;
• $9.5 million for textile transshipment;
• $238 million for immigration services; and
• $35 million for Emergency Operations Centers, a new competitive grant program to support community emergency operations centers.

Other Provisions

• $5.6 billion over 10 years to encourage commercial development and production of medical countermeasures against bioterrorism (Bioshield), $890 million of which is available in fiscal year 2004;

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee has delayed marking up S. 1264 that would give the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) more flexibility to deal with questions of media ownership. It would reauthorize the FCC for four years and give the commission more flexibility to tighten media ownership rules if it saw fit.

The bill was scheduled to be marked up tomorrow, but will now be marked up on June 26. A Commerce Committee spokeswoman said the bill was delayed because the markup schedule was too crowded. Senator McCain (R-Arizona), chairman of the committee also wanted to give other Senators more time to review the legislation.

The panel will still vote tomorrow on S. 1046 that aims to overturn a controversial FCC ruling allowing media companies to own more television stations.

Beginning with last week's mark-up of the Homeland Securty Appropriation and the June 17 action on Agriculture Appropriations, the House Committee on Appropriations is moving ahead apace with subcommittee mark-up. Here is the schedule as currently available

• Defense – Subcommittee markup scheduled for June 18th
• Interior – Subcommittee markup scheduled for June 18th
• Labor-HHS-Education – Subcommittee markup scheduled for June 19th
• Legislative Branch – Subcommittee markup scheduled for June 19th

The following House Appropriations Subcommittees have yet to announce a markup date for bills that will make appropriations for programs under their jurisdiction:

• Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary
• Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
• Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
• Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs
• Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies
• Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

On the Senate side, the Senate Committee on Appropriations has yet to determine allocation amounts for the 13 subcommittees. The committee has not provided details on when the allocation amounts will be known. Once the allocation amounts are made known, Senate subcommittees will be able to provide with markups. Please check back with us for the latest news on both the House and Senate appropriations markup schedule.

AmeriCorps, the public service organization, announced yesterday that it has been forced to cut its spending and reduce the number of government-subsidized workers. This contrasts President Bush’s call to expand the program.

Created in 1993, AmeriCorps is part of the Corporation for National and Community Service during the Clinton administration and President Bush has embraced the program.

The cuts will affect programs that fall under “state competitive programs”. State competitive programs apply to AmeriCorps for funding through their state governments. AmeriCorps funds about 16,000 volunteers working in these programs, but said yesterday that number would fall to 3,000. The state competitive program represents approximately one-fourth of the total AmeriCorps program.

Currently the program gives grants to 50,000 members. The President has proposed expanding the program to 75,000. But Congress has capped the number of recruits at 50,000. At the current financing, AmeriCorps would only be able to support 35,000 workers this year which represents a 30% percent reduction.

AmeriCorps officials blamed the cuts on congressional legislation that cut its funding and an unexpected accounting program with the program.

AmeriCorps take part in community building projects like after-school activities, tutoring and construction of low-income houses. The members serve up to a year, and receive an award of $4,725 toward higher education as well as a modest living allowance.

The House Appropriations Committee gave voice vote approval today to draft legislation that would provide fiscal 2004 funding for the new Department of Homeland Security. The action came after the panel rejected, 25-33, an amendment by David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the committee's top-ranking Democrat, to add more than $1 billion to the measure for security at ports, borders and in the air. The measure would provide $30.4 billion in spending authority for the department. It is the first in congressional history specifically written to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

By voice vote, the committee adopted an amendment by Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut to tighten department restrictions for contracting with companies that have incorporated offshore to avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes. DeLauro's amendment, which was supported by Homeland Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, (R-Kentucky), deleted exemptions to the rule that is intended to prohibit contracts with corporate expatriates.

A provision in the House Medicare drug bill dealing with competition between government and private health plans is expected to instigate one of the most polarizing debates in Congress this year as opponents on both sides of the aisle challenge sweeping plans to reshape the 38-year-old entitlement program.

The Senate Finance Committee began debate on S. 1, their version of the bill, on Monday and the House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce Committee will begin marking up its version today. While Republicans in both chambers expect to prevail with their plan to overhaul the Medicare system, the contentious measure of the House bill aimed at injecting more competition into the Medicare system is causing lawmakers in both chambers to re-evaluate their strategies.

