CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

June 18, 1969

Page 16447

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of the Senator from West Virginia, the action which the Senate has just taken on the last two votes suggests to me the wisdom of including in the Senate provision on the limitation of spending a provision which is found in the House bill. I would like to refer the distinguished Senator from West Virginia to page 70, lines 7 through 14. I have at the desk an amendment covering this point, but I should like to discuss it with the Senator first,

If I may read the language, for the benefit of the Senate, it is as follows:

Provided, That whenever action, or inaction, by the Congress on requests for appropriations and other budgetary proposals varies from the President's recommendations thereon, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report to the President and to the Congress his estimate of the effect of such action or inaction on expenditures and net lending, and the limitation set forth therein shall be correspondingly adjusted.

Mr. President, we have heard persuasive and eloquent arguments this afternoon urging us to exempt education and health from the limitations imposed by the bill. We are just at the beginning of the appropriations process in Congress, and we will be considering many appropriations bills before we are through. It therefore seems to me that we should include in the bill a realistic recognition of the fact that, from time to time, individual Senators will want to ask the Senate to consider adjustments based upon the merits of, say, water pollution, education, and various other programs. I think it is wise to adopt a ceiling at this point, recognizing the President's recommendations and undertaking to set a benchmark for us to follow. We know, if we are intellectually honest about it, that from time to time, during the course of this session, we may want to consider variations from the President's budget recommendations which may or may not breach the ceiling.

The language I have read here, which was included in the House bill, gives us a procedure for handling it without being dishonest about it.

Thus, I should like to propose the amendment and would like to get the reaction of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.

I have discussed it with him earlier and he seemed somewhat receptive to this approach.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I think that the distinguished Senator's suggestion is a very important contribution here. Unless this is done, the President -- certainly the Congress – would not be kept informed as to the expenditure impact resulting from increases cuts in or appropriations that Congress might make.

I think it is important that Congress be kept informed of the expenditure impact of its appropriation actions.

I would ask the Senator if he would be willing to go one step further. I am glad he has called this to our attention. I think the proviso should be in the bill and I wonder whether he would go one step further and add subsection (b), which was stricken from the House language, and which merely states that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget will make these reports beginning the first full month after the passage of this act, and each month thereafter, during the first session, and then once each quarter thereafter, through the end of the fiscal year, so that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget will not have to inform the Congress of the expenditure impact immediately following each appropriation cut or appropriation increase but he will have a time set forth in which he would be expected to make such a report to the Congress and the President.

Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I think the Senator's suggestion is well taken. I would be happy to include it in my amendment.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. So, Mr. President, if the Senator will so modify his amendment, I will gladly accept it as modified.

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield at that point?

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, my amendment is at the desk and I offer it at this time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

On page 71, after line 16, insert: "Provided further, That whenever action, or inaction by the Congress on requests for appropriations and other budgetary proposals varies from the President's recommendations thereon, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report to the President and to the Congress his estimate of the effect of such action or inaction on expenditures and net lending, and the limitation set forth herein shall be correspondingly adjusted: Provided further, That the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report periodically to the President and to the Congress on the operation of this section. The first such report shall be made at the end of the first month which begins after the date of approval of this Act; subsequent reports shall be made at the end of each calendar month during the first session of the ninety-first Congress, and at the end of each calendar quarter thereafter."

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, this simply requires that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget inform the President and Congress at certain intervals as to the impact we have made through our cuts or increases in appropriations on the $1.9 billion expenditure reduction required by the bill.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a question?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. COTTON. The Senator's amendment, if adopted, will it automatically eradicate from the bill the two rather inconsistent provisions which have just been adopted?

Mr. MUSKIE. No. This amendment does not touch that at all.

Mr. COTTON. It does not change the ultimate amount fixed as a goal by the Senate in the bill.

Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.

Mr. COTTON. I wish it would eradicate these other actions, not the goal, but the inconsistent provisions we have adopted.

