April 4, 1973
Page 11043
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall take but a few moments. I know that the time is limited.
I subscribe completely to the comments of the distinguished Senator from North Carolina. It has been a privilege to work with him in the development of the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that a statement I have prepared and also an analysis of title II be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
IMPOUNDMENT-SPENDING CEILING AMENDMENT
(By Senator MUSKIE)
I support the amendment offered by Senator Ervin which would provide a procedure for determining illegal impoundments and which would keep Federal expenditures during Fiscal Year 1974 under a ceiling of $268 billion.
The Senator from North Carolina has already explained Title I of his amendment, which deals with the anti-impoundment procedures. I concur wholeheartedly with his statements and, for that reason, I shall not discuss Title I at this time.
Title II of his amendment, which provides for the spending ceiling, is similar to the amendment to the impoundment legislation I introduced yesterday in the Committee on Government Operations. That amendment, after some modification, was adopted by the Committee by an overwhelming majority.
I wish to commend the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Mondale) for his efforts in seeking a reasonable spending ceiling. Many of the elements in an amendment introduced last week by Senator Mondale have been incorporated into Title II of the amendment we are considering today.
The $268 billion spending ceiling in the Ervin amendment is a reasonable and responsible figure.
It is $700 million less than the figure requested by the President in his Fiscal 1974 budget.
It is another illustration that the Congress is responsible in its efforts to keep Federal spending under control. A $268 billion budget will insure continued economic growth, but it will prevent Federal spending from reaching a level which would add additional fuel to the fires of inflation.
Enactment of this spending ceiling would be consistent with the efforts of Congress over the past four years to cut the President's budget proposals. Let us not forget that the President has never submitted a balanced budget to Congress. Let us not forget that the accumulated Federal debt in the past five years has been greater than the accumulated Federal debt in the previous 25 years. And let us not forget that Congress has cut every one of the President's budget proposals – for a total savings of $20 billion in appropriations.
Title II of this amendment contains two other important elements.
First, it would allow Congress to review the spending ceiling in the event that tax reform legislation it enacts after the ceiling is set increases the amount of revenue that the Treasury will receive during Fiscal 1974. That legislation would allow the Congress to determine whether the additional revenues made available should be applied to essential public services for which adequate funding would otherwise not be provided.
Second, Title II outlines a procedure for reducing Federal expenditures to the level of the spending ceiling that is consistent with the impoundment procedures in Title I of the amendment.
It requires the President to make proportional cuts from the funds available for controllable expenditures in each functional category and, to the extent practicable, in each subfunctional category of the budget, in order to reduce expenditures beneath the spending ceiling. None of those cuts could come from the funds set aside for interest, veterans' benefits and services, payments for social insurance trust funds, public assistance maintenance grants under Title IV of the Social Security Act, food stamps, military retirement pay, Medicaid, and judicial salaries.
As under the impoundment procedures the President must send a message to Congress detailing his recommended cuts. If the Comptroller General determines that the cuts have been made proportionately across the board, then the President could go ahead and make those cuts. In the event the Comptroller General determines that the President has not proposed cuts that are consistent with the requirement that he make proportionate cuts, then his recommended cuts would be subject to the same procedures as any other impoundment and would have to cease after 60 days unless Congress affirmatively approved the cuts.
This amendment also has specific safeguards to guard against any cuts proposed by the President for the purpose of meeting the spending ceiling being used for the purpose of eliminating a program the creation or continuation of which has been authorized by Congress.
Mr. President, this amendment has been hammered out in an open Committee meeting of the Government Operations Committee. In it we have sought to meet the questions raised by the Senator from Florida (Mr. Chiles), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Nunn), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth), and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Brock). All of them joined in support of the spending ceiling Title of this amendment.
In its deliberations, the Committee also took note of the outstanding work being done by the Senator from Montana (Mr. Metcalf) in his Subcommittee on Budgeting, Management, and Expenditures which is considering measures to reform the overall budgeting procedures. It was the clear intent of the Committee that the action it took on a one-year spending ceiling amendment should in no way impair the important work of Senator Metcalf's Subcommittee.
The spending ceiling amendment is the product of careful and detailed deliberations by the Committee on Government Operations. It has been carefully drafted so that it complements the impoundment provisions in Title I of this amendment. It reflects the view of the members of the Committee on Government Operations that a spending ceiling amendment should not be enacted by Congress unless it is accompanied by strong anti-impoundment provisions.