Beginning in 2010, the House bill would require that Medicare’s traditional fee-for-service system begin directly competing with private health plans. This move would limit the government’s share of beneficiaries’ health costs.

The issue of competition between government and private health plans cuts directly to the philosophical divide that exists between Democrats and Republicans on Medicare. Republicans say that allowing private health plans to vary benefits could save money and provide seniors with better coverage. Democrats counter that the program should be a government-run system with a consistent set of benefits for all of Medicare’s more than 40 million beneficiaries.

Many House Democrats fear that supporting the competitive bidding process in the House bill will force seniors, particularly those who remain in the traditional system, to face steep increases in out-of-pocket costs in later years.

While many view the Senate plan as a “step in the right direction” towards compromise, several Democratic activists say they could never support the House plan unless the competitive bidding provision is removed.

Democrats disagree with other provisions of the House bill like the fact that it is less generous to low-income seniors and Medicare providers, such as hospitals, than the Senate bill but few of those provisions strike quite as deeply at liberal concerns as the competitive bidding provision.

Controversies with the Senate’s S. 1, while less prevalent than contentions with the House plan, are still present. Conservatives like Arizona’s John Kyl (R) want the Senate plan to move back toward a modified version of the White House plan which calls for private plans to bid against each other for coverage and not the government. Kyl proposed an amendment which would give private plans higher payments than the Senate bill would provide.

Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, (R-Iowa), and Max Baucus, (D-Montana), have pledged to work with Kyl on his amendment.

Markups and floor debate in the House and Senate will be the next step in legislation in both houses that would bring the most sweeping changes to Medicare since the program’s inception in 1965. Congress began tackling the issue five years ago.

While the plans prospects have appeared brighter over the past few weeks, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle acknowledge that they will have to mold the bill to assuage critics on both the right and the left.

The Senate begins floor debate Monday on its version of a Medicare Drug bill. The Senate measure, S.1, emerged from a June 12 markup in the Senate Finance Committee with a 16-5 vote of approval after some Democrats who had initially criticized the measure, ended up supporting it.

Supporters of the House version of the Medicare Drug bill hope to win similar bipartisan support when the Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees hold markups this week.

The House and Senate measures are similar in many respects with both allocating $400 billion over 10 years to provide prescription drug benefit for Medicare’s more than 40 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries. Both the Senate and House bills would offer similar benefits either through stand-alone drug insurance plans or new private health networks, such as preferred provider organizations (PPOs). Although the actual medical benefits between the two plans could vary, the drug benefits would not differ significantly.

Both the Senate and the House bills would place a cap on out-of-pocket costs in private plans. Both would subsidize employers who continue to pay for their retiree’s health benefits as well as increase co-payments for physicians’ and lab services by $25, marking the first increase in 15 years if it takes effect by 2006.

The House bill would focus on lowering drug costs for seniors. Beneficiaries would meet a $250 deductible, after which 80 percent of drug costs would be covered up to $2,000. They would then be responsible for all drug costs until they had spent $3,700 out-of-pocket, at which point all further drug costs would be covered.

The Senate bill, S.1, offers less generous subsidies at the lower end of the income bracket but it spreads out the benefit to cover more of seniors’ drug costs as they rise. After paying a $275 deductible, the Senate plan would have Medicare pay half of the beneficiaries’ drug costs between $276 and $4,500 each year. After a beneficiary had spent $3,700 out-of-pocket, the government would pay 90 percent of costs.

The bills differ in the strategies employed by leaders in the respective houses to get the legislation passed. The House bill reflects a strategy aimed at winning strong Republican support rather than broad, bipartisan coalition. Conservative Democrats who might otherwise support the House bill would like to see a “fallback” provision similar to the one in the Senate measure that would allow the government to contract with a private pharmacy benefits manager or other company to offer a government-run drug plan if two private plans do not enter a geographic area to offer seniors coverage.

If each chamber passes its current version, however, other differences between the House and the Senate versions could take time to sort out.

The National Governors Association's Medicaid Task Force conceded yesterday that the bipartisan effort to revamp Medicaid had failed. The earlier compromise reached between Republican and Democratic governors unraveled after aggressive lobbying by Democratic senators who opposed the changes.