I highly commend the Senator for offering the amendment. I am entirely for it. I think that this matter of setting up a ceiling works exactly opposite to what is intended because every Member, consciously or subconsciously, thinks that he can vote for any kind of appropriation he wants to and that because there is a ceiling, it is not going to do any harm because the President or someone else -- some nebulous authority somewhere -- will balance the books. The result is that we simply promote our own irresponsibility.

I felt that the entire House provision was much superior to what has been proposed by our committee in the Senate. I wish the Senator's amendment had started as a clean slate. I shall take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. MUSKIE. I may say that I was tied up elsewhere, or I would have offered it earlier this afternoon. It might have forestalled some of the action taken.

I think this amendment will assure orderly consideration of any changes the Senate wants to make in any appropriation bill as we go through the entire process in the weeks ahead.

Mr. COTTON. I certainly commend the distinguished Senator from Maine for his proposal.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. CURTIS. I read the language in the House bill. I followed the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator. But I am not sure I understand how it works. Suppose in a given appropriation bill Congress saw fit to disallow a request, say, of $100 million for something within the President's budget. What would happen if the amendment the Senator proposes were the law?

Mr. MUSKIE. Then the Director of the Budget, as I understand it, must report to the President and to the Congress his estimate of the effect of such action on expenditures and net lending and on the limitation set forth in the bill.

Mr. CURTIS. Aside from reporting it, what else happens?

Mr. MUSKIE. The language reads: The limitation set forth herein shall be correspondingly adjusted.

Mr. CURTIS. That is what is unclear. Does it mean, then, that if the Congress saves $100 million in one instance, the budget ceiling is thereby lowered $100 million, or does it mean that that saving does not go to the taxpayers or to the Treasury, but makes it possible to raise some other item in the appropriation process? I do not think it is clear what the language, that the ceiling shall be appropriately adjusted, means. Adjusted to what?

Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand it, it is the duty of the Director of the Budget to keep a running record of the net impact and net result of the adjustments in appropriations made by the Congress from the President's budget estimates. Those figures should be available to us on a running basis, but, in any case, under the second part of the amendment, we would have a formal report at the end of each month.

Mr. CURTIS. But what does that change? That is my question.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. May I answer the question first? What is changed, if there is a change, is the spending ceiling.

Mr. CURTIS. Changed in what way? If the Congress saves some money, if the Congress declines to appropriate, say, $100 million, does the ceiling then come down $100 million, or does the ceiling remain the same and that money is available for some other purpose?

Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand it, it would go up or down depending on the nature of the adjustment Congress has made. Let me say this is language from the House bill. I am not certain of the House interpretation of the language, but, as I read the language -- and this is what attracted me to it -- I think the effect is to change the ceiling up or down depending on action the Congress takes with respect to each appropriation bill.

Mr. CURTIS. So the more we save in the appropriation process, the lower the overall ceiling becomes?

Mr. MUSKIE. That is as I understand it.

Mr. CURTIS. I think it is most unclear what it means.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. COTTON. I will ask the distinguished Senator from Maine if it does not mean exactly this: that every time the Senate cuts an appropriation, every Senator knows he is reducing the aggregate appropriations for the year, or at least at that point he is reducing them by so much, and every time we exceed it, everyone who votes for it knows he is voting to push up the aggregate spending for the year. Consequently, there is an incentive every time we vote, either because we are pushing it up or we are doing the praiseworthy thing, in most cases, of reducing the ultimate spending.

Mr. MUSKIE. That is exactly as I understand it.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. CURTIS. If it is true that our actions on an appropriation bill result in exceeding the President's budget, and we therefore raise the ceiling established in this act by that much, which means that we have no ceiling -- that we have a ceiling until we vote money to raise it -- does not the language become meaningless?

Mr. MUSKIE. No. I agree that that is the effect, but I say that does not render the action taken today meaningless, in my judgment. We are setting the ceiling. The Senator knows, from the experience we had in the Senate last year, that the setting of the ceiling did not act as a prohibition, subsequently, against increases in spending by the Congress -- we approved increases for controllers in our airport towers, for example.

I am saying here, let us set a ceiling, which operates as an inhibition as much as it did last year, but if we subsequently change it, as I read the language, we get the impact in figures from the Director of the Budget. The country gets it. The President gets it. We get it for whatever influence it will have on our votes on those appropriations.

