March 21, 1974
Page 7660
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, this amendment is a modified version of my printed amendment No. 1044. My amendment in no way affects the discipline imposed by the bill. It relates only to the jurisdictional question affecting certain specific types of legislation.
Mr. President, S. 1541 is designed to promote fiscal responsibility by reforming the budget process so as to make it reflect congressional priorities. It will establish a framework, reflecting Congressional priorities, which will provide a discipline under which all congressional action affecting the budget can be seen in an overall context.
I strongly support S. 1541 for the discipline it creates and for the central role it gives congressional decision making.
As I have said, my amendment in no way affects the discipline imposed by the bill. It relates only to a jurisdictional question affecting certain specific types of legislation. The amendment would delete the requirement that legislation affecting certain programs be referred to the Appropriations Committee, but instead offers that committee an opportunity to report on this legislation before the Senate acts on it.
Under S. 1541, legislation creating a new entitlement to payments or increasing existing entitlements must be referred to the Appropriations Committee for a period of 10 days after it is reported by a substantive committee. This requirement of referral to the Appropriations Committee would not affect existing trust fund programs but it would apply to such programs as veterans' compensation, veterans' pensions, veterans' educational benefits, payments to needy, aged, blind, and disabled persons, medical assistance to the needy, and food stamps.
This additional referral to the Appropriations Committee was not requested by that committee and it will occur at a time when the Appropriations Committee will be fully occupied in attempting to process all appropriations legislation.
Mr. President, it has been my experience that entitlement programs handled by the Finance Committee often involve complex legislation. Usually, this legislation does not merely add dollar costs to a program but instead reflects many complicated changes in the law. The value of our committee system in the Senate is that it permits each committee to develop expertise in the area it handles. For example, major legislation enacted in recent years has made dozens of modifications in the programs of aid to the aged and in medicaid, and these changes have not merely represented payment increases.
Furthermore, the rereferral in S. 1541 is required even when the substantive committee reports legislation whose budgetary impact has been fully provided for in the congressional budget. Since the bill creates a discipline for the Congress, there is no need for an additional step which adds nothing to that discipline.
The Senate is, I am sure, aware of my interest in our programs for veterans. I have always been concerned that when we increase social security benefits, we assure that veterans do not suffer a loss in pension benefits. It has been the pattern of the Congress to meet this problem by rewriting the veterans' pension provisions in the law. This is a matter requiring careful work, and is not simply a matter of adding additional funds to the veterans' pension program.
My printed amendment in its original form would have deleted the process of referring certain legislation to the Appropriations Committee. In its modified form now pending, worked out with the staff of the Senator from Maine, my amendment will provide the Appropriations Committee an opportunity to report on the legislation before it is considered by the full Senate.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I rise only to extend my support to this very worthy amendment. Many of us have been deeply concerned about this subject matter, particularly when we get to the matter of social security increases and what has been the effect on some of the other pension rights our citizens are entitled to. We always depend on the Senator from Connecticut to help us out on these matters, and I extend my full support to his amendment.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, among the cosponsors of this amendment are the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance (Mr. LONG), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare (Mr. WILLIAMS), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (Mr. HARTKE), and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works (Mr. RANDOLPH), who all feel that this is a most important amendment and should be adopted.
I ask unanimous consent that communications in support of this proposal from the National Association of Concerned Veterans, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the AMVETS be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONCERNED VETERANS,
Washington, D.C.,
March 20, 1974.
Hon. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, S. 1541, provides many sensible and much needed budget reforms. However, the National Association of Concerned Veterans strongly opposes section 401 of this measure.
Section 401 details a provision requiring a number of veterans' entitlement programs to be re-referred to the Appropriations Committee for possible imposition of spending limits – before reaching the Senate floor. Certain non-veterans' entitlement programs are to be exempted from this re-referral provision.
Aside from objecting to the obvious discriminatory nature of section 401, NACV believes this re-referral provision to be unnecessary. Other provisions of S. 1541 establish effective controls over veterans entitlement programs.
The NACV, formerly the National Association of Collegiate Veterans, consists mainly of young veterans currently training under the GI Bill, and many who receive disability compensation.
The NACV fully endorses your amendment to S. 1541 which would eliminate this referral process. We thank you for taking such action, and urge Senate adoption of your amendment.
