May 10, 1973
Page 15240
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Title 2 of the pending bill establishes a ceiling for the 1974 fiscal year, and the ceiling is limited to that year for a very special reason. The question of considering a permanent mechanism for dealing with spending and with spending ceilings has been underway and is underway at the present time.
I hold in my hand the report of the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control, which on April 18 completed some 3 months of study, following 6 or 7 days' of hearings. That report is reflected in legislation which has been introduced by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLELLAN), aimed at establishing a permanent mechanism to bring the budget under control and to establish spending ceiling.
In addition, in the Committee on Government Operations, the Subcommittee on Budgeting, Management, and Expenditures has been working since the first of the year on the same subject. It has held 7 days of hearings. It is considering 16 different pieces of legislation. It is considering the recommendations of the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control. It has before it the legislation developed by the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control, and it is about to begin markups on this legislation next week.
It was in full realization of the activities of these other committees of the Senate that title II of the bill was limited specifically and deliberately to establishing a ceiling for the 1974 fiscal year. We understood fully that it would not be possible to handle the 1974 problem on the basis of legislation that had not yet been developed.
For that reason title II is limited to one fiscal year. But in view of the fact that the long-term problem is now being handled and is being considered, it seems to me extremely premature to undertake to write into this bill a permanent mechanism with which that committee would have to deal before it recommended a substitute to the Senate.
So it is for that reason that we oppose the amendment, not because of its objective. I think the last time we considered this proposal there was a clear indication that the Senate subscribed to the objective of bringing our fiscal affairs and budget processes under control. I have no doubt the work that is underway in the Metcalf subcommittee will lead to the mechanism necessary for the purpose of setting spending ceilings. All I urge to the Senate is that we wait until we get the recommendations of that subcommittee and the full Committee on Government Operations before we take action to deal with the long-term problems.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be included in the RECORD at this point a description of the work of still another committee of the Senate, the Appropriations Committee, which is found in the National Journal for April 21, 1973. This represents the work of the Senate Appropriations Committee, under the leadership of the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLELLAN) to put our fiscal affairs in order.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CONGRESS REPORT/$267.1 BILLION SPENDING LIMIT SET BY SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
(By Andrew J. Glass)
The Senate Appropriations Committee has set a spending ceiling for fiscal 1974 of $267.1 billion, a decrease of about $1.6 billion from President Nixon's budget.
The ceiling, announced April 17 by Sen. John L. McClellan, D-Ark., the committee chairman, is neither final nor binding. It could rise or fall as a result of spending actions by the House, amendments advanced on the Senate floor, budget modifications by the President or reappraisals on the part of the 13 individual Senate appropriations subcommittees.
Nonetheless, even these tentative ceilings mark an innovation in the long-standing procedures of the 24-member Senate Appropriations Committee. They also represent yet another facet of the continuing struggle between the White House and the Congress to attain mastery over the budget-making and spending process. (For a report on the current status of the budget battle, see Vol. 5, No. 15, p. 527.)
The projected spending ceiling is 0.6 percent below the level set by the President in his January budgetary recommendations to Congress. It is also $900 million less than the $268-billion ceiling fixed by the Senate April 5. That figure was incorporated into pending legislation sanctioning the dollar devaluation – the proposed Par Value Modification Act (S. 929) – through an amendment sponsored by Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, D-Maine.
In a statement, McClellan said: "I realize that these reductions appear to be minimal – and they are – but if achieved, we will at last, in slight measure, be holding the line on spending."
COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
McClellan compiled his figures by requesting each of the subcommittee chairmen to review their respective segments of the federal budget and to recommend publicly "the minimum amount which (their) subcommittee felt would be required to economically carry out for fiscal 1974 the essential programs and functions of government over which (their) subcommittee has jurisdiction.
Chairmen of five of the 13 appropriations panels projected cuts in Administration requests totaling nearly $5.5 billion. The largest single individual cut, $3 billion, was set by McClellan himself in his capacity as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.
A source close to McClellan, who asked not to be identified by name, said the cut represented an overall target and was reached without undertaking an item-by-item scrutiny of proposed spending for new weapons systems and other military procurement.
The source said that a detailed examination of the defense budget will be postponed until after the House and Senate Armed Services Committees act on the defense authorization bill and the measure is passed by both chambers.
Another large cut was pledged by Sen. William Proxmire, D-Wis., who chairs the subcommittee which deals with spending for housing, urban development, space, science and veterans.