Mr. CURTIS. I commend that part of the amendment which directs the Bureau of the Budget to send down that information. I think it is a good thing for the Congress to have, and I think it is a good thing for the public to have, and I think it is a good thing for the President to have. We call it a ceiling, but it is a sort of telescoping process -- if the Congress continues to increase appropriations, the ceiling always goes up.

Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think it changes what it is going to be, anyway. I may say to the Senator I think it is a recognition of the realities at this point.

Mr. CURTIS. I think, in light of the language adopted, what the Senator is saying is correct -- you cannot have a ceiling and have holes in it.

Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. COTTON. It is not a fact that this is not a ceiling, because it never has been and it never will be? It is a goal. I think the Senator, in his earlier remarks, referred to a hallmark. But it is a goal rather than a ceiling. It is a goal we set for ourselves. We know, and everyone who knows the appropriating process knows, that is all it is and all it was last year. But the people do not know it. I agree with the Senator that this approach is the most honest, and also puts every Senator on his clear duty and notice that when he casts a vote he is either bringing that goal nearer or else he is pushing it away. Therefore, we are not divesting ourselves of personal responsibility.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. May I make one comment in response? Then I will yield to the Senator from Florida.

To do otherwise is to suggest that we adopt as a ceiling the President's budget estimate. That is delegating to him the appropriation process. We have the duty, and the privilege, I think, of evaluating these budget estimates for ourselves and passing judgment on them, increasing them or decreasing them; and we do both. It seems to me that by setting a ceiling as a goal, and still preserving the realistic recognition of our own duty and still continuing a role in the appropriation process, we are being realistic and honest.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I want to call attention to the fact that we are talking about two different things.

The proposed ceiling is a ceiling on expenditures. The matter which will be reported to us and which we might otherwise not know is the question of how our reduction or increase of appropriations -- not expenditures -- will be reflected in the expenditure budget for 1970.

That is information we need to have. It is information that does bear on the success of our efforts.

I think this is a good proposal. However, we should very carefully distinguish between the two things, because the amendment would provide that when Congress exceeds or goes under the request of the President for appropriations or other budgetary proposals -- as for contractual authorizations -- that fact should be reported by the Bureau of the Budget to the President, and the Budget Bureau should report to the President and to Congress how that action affects the expenditure budget for 1970. Otherwise, we will not know that.

Suppose we pass an appropriation bill in October, as we have done many times, and the appropriation was not designed, in the beginning, to be spent in 1 year, but we know now that the 1 year's portion is going to be spent over a lesser period than 1 year. The Director of the Budget will know when he will begin to approve payments from that appropriation -- in other words, when the administrative setup has been completed -- and can report to us how much will be expended out of that appropriation prior to June 30, 1970.

I think this is a good provision, and something like it is the only way in which we will be able to keep up with the effect on the expenditures budget of our own action on the appropriations budget. I wish to make that point very clear.

Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator from Florida. The Senator is a member of the Appropriations Committee, and more experienced at interpreting this kind of language than I; so I appreciate having his comments as a part of the legislative history.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this is the second straight year that members of the Appropriations Committees have recommended that Congress impose limitations on expenditures, and there are strong arguments for such limits in light of the inflationary pressures on our Nation's economy.

But arbitrary ceilings threaten to cut the budget of the hunger programs while millions starve, to lower investments in education programs when the education of so many of our young people is clearly inadequate and to undermine the commitments we have made to water pollution control programs, housing construction, medical care, summer jobs, and poverty programs. Most of these programs have not even been funded at half of their authorized levels. Crying needs have gone unanswered.

All of us are aware of these needs. Many of us have gone before the Appropriations Committee to request higher appropriations for programs to which we are deeply committed; others will make similar requests later in the session.

America faces a problem of priorities, and Congress has taken the lead in trying to carve out America's new priorities and to implement them. We are already restricted in our efforts to deal with the critical problems that face the Nation by the pressures of inflation, and it would be a grave mistake to further restrict our options by imposing the strict ceiling on expenditures which the committee has recommended.