Respectfully yours,
JAMES M. MAYER, President.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Senator ABRAHAM RIBICOFF,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
The American Legion supports your proposed amendment to exempt veterans benefits legislation from the re-referral provisions of section 401 of S. 1501, the budget reform bill now under consideration by the Senate. We oppose that provision which would permit the Appropriations Committee to limit spending authority of any veterans entitlement legislation referred to it. As you know, veterans benefits including compensation, pensions, educational assistance and medical and hospital treatment represents only 4.4 percent of the total Federal budget notwithstanding a 21-percent increase in the Nations veterans population in recent years.
The American Legion believes that the cost of veterans benefits is a delayed cost of war, To subject the veterans entitlement program to the re-referral provision of section 401 would not control back door spending and would vest partial jurisdiction over veterans legislation in another committee. To single out the veterans benefit program for re-referral is unnecessary and discriminatory and would impede the progress of needed legislation.
Your continued interest in protecting the rights of veterans is deeply appreciated.
HERALD STRINGER,
National Legislative Director,
the American Legion.
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS,
March 21, 1974.
Hon. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: The Disabled American Veterans is greatly concerned over the adverse affect that the re-referral provisions of Section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act (S. 1541) could have upon the nation's programs of veterans' benefits and services.
We firmly believe that referral of veterans' entitlement legislation to the Committee on Appropriations is unwarranted, and we strongly support the amendment that you will offer to delete this discriminatory section from the bill.
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES L. HUBER,
National Director of Legislation.
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, D.C.,
March 21, 1974.
Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: The Veterans of Foreign Wars is extremely pleased that you propose to offer an amendment on Thursday, March 21, to S. 1541, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which, if approved, will delete a highly discriminatory provision regarding veterans statutory and entitlement programs.
I am referring to the re-referral provision for veterans entitlement legislation in S. 1541. A thorough analysis of this provision leads to the conclusion that it is unwarranted and unnecessary and discriminates against veterans programs.
Because it is most important to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, our Commander-in-Chief Ray Soden is sending a letter to each of your 99 colleagues urging them to vote in favor of your amendment to delete the re-referral provision as it relates to veterans programs.
You have the highest commendation for your initiative and leadership in bringing this matter to the attention of your Senate colleagues and Senate acceptance of your amendment will be deeply
appreciated by the more than 1.8 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
A copy of Commander-in-Chief Soden's letter is enclosed.
With kind personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
FRANCIS W. STOVER,
National Legislative Service.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Senator VANCE HARTKE,
Capitol Hill,
Washington, D.C.:
Amvets urges the adoption of Senator Ribicoff amendment to Senate bill S1541 as it pertains to excluding veterans programs from fixed budgetary allocation.
Commander BERGE AVADANIAN,
National Commander Amvets.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the proposed amendment of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut has not yet been cleared with all Senators who are interested in the issue at this time, so I wonder if it might not be helpful if I took a few moments to explain why this provision is in the bill, and what purpose we hope the revised amendment of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut would serve. It is a complex issue to understand. This statement is not intended as a direct thrust at the Senator's amendment, but at the overall problem of entitlement legislation.
REASONS WHY ENTITLEMENTS MUST BE REPORTED TO APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
Entitlements are easy to give but virtually impossible to take away. They are the least controllable portion of the Federal budget and the portion most in need of reform. Unless Congress establishes a procedure to bring them under effective control, the objective of budget reform will be seriously compromised.
Entitlement authority exists when Congress vests a person or Government with certain benefits.
An obligation to pay the benefits is thus established in advance of or without appropriation.
Often such entitlements are open-ended with the actual amount of expenditure determined by outside forces – such as the size of the beneficiary population. In these instances, the budget merely contains an estimate of the amount that will be required in the fiscal year to pay the obligations. In recent years, the budget has tended to underestimate the benefits that will have to be paid with the result that actual expenditures have exceeded the budgeted amounts.
Many entitlements are in the form of permanent appropriations; that is, the money becomes available without any current action by Congress. Even when an entitlement is funded through appropriations, Congress has no genuine control over the matter, for a legal or moral obligation already exists.
Well over $100 billion in the 1975 budget takes the form of mandatory entitlements which are uncontrollable under current law. These entitlements are the fastest growing portion of the budget and they account in good part for the mandatory year-to-year rise in Federal spending. Of the $30 billion escalation in the 1975 budget, at least half of the increase occurs in entitlement programs. This means that even before the President or Congress makes a single decision on 1975 programs and priorities, they are faced with approximately $20 billion more in spending than in the previous year.