This amendment deserves the support of the Senate.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF TITLE II
Title II, entitled Ceiling on Fiscal Year 1974 Expenditures, calls for a $268 billion ceiling on Federal expenditures for Fiscal Year 1974 and provides a mechanism by which the Executive Branch can reduce expenditures for that ceiling level if appropriations exceed it.
The purpose of this Title is to make the mechanism for reducing expenditures below the spending ceiling consistent with the anti-impoundment procedures outlined in Title I of the legislation.
Section 201 (a) provides that during Fiscal Year 1974 expenditures and net lending under the budget shall not exceed $268 Billion.
Section 201(b) provides that in the event that the estimates of revenues that the Treasury Department expects to receive during Fiscal 1974 are increased as the result of tax reform legislation enacted by the Congress after the enactment of this legislation, the spending ceiling shall be reviewed by the Congress for the purpose of determining whether the additional revenues made available shall be applied to essential public services for which adequate funding would not otherwise be provided.
Section 202(a) requires the President to reserve from expenditures and net lending and from appropriations or other obligational authority such funds as are necessary to keep expenditures and net lending during Fiscal Year 1974 under the spending ceiling.
Section 202(b) provides that the President in reducing expenditures and net lending under the spending ceiling shall cut amounts proportionately from new obligational authority and other obligational authority available for each functional category and, to the extent practicable, for each subfunctional category (as set out in the U.S. Budget in brief for Fiscal Year 1974) except that he shall not cut from the funds set aside for interest, veterans' benefits and services, payments from social insurance trust funds, public assistance maintenance grants under Title IV of the Social Security Act, food stamps, military retirement pay, Medicaid, and judicial salaries.
Section 202(c) provides that the President in making cuts to bring expenditures and net lending under the spending ceiling shall be subject to the impoundment provisions of Title I of this bill, except if the Comptroller General of the United States determines that the cuts proposed by the President to bring expenditures and net lending under the spending ceiling meet the proportionate requirements of Subsection 202(b), then Sections 3 and 5 of Title I of this Act shall not apply.
Section 202(d) provides that the provisions of Section 3 of Title I which prohibit reimpounding of funds shall not apply to the cuts made by the President in order to bring expenditures and net lending under the spending ceiling.
Section 202(e) provides that in no event shall the authority given to the President under the spending ceiling Title be used for the purpose of eliminating a program the creation or continuation of which has been authorized by the Congress.
Section 203 provides that in the case of formula grant programs which must be reduced in order to meet the spending ceiling requirements, the same formula as authorized in the program shall be applied to the reduced amount.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to make some brief observations. First of all, I compliment the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, and also the distinguished Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) for the outstanding hearings which they held and the contributions which they made to develop title I of the amendment.
For my part, I should like to make these points about title II, which relates to the spending ceiling. Title II is added to the bill as a result of an amendment offered in committee, as the Senator from North Carolina has explained. It would establish a spending ceiling of $268 billion for the fiscal year 1974.
Several provisions in the amendment ought to be called to the attention of the Senate. First of all, it provides for a 1-year spending ceiling. Second, it contains a provision that if additional revenue should be generated by tax reform legislation passed by Congress, Congress would review the spending ceiling for the purpose of determining whether such additional revenue should be made available for beneficial public services which might otherwise mot be provided for.
That is not an automatic raising of the ceiling, it simply provides realistically that Congress would look at it.
The next point I would like to make about the amendment is that if by actions taken later this year, after this provision becomes law, Congress should provide for expenditures exceeding the ceiling, the President is then authorized to reserve expenditures, but to do so across the board, so that the thrust of the reservations will not have the effect of killing programs which Congress has approved. There is a provision that the Comptroller General shall review actions taken by the President in this respect and determine whether or not they are consistent. If they are not consistent with the conditions laid down by Congress in title II, then Congress would have the opportunity to review the rescissions by the President.
I think it is a sensible compromise, Mr. President, of the various points of view which were offered in the committee, and so I support title II, and also, of course, title I, which is primarily the work of the subcommittee headed by the Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) under Senator ERVIN.
So I urge the Senate to adopt the amendment, and I compliment my distinguished friends from Ohio and from Oklahoma for accepting the differences represented by the Ervin bill and, in effect, adopting that amendment.