The ceiling is retained as a goal, but this amendment incorporates the House-passed provisions that congressional decisions on increasing or decreasing appropriations for particular items may adjust the ceiling up or down.

The President has made cuts in the budget, and the Congress should respect his decisions in setting an initial ceiling. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the budget and increases in others that the Congress may wish to make in the next few months. There is no reason why we should tie our hands this early. Therefore, I urge the Senate to accept the alternative language which I now offer.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment of the Senator from Maine.

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, as I understand it, the pending vote is on the Byrd committee amendment, as it has been modified by all the exceptions that have been thought of up to this point. Is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I am one who has advocated a ceiling on Government spending. I think we need a ceiling on expenditures. I was the author of the first expenditure ceiling which went through Congress last year as part of the tax increase bill.

I said then and I feel now that when Congress considers the question of increasing taxes it is just as important that Congress consider what it is going to do with spending as well as what it is going to do with bringing in additional revenue; and if we were only going to raise taxes for the purpose of bringing in $8 billion or $10 billion more to pour into the spending stream, as far as I am concerned we are only defeating the purpose and creating more inflation. I happen to be one who thinks that many of the private citizens have as much intelligence and sense about how to spend their dollars as does some bureaucrat in Washington.

The so-called ceiling we have before us today is a ceiling in name only. I shall vote against it. I will not be a party to supporting a principle which apparently seeks to give to the American people the idea that Congress is launching an economy drive and that we are putting a ceiling on expenditures. In reality Congress is doing nothing of the kind, but rather here today the Senate has laid the groundwork for the largest spending spree that has ever been conceived, greater than those of either the Johnson administration or the Kennedy administration.

I wish to review briefly just what these exemptions for various programs mean mathematically; and if anyone wishes to take exception to my figures as we go along and point out where I am in error I shall be glad to yield at any time because I think this is one of the greatest farces ever suggested, as far as the American people are concerned.

We start out with the committee proposal of a ceiling of $187.9 billion on expenditures for fiscal 1970, as compared with the ceiling that was projected in the House of Representatives amendment of $192.9 billion.

On the surface that looks as though the Senate were saving $5 billion. But let us see what we are doing.

No. 1, we start out, on page 71, paragraph (1), where we find reference to the open ended programs and fixed costs in the table appearing on page 16 of the budget of the United States. They are exempted to the extent that the expenditures for those programs in fiscal 1970 exceed the 1969 level.

Let us refer to page 16 of the budget. As the first item there we find social security, medicare, and social insurance trust funds. This exception adds $2.9 billion as an expected increase over the 1969 budget. That automatically -- and I emphasize the word automatically – raises the committee ceiling of $187.9 billion by $2.9 billion, and we now have a ceiling of $190.8 billion.

The next item exempted is interest on the national debt. That is projected at $800 million over 1969; so that adds another $800 million, and we now have a ceiling of $191.6 billion.

The next item exempts all civilian and military pay increases. These are the ones that are supposed to go into effect July 1 and were referred to in the President's message yesterday. In 1969 there was nothing for that item, because these salary increases do not go into effect until July 1, 1969, but the cost of these increases is projected as an extra $2.8 billion for the 1970 fiscal year; so, therefore, that is another automatic increase, bringing the ceiling up to $194.4 billion.

The next exemption is the public assistance programs, including medicaid. That adds another $1.1 billion, and we have a ceiling now of $195.5 billion.

Farm price support programs are estimated in this budget as being $500 million less than last year; so we subtract the $500 million and are back to $195 billion -- although I might add that there is a big doubt in my mind as to whether that item will materialize as a savings.

The next two items cancel out, because postal operations add $100 million and then there is an item designated "other" -- I have no idea what the "other" means except that it involves projected expenditures of $1.5 billion next year -- supposedly representing savings of $100 million there.

But when these tabulations are considered there is a $195 billion ceiling on the bill now before us.

Then we take the amendment of the Senator from Maine that has just been agreed to, and we find both ends of the barn open and the roof off. The American people should know we have no ceiling whatsoever, so why try to kid them. Let me read it.