The only point at which entitlements can be controlled – the only point at which Congress can make meaningful decisions – is before the entitlement is established. Afterwards it is too late, not only for this year but for future years as well. This is the reason why S. 1541 establishes a special procedure for the consideration of entitlement legislation. Under section 401, entitlement legislation would have to be referred to the Appropriations Committee – under a 10-day limit – from the committee of original jurisdiction. Thus, when the matter comes to the floor for determination, Members would have the legislation as reported by the authorizing committee as well as any amendments offered by the Appropriations Committee. At this point, the Senate would be in a position to determine the extent to which it wishes to establish an entitlement.
This procedure does not restrict in any way, the ability of Congress to establish new or expanded entitlements. Its sole intent is to relate entitlements to the appropriations process and thereby to give Congress additional information on the possible costs of the proposed program as well as the opportunity to consider any alternatives which may be put forward by the Appropriations Committee. But once Congress has acted to establish an entitlement, the program would function in precisely the same manner as it now does. The only change, therefore, would be to give Congress more information and more alternatives.
It bears mentioning that this procedure stops short of the two-step procedure which is required of most programs. Most programs must go through both an authorizations process and an appropriation in order for funding to be made available. Under S. 1541, entitlement programs would only go through the authorizations process, but the Appropriations Committee would have an opportunity to consider the legislation prior to floor action.
Certain entitlement programs such as veterans benefits and public assistance go through the appropriations process each year. But at this stage, the appropriation is a completely perfunctory action for Congress must provide whatever funds are required for the obligation. In fact, if the appropriation does not suffice to cover the obligation, Federal law authorizes agencies to spend at a rate which would compel a deficiency appropriation. Consequently, the appropriation of funds after an entitlement has been established offers no opportunity for spending control.
The argument has been made that Congress does not require the new procedures for entitlements because they would be effectively controlled by the concurrent resolution on the budget. That is, funds to be spent pursuant to entitlements would be allocated in the budget resolution in the same manner as all other Federal programs. Therefore, why not place entitlements under the discipline of the new congressional budget process.
The trouble with this argument is that it does not reckon with the character of the budget process or with the peculiar problem of entitlements. The budget resolution in its present form functions as a target – not as a limitation on expenditures. Whatever virtue a target has for regular expenditures, it is not apt to be as effective for backdoor entitlements. The reason is that the congressional resolution on the budget will address spending for the ensuing fiscal year whereas an entitlement relates to future fiscal years, not only to the one covered by the budget. It is an appealing practice for Congress to establish entitlements in a way that imposes no additional cost on the current budget but mandates higher costs in future years. If this were done, the entitlement legislation might be within the target set in the budget resolution, but it would create an uncontrollable expense for future years. When the future year to which the entitlement applies comes, it would take effect automatically without any action by Congress and allocations would have to be made for it in the budget resolution.
In sum, the budget resolution relates only to the next fiscal year, while entitlements impose costs for many future years and often impose them permanently. It is erroneous therefore to look to the budget resolution for additional control over entitlements. As I have indicated, control can be achieved only before the fact in a manner that gives Congress full discretion and full information.
For this purpose, the referral procedure spelled out in S. 1541 is both a balanced and equitable way of weighing the costs and benefits of entitlement legislation.
Let me say something about that provision and then I will comment on the Senator's modified amendment.
The re-referral process provided in the pending legislation is designed to do just what I have described. It does not create new substantive jurisdiction with respect to entitlement legislation in the Appropriations Committee. It does not deprive present committees of any of their entitlement authorization. All it does is to provide that any entitlement legislation shall be referred to the Appropriations Committee for 10 days and only for the purpose of making whatever recommendations in the form of amendments or otherwise the Appropriation Committee believes is consistent with the overall budget objectives of Congress and the Government. The Appropriations Committee cannot change the legislation. The Appropriations Committee amendments will be sent to the floor for separate consideration as amendments to the legislation.
The entitlement legislation will go to the floor in the form which it took reported from the authorization committee. So the purpose of this provision in the bill is to provide to the Senate and to the House additional information as to the impact on the budget of the entitlement authorization on the overall appropriations so that the Senate can take it into account before establishing the entitlement.
I think that that is the full extent of the committee provision. I think that the modified amendment presented by the distinguished Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) achieves the same objective or is designed to achieve the same objective. It is designed to make available to the Senate the same information that would be made available under the referral process established in the committee bill. It would be designed to give the Appropriations Committee the same opportunity, 10 days, to develop recommendations with respect to that entitlement legislation either in the form of amendments or purely in the form of information and recommendations.
So I think that both versions would serve those two purposes. The difference between the two is the fact that under the committee provision, the Appropriations Committee would consider the bill in a form of referral, for whatever difference that makes.
So far as I am concerned, the principal impact of that change is to deprive the proponents of a change in the argument that somehow the committee bill changes the jurisdiction of the authorization committee and the jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.
