March 22, 1974
Page 7904
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I have asked for this time to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from Maine.
If I may, let me give just a little background. The Senator from Illinois has described how this amendment for limited terms was considered both in subcommittee and in full committee. I recall when the Senator from Minnesota came over and testified on this proposal very persuasively, very eloquently. It was so persuasive that the Senator from Maine offered the proposal in subcommittee and I offered it in full committee – or one very similar to it.
However, subsequently I testified before the Committee on Rules and Administration and suggested that the most important thing in this bill was to be sure that this committee was a prestigious committee of the highest category.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point an excerpt from my testimony, before the Committee on Rules and Administration.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Equally critical – if we are to significantly improve our handling of budgetary decisions – is the method of selection and composition of the Committee on the Budget. No other aspect of this budgetary control legislation received more careful committee review. I am sure we considered every realistic alternative – including the possibility of having no such committee – before deciding on the provisions for this important new committee that are contained in S. 1541.
For example, we considered and rejected language limiting Budget Committee members to 6 years' service, a limitation I favored, to insure that the committee – which has responsibilities affecting all other committees – would remain representative, reflecting the diversity of interests, geographical areas, and seniority groups in the Senate.
As you know, H.R. 7130, the House bill, includes such a provision limiting service on the House Budget Committee to two Congresses in any 10-year period.
The House measure also allots 10 seats on the 23-member Budget Committee to the Appropriations and Ways and Means Committees, with these financial committee representatives to be selected, also by the caucuses, "at large," and 2 seats will go to members of the majority and minority party leadership.
Provision in S. 1541 for a 15-member Senate Budget Committee, selected in the usual manner – and classified as a "major" but not "exclusive" committee – is a compromise approach. As was the case where proposals for limiting terms of service were concerned, we considered and rejected various formulas for allotment of seats to the financial committees. However, it was – and is – our expectation that, in the normal course of events, the respective party caucuses will select Senators whose experience on these committees equips them to contribute the kind of expertise that the Budget Committee must have if it is to function properly.
Let me emphasize this point: Classification of the Budget Committee with the major standing committees in paragraph 2 of rule 25 of the Standing Rules of the Senate is essential.
I strongly support retention of this status for the Budget Committee, with full applicability of paragraph 6 of rule 25.
In accordance with the rule, Senators selected to serve on the Budget Committee can serve on only one other of the "major" committees named in paragraph 2. This does not preclude Appropriations and Finance Committee members from serving on the Budget Committee.
However, it does mean that a member of either committee, if he desired to continue on Appropriations or Finance, would have to relinquish any other paragraph 2 committee he might be on in order to serve on the Budget Committee. The same principle applies where other paragraph 2 committees are concerned.
Mr. Chairman, any amendment that would permanently waive application of paragraph 6 to the Budget Committee – and I am almost certain that there will be some sentiment for such an amendment – will seriously diminish the effectiveness of this committee.
Surely, the time of most Senators is too heavily committed now. Simply adding on another committee responsibility would spread the time and attention of the Senators selected to serve even more thinly.
The problem of meeting conflicts – and the already grave difficulty of getting members together for a quorum on some committees – would be exacerbated.
The unique character and functions of the Budget Committee cannot help but demand the continuing attention and interest of individual Senators serving on it. Will Senators already discharging important responsibilities – holding subcommittee chairmanships, for example – on two other major committees have the time or energy to devote to a new "add-on" Budget Committee?
In most instances, the answer is "No" – and, whatever the skill and dedication of its staff, the prospects for effective performance by this committee would suffer accordingly.
I recognize the difficulties in applying paragraph 6; adjustments will be required in the size of some standing committees, because 15 Senators going on the Budget Committee will be leaving one of their major committee assignments. And for the Senator presently serving on two major committees in which he has an important State interest or in which he has attained considerable seniority, the choice could well be a painful one to make.
Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons for forcing such hard choices. Surely, as the time and other pressures continue to increase for the individual Senator, we ought to be distributing the workload – and important responsibility – more widely throughout the Senate.
We must insure that the Budget Committee includes the less senior Senators who are not now fully preoccupied with myriad other committee duties and who can therefore devote the necessary attention to its important functions. I believe that application of paragraph 6 will contribute toward this objective.
Mr. METCALF. After its deliberations, the Rules and Administration Committee provided for a temporary suspension of paragraph 6, and it was my feeling that this was a better solution than anything that had been developed in the Committee on Government Operations.