This says:

That whenever action, or inaction by the Congress on requests for appropriations and other budgetary proposals varies from the President's recommendations thereon, the Director of the Bureau of the Budget shall report to the President and to the Congress his estimate of the effect of such action or inaction on expenditures and net lending, and the limitation set forth herein shall be correspondingly adjusted.

That means the flexible ceiling will be raised automatically to cover any expenditure increase which this Congress may approve. In addition, under the Muskie amendment the ceiling automatically rises by the inaction of Congress on a recommendation of the President asking for new revenues.

Now, what are some of the proposals the President has made? He suggested that we raise postage rates effective July 1 of this year, which will bring in $519 million additional revenue. I have as yet to see any bills on the floor of the Senate to raise those rates, and every Senator knows they are not going to be raised, at least effective July 1. That automatically -- and I emphasize again

the word automatically -- adds $519 million to this flexible ceiling. So we are back to a $195.5 billion ceiling.

Now, it is true that when you move over to the amendment exempting Southeast Asia costs in section 2 of the committee's bill, the budget projection on page 27 indicates there will be a $3.4 billion reduction on that item, and if that reduction materializes it will reduce the ceiling correspondingly. But even then we will have the figure of $192.1 billion as a ceiling.

Then there are other exemptions added here today. The Senate has exempted HEW, or a good substantial part of HEW. I have no idea exactly what that extra exemption means; however, I understand that this one action is well in excess of $1 billion.

Congress has exempted the impacted areas, which adds another $200 million. We have been unable to get any estimate on section 2 of the committee bill as to what the net increase would be, but I understand it is in excess of a billion dollars.

Under any circumstances, we have a ceiling of approximately $195 billion. Under the committee proposal there will be a higher spending ceiling than even President Johnson proposed, and he was no piker when it came to talking about spending the taxpayers' money.

I certainly will not be a party to approving any such farce.

I think we need expenditure control; however, it is certain that no expenditure control is involved here.

I refer to another item in President Johnson's budget -- and that is all this bill relates to, President Johnson's budget, not the Nixon budget -- the President recommended an increase of social security taxes of $1.6 billion next year.

I have as yet to hear anyone come up and say, "I am recommending or introducing a bill to raise the social security taxes." By our inaction or failure to act on the President's request it automatically adds another $1.6 billion to the budget.

Then there is a budget proposal to add a user's tax on the airwaves -- $400 million. That has been suggested by both Presidents, and I have as yet to hear any enthusiasm in that direction. There is $400 million involved in that proposal, and unless Congress acts this represents another budget change.

When we get through, a $200 billion spending level is permissible under the pending bill without any further action by Congress, and we never have to change the ceiling.

I have discussed this with the officials of the Bureau of the Budget, and this is their interpretation. I have said, "I want no misunderstanding of your interpretation if this bill is passed as it is reported by the Senate or by the House."

We have a situation now in which the House bill and the Senate version are the same on these automatic esculations. So the language will not be in conference. Therefore this interpretation will stand regardless of what the conferees may wish or not wish to do.

The Muskie amendment was the language of the House amendment.

The committee bill is in fact a floating ceiling. It floats up as Congress sees fit to increase spending. I would say that this version of a so-called spending ceiling is a spendthrift's dream. I certainly want no part of it. It serves but one purpose, and that is to fool the taxpayers.

I shall vote against it. I hope that at some later date Congress will recognize what it has done and that an opportunity will be afforded to correct today's action. Certainly we have no spending controls here, at least so far as I can see. I say that as one who has worked as much in this area as some of the rest.

These interpretations are not just mine but are also the point of view of the committee and the Director of the Budget.

My only suggestion is that if the Senate insists on approving the committee's recommendation it add one more amendment. That is an amendment which would be equally popular. Why not say in that amendment that the Senate loves mothers and all of the little children. People like that, and it would be as effective as what the Senate is doing here.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I have a great deal of admiration for the Senator from Delaware. I admire his courage and tenacity. I admire his knowledge in this and other fields. I admire him as a very honorable opponent in this contest in which we have been engaged for the last 2 or 3 days. However, the Senator used the word "farce."