I do not believe it does. I do not believe it was intended to do so. So I can go along with the modified Ribicoff amendment to that extent.
May I say to the Senator that all interested Senators have not yet had a full opportunity to consider the amendment. The distinguished manager of the bill on the Republican side is one. I do not know what he is going to say about the amendment, but I think, at this point, it is appropriate that he have an opportunity to state what is on his mind.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I only wish I had been able to give him an instant reaction, but the amendment is such a profound one, and there were several forms. I commend the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for modifying it from the form in which we originally saw it, to bring it a little closer in line, but I am still troubled with it.
The principal reason I am troubled with it is that it may run counter to the representations the Senator from Illinois made to members of the Appropriations Committee. I can well recall the colloquy in which I engaged with my beloved colleague from the State of Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON). He took a position one night on the floor of the Senate that there is a possibility the budget reform bill could detract from or undercut the power, influence, and ability of the Appropriations Committee to control expenditures. They have exercised as best they could the power they had to restrain Federal spending and keep us a responsible body and not participate in what we have been seeing for the past 5 years, regrettably, I must say, of $100 billion being added to the Federal debt. Yet the Appropriations Committee, in a sense, has been powerless because, as the little series of charts placed on every Senator's desk shows, chart 3, for instance, shows signals of trouble in the present system.
The first point I wanted to make very clear is that 75 percent of the budget is relatively uncontrollable.
Why, Mr. President, you tell that to businessmen, you tell that to the lobbyists around here who think they know a great deal about the Government, and they are absolutely astounded. Yet, those are the facts.
When I came to the Senate in 1967, I was flabbergasted to find that we really did not have a control. At that time, it was 63 percent that was uncontrollable. The trend has been steadily upwards. I imagine that we will get to the point, if we keep going as we are, when we will be as pure as Ivory soap, 99 and 44/100ths percent pure – uncontrollable; and we will have the remainder coming down here debating about it. But that is not the way to run our fiscal affairs.
The second problem is that only 44 percent of the budget is subject to the appropriations process. 56 percent bypasses the Appropriations Committee. I said that night on the floor, because I was thinking in terms of the way we had been carrying on our deliberations, that this bill would strengthen the Appropriations Committee because what it would mean is that a great deal of all this backdoor spending, particularly the entitlements, would now be referred to the Appropriations Committee.
The amendment does give some additional authority and control to the Appropriations Committee than otherwise because what it does say is that we shall have a period of 10 days to stop, look, and listen, and before that entitlement bill can come to the floor, or before action can be taken. The Appropriations Committee would be given 10 days to look at it and then issue a report.
That might sound very good except all of us know how we operate. There is a vast difference – a subtle difference – but a vast difference between being able to issue a report, either a separate report or language in the report of another committee, and being able to offer a committee amendment. Under the bill, the Appropriations Committee would have the legislation before it for 10 days and would then send it to the floor with an amendment that says, "We cannot see how, once this spending limit has been established, this entitlement program can go forward and you can stay consistent. We recommend, therefore, that it be cut back 20 percent, 10 percent, 5 percent, 1 percent – or 50 percent." That then gives the Appropriations Committee a chance really to deal with the legislation, write a report of its own, attach it to the legislation, rather than having it incorporated.
There are certain programs that the Senator from Illinois very much favors. I must recognize the fact that when we tighten the procedures to make it more difficult, it may be that a bill the Senator from Illinois is most interested in seeing kind of slip through a little easier is the one that will be cut. But I really believe that we need a discipline. We must give to the Appropriations Committee the authority necessary to make its imprint on this, and remind us of where we are going.
I have not made a definitive decision because, as I have told the distinguished Senator from Maine, I have just barely read the modified amendment, but my tendency is to oppose it, although I certainly wish to keep my mind open until I have heard all the possible arguments in its favor. But my tendency right now would be to oppose the amendment.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. NUNN. As the Senator from Georgia understands the present proposal, it would really, in effect, remove from the Appropriations Committee the review, with the power to amend and to make a report. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Illinois on this amendment?
Mr. PERCY. That is correct.
Mr. NUNN. Does the amendment further provide that the action on any entitlement which follows a concurrent resolution, which we feel would take place somewhere around June the 1st, that the entitlement legislation under the proposed Ribicoff amendment would take place during the summer months of June, July, and August, when all the other appropriations bills are being considered? Is that the Senator's understanding of the Ribicoff amendment?
