March 20, 1974
Page 7497
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I say to the Senator from North Carolina that there is nothing in this bill to bring about a balanced budget. There is nothing in this bill to demand a balanced budget. I do not see one line in here that says we will have a balanced budget.
Mr. ERVIN. No, but the bill requires that the first concurrent resolution will tell us how much money we have available, and then we will legislate in light of that fact.
As I said yesterday, if, after this bill takes effect, we appropriate more money than we have, we are sinning, not as we have in the past, in the dark, but we are sinning in the light.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. But we are still sinning.
Mr. ERVIN. Let us hope that we will not sin.
Mr. HAPPY F. BYRD, JR. That is a hopeless hope, I think.
Mr. ERVIN. I still have optimism, even when I do not expect that things will come about as I hope.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I have optimism for most things, but I do not have much optimism about what Congress is going to do when it starts passing around tax money.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not want to take too much time, but I think two or three additional observations might be useful.
In the first place, I think it is clear from the bill and the committee reports as they have been developed that the information made available to Congress by the Executive will make clear the steps that need to be taken to balance the budget. I believe that is what the Senator has in mind.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. That is exactly what the Senator has in mind.
Mr. MUSKIE. So I think that information will be available.
The second point is that if what the Senator has in mind is that the President should recommend a balanced budget and present no other options to Congress, that would be a disservice to Congress and an even greater disservice to the country. Without this bill the President is in the best position to evaluate economic option at the present time.
Hopefully, we can match his capability with this bill. But at the present time, he is in the best position to evaluate the impact of Federal budgets upon the economy and to project what is likely to happen in the range of relationships between the budget and the state of the economy. So, if the purpose of the Senator's amendment is to limit the President's recommendations to those of a balanced budget, the effect will be to deprive Congress of a great deal of useful information it should have.
The third point I want to make is this: The Senator has stressed, and rightly, the impact upon our economy of the Federal budget, given its present magnitude and complexity. The Senator is concerned about the inflationary pressures that are generated by a Federal budget. But let me make this point about the current fiscal year: If we had a balanced budget with respect to non-trust fund activities of the Government, we would be running a budget surplus of $10 billion to $15 billion this year, at a time when most economists agree that the economy is slowing down and needs some stimulation. If we had that kind of policy fixed, then we would not be in a position to respond to the current economic situation. A surplus in this kind of situation would have a depressive effect upon the economy, like it or not.
The final point I should like to make is that the effect of the Senator's amendment, if it were implemented by budget policy, would be to destroy the concept of the unified budget. That concept is fairly new, but I think it is useful, if we are to be in a position to evaluate the total impact of Federal expenditures and outlays upon the economy; and if we are to fracture the unified budget concept again as it was not so long ago, I think that again we would be limiting our ability to use effectively and wisely the potential for dealing with inflation or depression which lies in the Federal budget.
I make those observations with respect to the overall objective of the bill. Its purpose – and I think it will be effective in this respect – is to stimulate the development of budgetary and fiscal discipline on the part of Congress and on the part of the Executive. It does so by establishing procedures, by establishing new resources in terms of the Congressional Office of the Budget, computerized technology, and so forth. Mostly, it would do so by making clear to every Member of Congress what the options are and what the consequences of spending legislation may be. The discipline of information and disclosure of that information to Congress and to the public are what this bill relies upon, together with procedures that force us to confront these decisions on a regular, ongoing basis, at each point of which the consequences will be clear.
So I can understand the Senator's pessimism about the possible results because of our past failures to deal with this issue. But I thought that these additional observations might be a useful addition to the discussion on the Senator's very valuable amendment. I think we would all like to see the day when this kind of fiscal discipline again rules Federal expenditures.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the Senator. He has made useful and helpful comments.
I point out that if this amendment were adopted, the option would lie with Congress. It applies to the original presentation of the budget. Congress would have whatever options it felt were desirable and worthwhile, but at least it would start with a balanced budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator were to say that the President ought to make available to us information as to what decisions would be required to achieve a balance of the kind the Senator speaks about, that kind of information would be useful.