August 2, 1974
Page 26548
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I should like to make a few observations and direct some questions to the distinguished floor manager of the bill.
First of all, there have been several references in the last couple of days to the fact that the Budget Committee has now been authorized by Congress and is about to be formed; and there is some tendency to suggest that as a result of that act alone, 15 Senators suddenly are going to have the wisdom to deal with the complexities of a budget which has been the subject of review and close examination by the Appropriations Committees of both Houses over these few months.
I would not have accepted the Chairmanship of the Budget Committee unless I understood the need for budget restraints. And I do not believe there is a Senator in this body who does not recognize the need for a sound economy. But there is clearly widespread disagreement as to how both of these objectives should be achieved and what approaches could be most productive.
Until the Budget Committee is organized – and it is not as yet – until it has had an opportunity to examine the complex economic, budgetary, and fiscal questions with which it is our responsibility to deal, I think it would be presumptuous and misleading to suggest to this body and to the country that we have an independent capacity to form policy in these areas.
We may, under the pressure of the present inflation and on an ad hoc basis, as a collection of 15 Senators, decide to recommend something to this body; but to suggest that we would be able to do so pursuant to the comprehensive policymaking process that was created by the legislation is a misleading kind of idea to throw around on the floor of the Senate. At the present time, only the Appropriations Committee, in the spending field, has the resources and has given the time to considering the implications of proposals to cut the budget this year.
So in votes on budget-cutting proposals during the past 2 days, I have relied on the Appropriations Committee. Each proposal raises the question of budget priorities: are we cutting what is more important and overlooking what is less important? That question cannot be answered within the confines of a debate about only one of the 13 or 14 appropriations bills. It can only be answered if we consider the total; and only the Appropriations Committee, at this time, is in a position to do that.
So I have relied on the judgment of the Appropriations Committee. During the last few years, under the able chairmanship of Senator McCLELLAN, and I have found that their instinct to cut to the bone, or close to it, has been very strong. They have generally been fiscally responsible and prudent.
The distinguished floor manager of the bill has just told us that, as a result of the Appropriations Committee's recommendations, Congress has cut $23 billion from budget estimates in the last 4 or 5 years. So the record is clear. The Appropriations Committee is a committee upon which we can rely, and I have done so.
My distinguished colleague from West Virginia, the floor manager of the bill recommends this cut. He has studied the part of the budget contained in this bill, as a member of the committee, and is in a position to see the overall picture. I am inclined, provided I am satisfied with the answers to some questions I intend to ask, to support his proposal, because it is based on his work in the only committee now equipped to answer the basis question: Are we cutting what is more important or what is less important?
We still need more and better answers to this question in the future, however. Unless the budget committee was created to help us answer those questions, there is no need for the budget committee. We can always get a collection of 15 Senators to come to the floor of the Senate and pick a figure out of the air – 3 percent, 3½ percent, 5 percent – and cut across the board.
If that is all the Budget Committee was created to do, then we would be wasting time, money, and energy – not only of the 15 who are members but the rest of Congress as well – in even going through the exercise.
So we vote today with no suddenly acquired wisdom merely by virtue of the fact that the Budget Committee has been authorized to begin its work. The Republican members of the Budget Committee have not even yet been picked, and the House members have not been picked. We do not yet have even one staff member. We do not have a room in which to operate. We have not even met formally; only the nine Democratic members have yet gathered together, on a brief, ad hoc basis, the other day. But suddenly it is suggested that the Budget Committee ought to move in with the wisdom to deal with this complex question.
I should like now to ask this question of the Senator from West Virginia: Is it true, as I understand it, that the 3.5 percent proposed cut applies only to the new budget authority of $3.4 billion?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The cut does not apply, as I understand it, to the $5.5 billion in appropriations with respect to contract authority?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand it, this bill is $155 million under the revised budget requests.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. So that the Appropriations Committee, in the actions it has already taken on this measure has made cuts, below the budget estimates, which is consistent with its history.
Next, this bill is about $200 million over last year's level of expenditures. Is that not correct?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. $193.2 million over the appropriations for 1974.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand it, about half of that increase relates to the Coast Guard, and the remainder, I think, to the FAA. Is that correct?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. For the Coast Guard, new budget authority, $102,473,994 over the 1974 figure.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the remainder of the increase substantially attributable to the FAA?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. For the FAA, there is an increase of $108,084,000.
Mr. MUSKIE. So in these two areas there are increases of approximately $100 million each. As I understand the effect of the 3.5-percent cut, it would be to cut other programs below their level of spending in the last fiscal year, while preserving increases for those two programs for the next fiscal year over the current fiscal year. Is that an oversimplification, or an accurate statement of the effect?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. There has been an increase in the new budget authority for the Coast Guard, for the Federal Aviation Administration, for the Highway Administration, for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for the Federal Railroad Administration, and for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration.
For each of the agencies within the Department of Transportation there is an increase represented in this bill, over 1974, with the exception of one item – that is the Office of the Secretary.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have a further question for the distinguished Senator.
This bill is only about $200 million over last year's level overall, and for two of the programs we have discussed there are increases of $200 million – so how do the rest of the programs get increases without a cut somewhere along the line below last year's spending?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Well, for the most part, I think it can be stated this way.