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Georgia is correct.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, a further question. Is it the Senator's understanding of the present legislation, S. 1541 as it emerged, that entitlement legislation could begin to be considered before June 1, if the Appropriations Committee had the 10 days and did the review, thereby not compacting all the entitlement legislation and the appropriation legislation in a brief period of 3 months?
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Georgia has once again demonstrated his profound knowledge and understanding of the legislation. That is correct.
Mr. NUNN. Is it not likely that what is going to happen, as we will have such a logjam in June, July, and August that there will be tremendous pressure to remove only the little teeny-weeny restraint left on entitlement legislation, and further that there would be tremendous pressure to remove the constraint that it has to follow the concurrent resolution, and that thereby there will be tremendous pressure to go back to where the entitlement legislation has no control?
Mr. PERCY. That is generally correct, because we would have to consider all spending bills and entitlements.
Mr. NUNN. And it would be virtually impossible, given the practicality, to consider all the appropriation measures in June, July, and August, and at the same time have all the entitlement legislation. We are proposing a practical impossibility for the Senate to perform if we accept this amendment.
Mr. PERCY. I suppose it could not be said that it would be absolutely impossible. Anything is possible. But it is highly improbable and extraordinarily difficult.
Mr. NUNN. I will amend my "possibility" to say that it is highly unlikely, as the Senator has said.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. When the Senator speaks of 10 days, is he speaking of legislative days?
Mr. PERCY. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. McCLELLAN. When the Senate is in session.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It might be at a time when the Appropriations Committee is not there.
Mr. PERCY. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut has provided for 10 legislative working days.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I yield to the distinguished Senator from California.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, in regard to this amendment, I first want to thank the many people on all sides of this matter for their efforts to try to work something out that could be accepted by all concerned. We have made progress in that direction, whether or not it is entirely ironed out and agreed to yet.
Great work has been done by the two committees and by others in working out the proposed legislation and by all the many, many staff members who did magnificent work when they were working with Senator BYRD on this matter.
If there is a problem – as has been indicated by the Senator from Georgia (Mr. NUNN) – about the logjam between June 1 and when the next step comes in early August, under this new budget
process, I think that really has more to do with the calendar setup in the reported bill as it applies to all legislation. We all want to see effective controls brought to bear on spending by this budget act. The question here is on a discriminatory and unnecessary aspect of one item in the bill.
In regard to the workload question, 27 bills that relate to so-called back door spending have been considered during the past 2 years. Eleven were trust fund bills exempted here; 16 were new entitlement bills of the sort we are now discussing.
In regard to the figures given by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, who was concerned about uncontrollable expenditures amounting to 75 percent of the total budget, the actual point in regard to this amendment is that we are only talking about $5 billion in the few entitlements covered at present levels of spending. The other so-called uncontrollables of huge amounts are not affected by this amendment, and they are not brought under the controls that we are talking about here.
Mr. President, I also want to thank Senator RIBICOFF for assuming leadership on this matter and the other Senators with whom I personally discussed the need for a modification in the provision, as reported from the Rules Committee, requiring that certain new entitlement authorization legislation be rereferred to the Appropriations Committee for 10 days. I refer to the distinguished committee chairmen of the Committee on Finance (Mr. LONG) , the Committee on Public Works (Mr. RANDOLPH), the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare (Mr. WILLIAMS), and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs (Mr. HARTKE), the Senators STAFFORD, TAFT, MCGOVERN, and MONDALE.
Mr. President, S. 1541, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, is designed to provide the mechanism and procedures for Congress to establish its own annual Federal budget and to consider spending, revenue sharing, and debt limit legislation in the context of the budget. The bill, as reported from the Rules Committee, required that a special – and in our view unnecessary and discriminatory – burden be imposed upon certain entitlement legislation, principally veterans' benefits legislation – compensation, veterans' survivors benefits, GI bill benefits, pensions, housing grants, and burial benefits, supplemental security income to the aged, blind, and disabled, medical and family assistance to the needy, black lung benefits, and food stamps.
This additional impediment would not be imposed on 75 percent of the expenditures arising from so-called entitlement laws since all trust funds – including approximately $86.5 billion in social security and unemployment compensation expenditures, revenue sharing, and advance contract authority are not covered by the re-referral process in the reported bill.
Mr. President, despite the fact that under the reported bill all Federal expenditures will be considered in the context of the overall budgetary process – both initially with the adoption of the first concurrent resolution and finally with the adoption of the second concurrent resolution to reconcile all prior congressional legislative and appropriations actions – S. 1541 singles out those types of legislation I discussed above for special and, we believe, discriminatory treatment by requiring their re-referral to the Appropriations Committee for 10 days after being reported by the substantive committee, and by giving the Appropriations Committee authority to amend the bill by placing overall spending limits on it. The bill also requires that any floor amendment approved by the Senate regarding an entitlement matter not considered in the bill as reported must again be referred to the Appropriations Committee for 10 more days, but not, I should add, to the authorizing committee.