Howard E. Shuman, Proxmire's administrative assistant, said the Senator examined his segment of the budget in detail before arriving at an overall reduction of $1 billion. Among the factors, Sherman said, were:
A major cut in administrative expenses for the HUD Department, based on the proposition that Administration-ordered freeze on new housing and community development subsidies should result in concomitant reductions in HUD's Washington and field staffs;
Outright deletion of the space shuttle program, a $457-million saving in outlays for fiscal 1974, to be offset in part by an increase in spending for space sciences and applications.
(However, in a separate interview with National Journal, Proxmire said he held little hope of being able to halt the space shuttle's development. He said that the program would "quite likely go through by a wide margin.")
LIMITATIONS
Chairmen of two subcommittees said they planned to exceed the Administration's request by an aggregate of some $3 billion. Increases were projected in spending for agriculture; environmental control, consumer protection, labor and related manpower services, and health, education and welfare.
Sen. Warren G. Magnuson, D-Wash., whose subcommittee handles manpower, health, education and welfare spending, told McClellan that he anticipated tacking $2.2 billion to the authorization bill on top of Administration estimates, resulting in $771 million in additional outlays for fiscal 1974.
This includes $600 million more in budget authority for education, $550 million more for health services and an additional $300 million for biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health.
Hospital construction programs would be increased $200 million, $300 million would be added to the Labor Department's manpower budget, and an added $250 million in library resources aid would be provided.
McClellan said that the chairmen of the remaining six subcommittees pledged that they would strive to hold their over-all appropriations bills within the Administration's budget request.
Only some 60 per cent of the total budget is screened by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The remaining 40 per cent, or about $116 billion in fiscal 1974, is not subject to congressional action this year. It is comprised mainly of permanent appropriations, such as interest on the national debt, and trust fund authorizations, such as social security.
Long-term reforms
Meantime, the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control, spurred by the White House challenge, recommended a far-reaching set of procedural reforms in dealing with the budget.
The 32-member House-Senate group, composed exclusively of senior representatives from both bodies, unanimously approved the proposed changes April 16. Legislation implementing the plan was introduced in both chambers April 18 (HR 7130).
However, the reforms if enacted, could not take effect until the fiscal 1975 budget proposals come before Congress next January.
The committee's plan would permit the lawmakers to set an annual ceiling on federal outlays, determine their own spending priorities and gear expenditures to planned deficit and taxation levels.
PROVISIONS
Under the proposed system, new budget committees would be created in the House (21 members) and the Senate (15 members). Each group would be made up equally of members of the Appropriations Committees, the revenue-raising committees (Ways and Means in the House, Finance in the Senate) and legislative committees.
Early in each session, the budget committees would prepare a concurrent resolution providing for an overall ceiling on budget outlays and new budget authority. In addition, the panels would allocate subceilings based on the recommendations of the Appropriation Committees. The recommendations would also cover so-called backdoor spending authority now exercised by several legislative committees.
If action on the resolution was not completed by May 1, then the Presidential budget submitted in January would automatically determine the various spending ceilings.
The resolution could be amended on the House or Senate floor. But any proposal to increase funds for a program or governmental activity would have to provide for a commensurate decrease in another spending category or, alternatively, an increase in the spending ceiling, with built-in provisions for higher taxes or a larger national debt. This "rule of consistency" could be waived only by a two-thirds majority.
Another concurrent resolution would be drafted late in the session. With its passage, a wrap-up appropriations bill would be drafted which would carry a semi-automatic tax surcharge. The surcharge would be triggered after Congress determined how much of a budget surplus or deficit was in order in view of prevailing economic conditions.
CO-CHAIRMAN'S VIEWS
In an interview with National Journal, Rep. Al Ullman, D-Ore., co-chairman of the budget study panel, said:
"What we have done is probably the most significant thing going on up here ...
"I anticipate the floor debate to begin by the end of May. We have a few things working for us and we wouldn't be where we are without them.
"The politics of a veto override vote are wrong. Nobody wants to ride pell-mell over the budget. So the only real answer is to get back to priorities. Congress has got the authority and it can pick it up anytime it wants to. It abdicated the budget priorities to the President a long time ago and it is now ready to take them back."
Mr. MUSKIE. So, Mr. President, the effort is underway here in the Congress. It is a credible effort, in my judgment. It has already yielded fruits, and I think it will result in a permanent mechanism. Until the shape of that mechanism is proposed by a committee which has been working on the problem for several weeks and months, the Senate ought to withhold its judgment on what the permanent shape of the control mechanisms should be.
It is for that reason that I urge rejection of this amendment.
I yield to the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I would like to associate myself with the remarks regarding this amendment just made by the Senator from Maine. Again, I commend the Senator from Oklahoma for his amendment in the sense that it would create a permanent type ceiling, but again I would object to it because we do have this matter under consideration. As the Senator from Maine has outlined, we have our opportunity and every reason to come up with a permanent mechanism on which the Government Operations Committee, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLELLAN), the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), and many other Senators are working.