The recommendations that are in the bill represent an increase in budget authority over 1974 for almost all of the agencies represented, but insofar as the administration's budget request is concerned, it represents a reduction of $154 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that, but overall the total is $200 million over last year's level and that $200 million appeared to be accounted for by increases for the Coast Guard and the FAA.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. So all others must be at about last year's level?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. For the most part, they are over last year's level.
There are three of the related agencies which would suffer reductions: The United States Railway Association, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the Civil Aeronautics Board. But there was no request on the part of the Railway Association.
Mr. MUSKIE. I see.
What I am leading up to is this question. First of all, I am in thorough sympathy with the point of view of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the Senator from New Jersey, the minority floor leader, the Senator from Alaska, and others, who have expressed concern about the resources of the Coast Guard, not only with respect to the 200-mile limit, but also with respect to enforcing the pollution standards that Congress has imposed on oceangoing traffic.
If the Coast Guard is to do that job, and I understand that part of the increase is for that purpose, their additional funding is very important. But so far as the Coast Guard and the FAA are concerned the 3½ percent will not wipe out their increases, but simply reduce their increases by that amount.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes; it would simply reduce the increases.
Mr. MUSKIE. Now, my final question, or next to final question to the Senator
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLEN). All time of the Senator from West Virginia on the bill has expired.
The Senator from New Jersey has 18 minutes.
Mr. CASE. I yield 5 minutes.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the effect of the 3½ percent cut is to hurt programs that are important, what relief then would be available?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The conferees on the part of the Senate will have an opportunity prior to the conference with the other body to take this matter up with the Department of Transportation and to find out from the Department what the situation is with respect to a 3½-percent across-the-board cut in the budget authority.
In going into conference, we will have this new information, we will know what areas will suffer more than others, and we will, hopefully, be able to make appropriate adjustments in conference.
Then, too, there is another step which the Senator knows can be taken. The supplemental appropriations bill is considered by the committee. If this action today unduly injures any particular item, then consideration can be given at that time to restoring the amount.
Mr. MUSKIE. Could I put a suggestion to the distinguished Senator, and also to my good friend from New Jersey?
It is obvious that the impulse for cutting is very strong; the evidence of the last 2 days speaks for itself. I suspect that judgment will be supported by the action of the Senate today. But what we are doing is still piecemeal, and it seems to me that if we are going to go through this exercise in every one of the 13 or 14 bills that the Appropriations Committee considers, we will take under advisement an overall policy that will apply to all bills, taking into account what is important and what is not, so that perhaps–
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time yielded to the Senator from Maine has expired.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield another 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. So that appropriate consideration can be given to the priorities in the context of the overall policy.
I know there is going to be the request by the Senator from South Carolina to the Budget Committee to take on this massive job. We do not have the resources yet. We would be happy to consult with the Appropriations Committee.
But it seems to me, going through this exercise day after day after day, that the time has come when we ought to join with the Appropriations Committee, if that committee wishes to do so, in consultation about the wisdom of the overall policy. Frankly I am terribly disturbed that, without knowing the impact on particular programs, we are going to be cutting things that ought not to be cut and overlooking other cuts that might better be made.
So I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the floor manager of the bill, whether or not there is any sense to that.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I cannot speak for the Appropriations Committee. I would not offer an across-the-board-cut amendment to any other appropriation bill. I would vote one way or the other if such amendments were offered. But this is the bill that I and the distinguished Senator from New Jersey and other members of the subcommittee have worked on, conducted hearings on, and we have brought it to the floor and I feel that I can do this without any compunction because we have been very liberal in that committee with all of the agencies that are represented.
My own State is affected by those agencies and I do not have any hesitancy when it comes to handling the bill that is brought up by my subcommittee. I have no hesitancy offering such an amendment. I think this cut can be absorbed.
We will go to conference and see what happens there. It is not my desire to unduly injure the programs that are being carried out by any of these agencies under the mandate of the Congress.
I am as sympathetic as any Senator with the programs, but I just cannot believe that, out of a budget of over $3 billion, the Department cannot absorb a 3.5 percent reduction as provided in this amendment.
Now, with some activities within the Department it might be more than minor, but I think we can work with this in conference and, again, when the next supplements come before us.
I cannot speak for the committee, I can only speak for myself.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am most appreciative of the Senator's comments, they are very helpful to me.
May I make one other suggestion?
May I have 30 seconds?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield time? Twelve minutes remain.
Mr. CASE. I yield a couple of minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. One other suggestion: It seems to me, looking toward the possibility of repeating this exercise, that when time agreements are reached in the future on appropriations bills there should be taken into consideration the need to look into the components of these bills.
Because if we are going to get into a debate on priorities, if this whole issue is not resolved by overall policy, I think every Senator has every right to inquire into the impact on particular programs and functions, to see whether indeed we are applying the right priorities under pressure of cutting the budget.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no objection to taking more time today on this bill, but there are some Senators who are not in a position to take additional time. They have made appointments and reservations on airlines. It is only for that reason that I am concerned about the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator that my suggestion was not an implied criticism on the time, because I think we may have dealt sufficiently with this matter today.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. But for other bills, to allow discussion of more details, I think we may need more time.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I understand.