Our original amendment would delete entirely this duplicative procedure under which the authorizing committee would have had the burden of overturning an Appropriations Committee spending limit amendment if it disagreed with it. We believe that the authorizing committees are the most conversant with and, therefore, the most competent to understand the many complex principles involved in the entitlement legislation involved here.
In a cursory 10-day period – especially before the principles and policies to be imposed by the first concurrent resolution have been established – the Appropriations Committee could hardly have time to carefully analyze the impact of all the bill's provisions and thus might act precipitously in a manner which might upset the balance that the authorizing committee had worked long and hard to achieve.
Moreover, Mr. President, this duplicative and discriminatory re-referral procedure would apply to such legislation even when the authorizing committee reported legislation of which the budgetary impact had been fully provided for in the congressional budget contained in the first concurrent resolution.
Again, I want to stress that those of us who support this amendment in no way intend to remove any entitlement legislation from the full purview of the new budgetary process which the reported bill would establish. Rather, we have confidence in that process and believe it should be applied evenhandedly to all types of legislation.
Finally, the re-referral provision could create problems in restricting the Senate's ability to act in a crucial situation, particularly in some areas under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee where the Senate may act to amend a House-passed bill, very often on a tight deadline. Requiring a 10-day re-referral for certain floor amendments affecting entitlement programs, as proposed in the reported bill, might also have the unfortunate effect of restricting the rights of Senators to offer floor amendments.
In sum, anyone who would characterize our amendment as somehow weakening the budgetary process proposed in the bill is in reality saying that they have little confidence in that process under which, before any new entitlement legislation would be permitted to become effective, action would be required on six separate occasions combined in the House and Senate without any re-referral process.
Our original amendment No. 1044 would simply have eliminated this unnecessary re-referral process and provided that floor action on these entitlement measures could not take place until after the first concurrent resolution is adopted on June 1 each year. Let me stress that this step is actually a tightening of the budget control process as to these entitlement programs although preserving the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the Labor and Public Welfare Committee, the Finance Committee, and other authorizing committees.
In regard to the amendment before us, let me say, first, that I am delighted that this bill provides for control over uncontrollables through the Budget Committee, through the budget process, that we do not have presently. We need that control over so-called uncontrollables, but we do not need the additional, dilatory review process that is proposed in the bill, where the Appropriations Committee would enter the act by the referral process.
The amendment as we have modified it does provide full opportunity for the Appropriations Committee, with its great weight, to make a recommendation in a report, before action will ensue on the sort of legislation that at the moment is presently not controlled. Under our revised amendment, there would be a full opportunity for the Appropriations Committee to render a report if it wished to move over under our amendment as modified, we would retain our program of not permitting entitlement bills to be taken up on the floor until after the concurrent resolution has been adopted. Finally, it would eliminate the ridiculous provision to refer floor amendments on entitlements back to the Appropriations Committee.
The amendment would remove a restriction on the Senate's ability to act with swiftness.
In regard to the veterans aspect of this matter, I point out that the historical record reveals that the veterans' benefits have not been a traditional budgetary problem. In recent years, 6 million Vietnam era veterans have joined our country's veteran population. We have had added expenses occasioned by that war. These include compensation payments for 385,000 men wounded in Vietnam and survivor benefits for some 49,000 widows of men who have died of service- connected causes.
Almost 3 million Vietnam era servicemen have received educational assistance benefits. Yet, despite the cost of these programs and a 21-percent increase in the Nation's veteran population, the veterans' portion of the budget – let me stress this – is no greater today than it was 4 years ago; and despite Vietnam, it is less than it was 10 years ago. It seems to be quite obvious that veterans' benefits are not the source of our budgetary problems and should not be singled out for unnecessary controls which are considered discriminatory in the present way they are in the bill by veterans, older citizens, disabled persons, and their spokesmen.
The following veterans organizations strongly support this amendment: the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled Veterans, Amvets, and the National Association of Concerned Veterans.
Rather plainly, we are considering a cost of war that must be paid.
Let me stress again that there is already an adequate review through the new budget process that is a new restraint on this form of so-called back door spending.
For these reasons, I believe the amendment is very important, and I urge its support.