The breakdown could complicate efforts by the administration to rein in Medicaid spending by moving recipients into managed care programs, charging higher co-payments, and putting a copy on federal payments. Administration officials had hoped that if governors of both parties crafted the legislation, Congress would be more inclined to adopt it.

Medicaid, the nation's largest public insurance program, is run jointly by states and the federal government. Rising health care costs, coupled with the sluggish economy, have made it increasingly difficult for states to cover their share of the bill.

The two-sides split over whether the Medicaid financing system should be changed from the current entitlement program, which guarantees money to cover everyone eligible for care, to a block grant approach that would limit the federal payments.

Democrats quit the talks when it became clear Republican governors could not deliver a promise from Congress or the administration that the federal government would pick up the costs of caring for the dual eligibles.

Late last night the Senate Finance Committee by a vote of 16-5 approved a Medicare plan with prescription coverage. Starting in 2006 the measure would provide subsidies to help Medicare's 40 million recipients buy insurance for medicine or to obtain the same drug coverage through private health plans, such as preferred-provider networks. The private plans would include other coverage more generous than Medicare traditionally has provided, including extra preventive care and new limits on out-of-pocket expenses for patients with especially large medical bills.

The full Senate plans to take up the bill on Monday, June 16.

Yesterday House Republican leaders announced their new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan. The House plan would cost the same as the Senate; however, drug benefits are designed differently in the House plan. To begin with higher-income Medicare recipients would have to pay more for medicine. The House plan would set up greater price competition between the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program and private health plans and it would create economic incentives not found in the Senate bill for patients to join private plans.

During the Finance Committee debate, some Republicans said the Senate bill would not do enough to tip the Medicare system toward the private market. Democrats opposed extending drug benefits through private insurers, predicting the arrangement will confuse older patients about which companies sell the coverage and how much they would have to pay.

The Senate bill would let legal immigrants qualify for Medicaid and a children's health insurance program.

The Senate bill's drug benefit would require Medicare patients to pay a $35 monthly premium and a $275 yearly deductible before the government subsidy begins. The government then would cover half the cost of their medicine, to a minimum of $4500 a year. That limit originally $3450 was increased this week after congressional budget analysts concluded that the plan would grow and still meet the $400 billion 10-year total spending limit Congress has set.

The House version would also offer drug benefits through separate insurance policies or private health plans. But they differ from the Senate proposals, essentially covering a higher proportion of drug costs - but to a lower limit.

The House version would not define the monthly premium in law, but predicts it would begin at about the same level as the Senate's $35 a month. The House plan would include a $250 yearly deductible, then cover 80 percent of drug costs up to $2000.

Beyond that amount, the plan like the Senate version would have a gap in coverage. The gap would be larger, with coverage resuming after a patient has spent a total of $5100 on medicine, or $3700 out-of-pocket. The House's catastrophic coverage would pay for all remaining costs while the Senate's version would cover 90 percent.

The House plan would also require people with incomes above $60,000 to pay more before they could start receiving catastrophic coverage.

On June 12, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta spoke to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce about the need for Congress to pass the President’s SAFETEA proposal this year. Mineta’s speech to the Chamber was the keynote address on day two of a two - day conference titled “Transportation Policies and Priorities for Economic.” On day one, the Chamber heard from Rep. Don Young, Sen. Christopher Bond, Federal Highway Administrator Mary Peters and Federal Transit Administrator Jenna Dorn.

Mineta labeled the administration’s TEA-21 reauthorization proposal as a “blueprint for investment.” The Secretary said that failing to pass any reauthorization bill this year would severely impact our nation’s transportation system. As a former mayor, Mineta spoke to the need for mayors and community leaders to have the ability to devise long-term transportation plans for their regions. Without a reauthorization bill, the Secretary feels mayors and metropolitan planners with lack a blueprint to formulate such long-term transportation plans. Mineta acknowledged that the administration’s dispute with Congress centers on funding levels and the federal gas tax. The Secretary commented that the current economic situation and other budgetary needs preclude the President from supporting a higher of level of funding for SAFETEA. However, Mineta was careful to point out that SAFETEA does propose a record level of federal investment for surface transportation programs.