I do not think any Senator who supports the committee provision thinks he is engaging in a farce or that he is perpetrating anything on the Members of the Senate or that he is trying to fool the American people.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I do not say that the Senator is intentionally promoting a farce. I expressed my high opinion of the Senator yesterday. I only refer to the committee proposal as it is now before us. Perhaps "farce" is a harsh word. Perhaps it would be better just to say it is not worth the paper it is written on.

The fact remains that this has no effect whatsoever, I do not care what language is used.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, the Senator has every right to place whatever interpretation he wishes on what the committee has done.

I just want to say in closing before we vote on the amendment that what the Senator from Delaware really wants is a deeper slash, and that is all right. I do not criticize him for that. He also wants to exempt fewer activities from the cuts, and I do not criticize him for that. But we went up this hill and down on yesterday and the day before.

I simply want to say in summation that what the committee is doing here is recognizing that some items are unpredictable, such as the war in Southeast Asia, and that others are mandatory, fixed, or uncontrollable. I do not agree with the figures that the Senator has been using. The Senator has been using the figures from the budget document that came up here on January 15.

I am using the latest figures. Any Senator may call the Bureau of the Budget if he wishes and get the figures I have used. That is not too important at this point; however, except that those who read the RECORD must be put on notice that the figures the Senator is using are old figures and out of date.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, the figures I used in my arguments are the figures referred to in the committee amendment. I quote the source. It is on page 71, lines 9 and 10, House document numbered 91-15, part I, 91st Congress.

The committee amendment refers to the budget of the United States. Here it is. I challenge the Senator from West Virginia to show anywhere in his committee amendment or in any other amendment attached thereto where it refers to any figures other than those in the budget of the United States. How accurate those figures are is beside the point.

Those are the figures to which the Senator's committee referred. Those are the figures I am quoting. Far be it from me to defend the accuracy of President Johnson's figures, but those are the ones to which the committee referred.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, the bill does not refer to figures. It refers to items.

The "items" that appear on page 71 of the bill identify the items, such as the war in Southeast Asia, interest on the national debt, mandatory civilian and military pay increases, price supports, Commodity Credit Corporation, veterans benefits.

It refers to the items but not to the figures. We said all of this yesterday and the day before.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I do not want to quarrel with the Senator from West Virginia whom I respect, but he is in error. To prove my point, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the part on page 71 of the bill from line 1 through line 12. It speaks for itself.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Provided, That such amount shall be increased or decreased by the aggregate amount by which the sum of expenditures and net lending in said fiscal year are greater than or lesser than the sum of expenditures and net lending in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, for

(1) items designated "Open-ended programs and fixed costs" in the table appearing on page 16 of the budget of the United States for the fiscal year 1970 (House Document Numbered 91-15, part I, Ninety-first Congress);

(2) the item designated "Special Southeast Asia support" in the table appearing on page 27 of that budget;

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The figures I quoted are taken from page 16 of that budget. If there are other figures I respectfully ask that the Senator from West Virginia incorporate them in the RECORD at this point. I cannot find them.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, the Senator has read into the RECORD the language which refers to the items designated at such and such a page in such and such a document. The language did not refer to figures therein and could not because the figures will change. There still are several days in fiscal year 1969. We do not know exactly what the expenditures will finally be. I do not care what book is cited. All we are saying in this language is that the $187.9 billion shall be exceeded by the amount by which the uncontrollable expenditures in fiscal year 1970 exceed the amount spent in fiscal year 1969. We state that we are exempting certain items, and we go to the budget document to find out what those items are. The Senator has read them: Support for Southeast Asia, interest on the national debt, social security, and so on. Those are the items. But the figures in that book were sent up here on January 15. The figures I have here came from the Bureau of the Budget on May 20, and yet even these latest figures are subject to change.