Then, yesterday the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) modified the Rules and Administration Committee's language so that the suspension of paragraph 6 will only last until January 1977. I certainly approve that modification and I feel that was a service to the bill.
But to make sure the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act are carried out after January 1977, I have asked for this time to discuss with the Senator from Maine what happens as a result of the Kennedy amendment and the action of the Rules Committee.
I expect that the temporary suspension of paragraph 6 of rule 25 is to provide for an orderly transition so that Senators initially serving on the Budget Committee will have until January 1977 to decide whether they will relinquish one of their other Class A standing committees or remain on the Budget Committee. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. METCALF. It is clearly the intent of this temporary suspension that those serving on the Budget Committee will have to choose at the beginning of the 95th Congress. Do we have any assurance that suspension of paragraph 6 will not be extended at that time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course, the Senate at any time could change the rule. That is the prerogative of the Senate. But I expect that once this formula is approved by the Senate as a whole, it will hold.
Mr. METCALF. But is it the contemplation of the floor managers, after agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts, that there will be an extension after 1977?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not at all. May I add a few observations at this point?
Mr. METCALF. I will appreciate any remarks that the Senator may make, to make certain the record is clear on this point.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Montana and I have both at separate times supported the concept of the Nelson amendment. I think our support of that amendment sprang from the original proposal of the joint study committee.
The joint study committee provided for a budget committee for each house with a percentage of members required to be drawn from the appropriations and tax-writing committees. In addition, there were special rules as to the chairmanship.
We felt that such limitations as to composition of members and chairmanship could result in an imbalance of representation of Congressional views as to the budget and as to spending priorities, and that what we were doing was establishing a committee which in some ways would impinge upon the jurisdiction and prerogatives of each committee, and the authorization committee as well.
So, we concluded that every Member of the Senate should be eligible for membership on the Budget Committee. It was for that reason that the proposal now advanced by the Senator from Wisconsin had the support of the Senator from Maine in subcommittee and the Senator from Montana in full committee.
One drawback of that proposal from the beginning seemed to me to be a constant changing of the membership of the Budget Committee, a constantly changing membership of the committee so that members of the committee would not develop the kind of background, experience, and expertise that members of standing committees customarily develop in connection with their responsibilities.
So with the changes that have been made, I expect, with the Senator from Montana, that the 1977 date will hold. At that point those who are members of the Budget Committee would make the decision whether or not to stay on that committee and give up another class A committee or the alternative.
Mr. METCALF. I thank the Senator from Maine. I think that makes clear the point I was trying to nail down: That it was not contemplated by this temporary suspension that we set aside the provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, nor curtail the prestigious nature of this committee by making it a third committee or a committee with less stature than the other class A standing committees.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. It is our purpose that the eligibility for service on this committee be extended to all Members of the Senate, and by making it a class A committee we insure that those Senators who already have established positions do not simply accumulate this new responsibility in addition. That may be one of the purposes of the Nelson amendment, and I think it is well served by the present status of the bill.
Mr. METCALF. I thank the Senator from Maine for the contribution he has made.
Mr. CRANSTON. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) about a provision of the committee report on page 7 where it states that the party caucuses shall select the membership of this Budget Committee in a similar manner to their roles for general selection of committees. Is it the intention of the managers of this proposal to give the party caucuses more than a passive role in determining the membership of this important committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. As the distinguished Senator knows, the Senate rules provide no specific authority for party caucuses, but in effect the majority and minority members of committees are determined by the respective caucuses and comity is provided so as not to disturb the recommendations of the respective caucuses.
The committee report on this bill recognizes the role of the caucus in an explicit way. The party caucus represents in each new Congress the current and prevailing attitude of each party toward the many issues to come before the Senate. The membership of each committee should reflect as closely as possible the prevailing view of the respective caucus. Only in that way can the Members of the Senate as a whole – the committee of the Senate – have their recommendations consistent with the prevailing attitudes of the Senate.
The committee report encourages the practice that has existed with respect to the caucus in the committee selection and indeed encourages a more active role on the part of each caucus. By explicitly mentioning a role for each caucus, there need be no hesitancy for each caucus to play an active role in these determinations. The efficiency and effectiveness of the Senate committee, and the Senate, as a whole, will be enhanced with this added dimension of each party caucus.