I congratulate the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) for the able way he has handled the matter and has presented it.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRANSTON. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. NUNN. First, the Senator from Georgia would like to say that he completely agrees with and endorses everything the Senator from California has said about veterans, and if they were in fact singled out here, we would have a different question.
Is the Senator aware that the projections in the 1975 budget of the President show that between 1975 and 1979, the so-called entitlement outlays, if they continue along this trend, will increase by $58 billion and reach a total of $227 billion; that by 1979, the so-called entitlement legislation will be 58 percent of the total outlays of this country?
Mr. CRANSTON. I am well aware of those figures, but those are not the figures we are talking about here.
The Senator includes social security benefits, which are not covered; revenue sharing, contract matters, numerous exempted trust funds, retirement benefits, and other matters not covered by the provision for referral to the Committee on Appropriations that we have under discussion here. In the bill as reported, the only entitlements subjected to this process are veterans benefits, SSI benefits that relate to senior and disabled citizens and health care for the poor and other benefits totaling last year only $5 billion out of the $13 billion in uncontrollables.
The Senator from Illinois is correct when he said that 75 percent of the budget is uncontrollable, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about $5 billion and that is only 38 percent of the uncontrollables added last year.
Mr. NUNN. According to all projections, the growth trend will take place between 1975 and 1979. Is the Senator aware that under this bill exempting social security it includes black lung, school lunches, disaster relief, air traffic controller requirements, CSC retirement, food stamp programs, Federal employees pay raises, school lunch amendments, unemployment benefits, Federal health employee insurance, welfare – medicaid amendments – all of that is included?
Mr. CRANSTON. No, all of that is not included. The Senator is reading a number of trust funds, retirement funds and many other programs that are self-financing.
Mr. NUNN. I have another amendment on trust funds. The Senator identified the largest loophole in the bill. The Senator from Georgia is going to identify that area.
Mr. CRANSTON. Will the Senator do that and talk to that issue, then, when it is relevant?
Mr. NUNN. It is relevant to this discussion because these are two loopholes that can render ineffective a lot of action that has taken place in the last year and a half in budget reform. This amendment plugs the loophole already in the bill which says that the trust fund is exempted if 30 percent is self-financing, and is relevant to this discussion because we have exempted from this bill 70 percent funding out of the general fund for any program that comes along, in the form of an extension on a trust fund which is already in existence, of which there are about 75.
I think the two loopholes should be discussed as one because they are interrelated. If the so-called trust fund exemption remains like it is, it is going to continue to cause a lot of problems. To some extent if the trust fund exemption is left like it is, the amendment of the Senator from California will make the loophole larger.
Mr. CRANSTON. It may be somewhat relevant to our general discussion, but not to this amendment. The railroad retirement and other programs will not be affected by the decision made by the Senate on this amendment. The Social Security Act and all those other acts come under the budget process, and if the committee recommends more than the Senate wants to approve, in the course of the new full budget process it can make reductions. That is a new step and a good step. That process should be applied to all the entitlements uniformly.
But if we do not think the procedures in the Congressional Budget Act are effective, we should admit it.
I am amazed that some of the chief sponsors of S. 1541 have so little faith in the process they set forth in this committee report that they believe it necessary to add an additional step to a small $5 billion portion of the so-called uncontrollables. If they think one step is so important why have they not applied it to all uncontrollables?
Mr. PERCY. My comments may have been somewhat ambiguous before but I would like to clarify the fact that I shall vote "nay" on this amendment. I do so because I feel there is adequate provision in the bill; if Congress wishes to act it can act. The Committee on Appropriations sends this legislation back to the floor with an indication that there should be a 10-percent cut because it exceeds the spending limit provided for in the concurrent resolution. Congress by majority vote can override that, but it does so with the clear understanding that the Committee on Appropriations felt it would exceed those spending limits and if we continue to do that on this entitlement or another one, we are going to bust the spending limit that has been established and we would not be accomplishing our overall purpose.
So there is no way Congress is going to be acting in such a way it cannot and will not be able to express its will, should it desire to do so.
Also, of course, as has been made very clear in the committee report, and I refer to pages 56 and 57, it is clearly indicated that:
The Appropriations Committees are given jurisdiction to report any bill or resolution providing entitlement authority which has been referred to such committees (as described above) with an amendment which limits the total amount of entitlement authority contained therein. The Appropriations Committees would not be authorized under this procedure to report amendments in any way dealing with the substance of the legislation, even if some substantive change would clearly be needed to meet the spending limitation on the program which the Appropriations Committees amendment provides.