Why try to tell the people that the figures in that document of January 15 are the final figures? I do not say that about these May 20 figures, but these do bring us to a closer estimate of the overall situation as it today stands.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator will not dispute the fact that regardless of what the final figure may be when 1969 ends, to the extent that fiscal 1970 exceeds them the projection referred to is an automatic increase. The Budget Director's office said that is the way they are going to interpret the committee amendment.

I respect the Senator from West Virginia, but I disagree with him on this point. I am ready to vote, but I shall vote against the amendment. As I stated earlier, I will not use the word "farce"; I will not say it is not worth the paper it is written on; but I have been in a barn without a roof and never got as wet as the American people are going to get soaked under this bill.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, regardless of what happens in the category of the uncontrollables, we cannot control here today what is going to happen to the interest on the national debt. We will have to pay it. We do not appropriate it every year. It already has been appropriated. We cannot, by our action on an appropriation bill, reduce the amounts for social security. They already have been appropriated. We cannot reduce, by our actions on appropriations, the amounts to which we have already committed ourselves for price support programs. We might change it a year from now through legislation, but we cannot change the price supports expenditure through appropriations. These are then uncontrollables.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I will not yield at this time, but I will be glad to yield later.

These are areas in which we really have no control unless we change the basic laws. We have to appropriate whatever we are committed to appropriate. But there are other areas which are controllable and in which we can execute reductions.

We are not putting anything over on anybody, and nobody will get wet because of the holes in the roof of the barn that has both doors open. The committee is simply saying that, so far as the controllables are concerned, Congress and/or the administration must make not less than a $1.9 billion reduction under the President's estimates in fiscal year 1970.

It is written in here to that effect, and it is as plain as the nose on the Senator's face. I shall read it:

Such reservations by the President shall be in amounts sufficient to insure reductions of not less than $1.9 billion.

Now, that is in the controllables. Who would expect us to reduce the expenditures in the uncontrollables? All we can do is reduce the expenditures in the controllables. If the Senator wants to force Congress or the President to reduce those controllable expenditures by an additional $5 or $10 billion, let him offer his amendment, and we will vote on it. But that is all we can do. That is all God's angel's can expect us to do -- to cut or to raise the expenditures in those items which are controllable and which annually come before Congress for its decision.

Parenthetically, may I say that of the $210 billion in the 1970, only $143.8 billion will be within reach of, and subject to, congressional action.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I shall not delay this vote. We have debated this amendment for 2 days.

The Senator spoke of noncontrollable expenditures, and then he mentioned price support programs. These are controllable expenditures. It is expected that next week a bill will be before the Senate -- the House already has acted on it -- to limit to $20,000 the payments to any one farmer under the agriculture program. If the Senate sustains the House action it will make a difference of approximately $200 million in the cost of administering the program, and half of this savings will be into the next fiscal year.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. There are other controllable items which have been exempted under the committee bill. Why exempt the legislative branch? Why exempt the judiciary? These are items which can be controlled, and in my opinion we will have to control them if we really are going to bring expenditures down to the level where we can afford them. I would dislike to see a tax bill go through Congress unless we can assure the taxpayers at the same time that this Congress is not going to use all that additional revenue just to expand the spending programs.

I recognize the difference between the opinions of the Senator from West Virginia and myself, but that is my interpretation of this committee bill; and so far as I am concerned I am ready to vote.

Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a table of budget outlays estimated as of May 20, which was secured from the Bureau of the Budget. This is the table of statistics from which I have been quoting while the Senator from Delaware has been resorting to the figures used in the January 15 budget document.

There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

[Table Omitted]

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I will not detain the Senate more than a few minutes. I have been a member of this committee for some time, and I do not feel that I can permit the exchange that has occurred to go by without making some remarks.

I have a great deal of respect for the distinguished Senator from Delaware. At this time I say to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia that he has handled this bill with the greatest of

thoroughness -- probably the greatest thoroughness and capability of anyone whom I have ever seen handle it -- and I pay my respects and my compliments to him for what he has done.

However, I must say -- and this is the reason why I speak at this time -- that I think he is in error in his interpretation of the bill -- or at least of lines 1 to 10 on page 71 of the bill -- and I think that in that respect the Senator from Delaware is entirely correct.