So I want to object to this particular amendment now, as I did before. Although it was incorporated over my objection, I feel we would be well advised to wait until we have before us a well-thought-out permanent mechanism, rather than to insert at this point a mechanism which we all know does not have proper sanction and details to get the job done as far as a mechanism for self-discipline in staying within any kind of a budget ceiling is concerned. I urge the defeat of this amendment for those reasons.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. Prudent, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BARTLETT). The Senator from Oklahoma has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 3 additional minutes.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I believe that I am in accord with both the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Georgia who has spoken in favor of a well-thought-out method of holding our Federal spending in line. However, I am not in agreement with him when he states that the fact that the committee has met and has held hearings and is going to have a mark-up session means that it will produce a bill. If the Committee does report such a bill, I will be the first to support it. In title II we have a procedure for holding our spending in line for fiscal year 1974. As far as I am concerned, this procedure which has been authored by Senator MUSKIE, is a good procedure. If we can improve upon it, we should do so.
The purpose of my amendment is that if for any reason Congress fails to act, there is no reason why we cannot keep the same system for the fiscal years beyond 1974.
Any extensive reform measure adopted by Congress would nullify this action. However, if we do not legislate on this matter for any reason during this session of Congress, we will find when we come back in January to appropriate funds for fiscal year 1975 that we will not have the mechanism to use that the Senate adopted and made effective for fiscal year 1974.
Many obstacles can impede the legislative process. It may be a long time before we know whether we have a bill. Therefore, I believe that we need to go ahead and make certain that the Congress has the same procedure available for fiscal years 1975 and beyond that we have for fiscal year 1974.
Mr. President, I am willing to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma that the fact that the Committee on Government Operations produced this bill with title II including this ceiling and the fact that the Senate has already adopted it once and is ready to adopt it another time is evidence, I think, of our determination to bring our fiscal affairs under control.
I think there is a sufficient commitment to assure the Senate that the Committee on Government Operations will produce the legislation out of the Subcommittee on Budgeting, Management, and Expenditures as we have in the case of this legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 1 additional minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as we address ourselves to this problem of undertaking the handling of the U.S. budget and the appropriations process, we find it to be a difficult problem. I do not think it is a sound principle simply to write into a piece of legislation a mechanism that looks good on its face, but which has not been examined in hearings and which cannot stand up under such examination – especially in light of the fact that such intensive examination is under way and is about to produce results. I just do not think this is sound.
Mr. President, I am willing to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has said that we should not take this action without careful consideration. We have considered the matter sufficiently to adopt it for fiscal year 1974, is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. However, that is a temporary mechanism for the 1 year.
That is the very reason that we should study the complexities of the matter and try to develop a long-term mechanism.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BELLMON. If we adopt the amendment for fiscal 1974, the amendment would make it applicable to 1975, unless the committee came up with something better. If it is a good enough procedure for 1974, why can it not be applied until a better procedure is adopted?
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that the Senator believes deeply in his proposal. As far as I am concerned, I do not think it is sound legislative process to establish a benchmark at which the committee, which has been studying the problem for a month, should aim. This is one Senator's idea, developed on the floor of the Senate, without benefit of hearings, without benefit of committee discussion, without benefit of reports from the agency, without the kind of legislative process which is our business. It is not our business to write a bill first and then ask the committees to challenge it. The way the system works is to ask the committees to propose legislation: then we act on the basis of hearings and markups and the legislation we produce.
The Senator's proposal would turn the whole process around. If we were to apply that principle to every legislative subject that comes before us, we would be very busy little men, trying to undo what we do from day to day, and relying on committees to save us from our own errors.
Mr. BELLMON. The Senator from Maine has implied that the bill on which we are acting is the product of one Senator's mind. This is not the case at all. The bill has come from committee. If it is a good bill, let us make it apply to future years until we can get something better.
Mr. MUSKIE. We now have other bills before the same committee. The committee made the decision to limit this bill to 1 year. The committee refused to apply it on a permanent basis. So the Senator can hardly argue that the committee is the authority for extending it beyond the 1 year. The committee decided to limit it to 1 year because what is involved in any long-term answer to the problem is the question of channeling the whole appropriations and budget process in a way that will produce rational results.
We can debate the whole thing for 1 year and not discipline ourselves. But that does not necessarily make it the answer for the future. That is why the committee limited the bill to 1 year.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON). The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced-yeas 37, nays 52, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So Mr. BELLMON'S amendment was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was rejected be reconsidered.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.