With regards to an increase in the federal gas tax or the future indexing of the gas tax to account for inflation, the Bush administration, said the Secretary remains fervently opposed to any such increase or indexing. “President Bush and I oppose the costly imposition of a fuel tax on the American people.” The Secretary made clear to the Chamber that the President would not budge on the gas tax issue.

Mineta also talked about the added flexibility that SAFETEA would offer communities. The Secretary feels strongly that the administration’s proposal will offer communities the opportunity to decide how best to spend their federal transportation dollars.

The Transportation Secretary also highlighted the administration’s commitment to enhance and grow our nation’s inter-modal transportation system. Norm Mineta told the chamber that we need to embrace a revolution in our inter-modal system and not accept a gradual evolution.

To conclude his remarks, the Secretary talked briefly about Amtrak. Mineta told the crowd the administration will soon unveil their Amtrak reform proposal. “For too long, our nation has been unwilling to challenge the status quo of intercity passenger rail.” Mineta pointed out that intercity passenger rail is the only mode of transportation that has no state or local participation. Mineta said that the President is committed to asking the states to play a larger role in enhancing our nation’s intercity passenger rail system. In return, the states will have greater discretion in choosing which railroad operates the routes which run through their respective state.

Preceding Mineta, two panels of experts looked at “the impact of transportation investment on business productivity” and “transportation and the environment.” Michael Huerta, Managing Director of Transportation Systems at ACS Inc. was on the panel that examined the nexus between transportation and business productivity. Huerta feels transportation planners should be able to use technology to alleviate bottlenecks in the nation’s transportation system. Also, Huerta supports using electronic tolling to fund highway improvements, while at the same time not causing congestion. Another panelist, Tim James, Director of Legislative and Political Affairs for the International Union of Operating Engineers, advocated for a reauthorization bill with greater levels of funding than SAFETEA. James feels there is no larger jobs bill than a surface transportation bill. Additionally, James believes that not passing a reauthorization bill this year would be devastating for the economy and our nation’s transportation system.

In the morning session, Congresswan Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-California) spoke to the Chamber about the importance of connecting seaports to our nation’s transportation system. Millender-McDonald is a member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee on Small Business. The Congresswoman represents the Long Beach area in California. Long Beach is home to one of the busiest seaports in the country. The California Democrat wants to expedite the transfer of freight from our ports to the nation’s transportation system. According to the Congresswoman, “our transportation system has become the storage warehouse for our businesses because of Just-In-Time (JIT) inventory practices of most businesses.” Millender-McDonald favors the separation of the borders and corridors program created by TEA-21. The Congresswoman supports the establishment of a corridors gateway program to integrate our nation’s highway corridors and seaports. We must ensure that regional corridors develop plans to support the national system, said the Congresswoman.

The House Appropriations Committee has announced its 302(b) allocations for the 13 approprations subcommittees. Here they are as follows:

• AGRICULTURE: $17 billion; $17.4 billion this year ; $17.1 billion under Bush.
• COMMERCE-JUSTICE-STATE: $37.9 billion; $36.3 billion this year; $37.7 billion under Bush.
• DEFENSE: $368.7 billion; $364.3 billion this year; $371.7 billion under Bush.
• DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: $456 million; $509 million this year; $421 million under Bush.
• ENERGY AND WATER: $27.1 billion; $25.8 billion this year; $26.9 billion under Bush.
• FOREIGN OPERATIONS: $17.1 billion; $16.2 billion this year; $18.9 billion under Bush.
• HOMELAND SECURITY: $28.5 billion; $21.9 billion this year; $27.5 billion under Bush.
• INTERIOR: $19.6 billion; $19.76 billion this year; $19.55 billion under Bush.
• LABOR-HHS: $138 billion; $134.4 billion this year; $137.99 billion under Bush.
• LEGISLATIVE BRANCH: $3.5 billion; $3.3 billion this year; $3.8 billion under Bush.
• MILITARY CONSTRUCTION: $9.2 billion; $10.5 billion this year; $9.2 billion under Bush.
• TRANSPORTATION-TREASURY: $27.5 billion; $27.78 billion this year; $27.8 billion under Bush.
• VA-HUD: $90 billion; $87.1 billion this year; $89.4 billion under Bush.
• TOTAL: $784.7 billion; $765.2 billion this year; $788.1 billion under Bush.