The Rules Committee, which I believe wrote this section, recognized that entitlement legislation is complex and is not amenable to control through the appropriation process. Under the terms of the legislation:
Actual outlays in any given year can not be known with certainty in advance. Should Congress decide, for budgetary reasons, to limit the potential obligation under new entitlement legislation to a figure less than the legislation as reported would provide, it will express that decision by adopting a limiting amendment at the time of consideration of the basic legislation. Such limitation may be at the level provided in the limiting amendment reported by the Appropriations Committee, if any, or at any other level Congress may select.
I wish to make just one or two other points. Removing entitlements from Appropriations Committee oversight would result in discriminatory treatment for entitlements as opposed to backdoors like contract authority and borrowing authority. Under the bill, new contract authority, new borrowing authority, and new trust funds which have a contribution from general revenues greater than 10 percent, must come under Appropriations Committee oversight.
Obviously, I am fearful if this amendment is adopted, there may be offered between now and 2 o'clock tomorrow certain other amendments for further exemptions.
In the Rules Committee, the treatment for entitlements was changed to take account of the special nature of entitlement programs. The re-referral provision of the present bill already provides special treatment for entitlements. Only entitlements have the special provision for only a 10-day rereferral to appropriations, and a specific proviso that appropriations can only make recommendations about the total of funding that would result from the bill.
In actual practice, the Appropriations Committee could send the legislation, if it exceeded the limit, to the floor with a suggestion or request that it be cut by a certain percentage. More probably, it would send it back to the original committee with that recommendation and let the committee itself work its will in whatever way it could to come under the ceiling, or develop its argument for a new concurrent resolution or new spending limit if its members felt that the compulsion was so great that they would have to exceed that spending limit.
Finally, control of backdoors through Appropriations Committee review has been one of the central principles of budget reform called for by budget experts including especially the Joint Study Committee on Budget Control.
If we exclude this particular feature from the bill and say, "Well, we are going to try to control spending, all except entitlements," then we are going to have direct authority over spending eroded before we get started. We are going to have an erosion of the very principle we have been trying to work for.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Entitlements in past laws have provided that moneys shall be paid to certain people if they become entitled under the law. There are many cases where there are estimates, but the Appropriations Committee has to handle that. Estimates are made as to how many people might be eligible. Appropriations usually go along with the estimates. Sometimes they are way off.
Certain laws, such as the veterans' laws, make it absolutely mandatory that payment be made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes on the bill itself.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The estimate as to veterans benefits is pretty close to what it should be. It has never been very far off. I have never known the Appropriations Committee not to appropriate the money.
I want to make an observation. I am not critical, but no one who is involved in this bill is serving on the Appropriations Committee that I can see. I am going to vote for the bill, but we have to achieve a balance. When we get to yearly appropriations for entitlements, which must be paid, they are nearly impossible to move up and down, any way the committee wants. I just wanted to point out that it is not possible for the Appropriations Committee to adjust appropriations for entitlements after they are law.
I hope the Senator will excuse me. I just wanted to make that observation.
Mr. PERCY. Of course, I would like to make a small technical correction. The Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLELLAN), obviously, is on the Government Operations Committee and has worked on this legislation and serves as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and served on the joint study committee, as did a considerable number of distinguished members of the Appropriations Committee who made these very recommendations to us.
Of course, the Senator from Washington would not forget the fact that the Senator from Illinois served on his own appropriations subcommittee while the Senator from Illinois served on the Appropriations Committee, and it was during that period of service that the Senator from Illinois became disturbed and concerned at the amount of expenditures that were going on that were not really under the control of the Appropriations Committee.
I would say the comments the Senator from Washington has made relating to entitlements have helped in the colloquy and helped in a better understanding of the situation. There are programs relating to public assistance, veterans' benefits and others – very often the most highly complex and time-consuming legislation – that involve entitlements.
Just looking at the last 2 years, Congress has considered 27 measures of the entitlement variety, 16 in 1972 and 11 in 1973.
The logjam the Senator from Georgia referred to makes it increasingly obvious that legislation would be required to come on the floor between the period June 1 and the first weekend in August.
I would just like to close my comments with a quotation from the President's budget, on page 38, where it says that if we are concerned about the trend now or what is happening now and the lack of control, just take a look into the future and see where we are actually going.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Perhaps we ought to do what we did on revenue sharing. We passed the bill and appropriated the money at the same time. Nobody had anything more to do with it. The lobbyists for revenue sharing were in the galleries applauding.
Mr. PERCY. Against the Senate rules.
Mr. MAGNUSON. There was a time when the legislative committees of the Congress authorized and appropriated at the same time. Maybe we can simplify this whole matter by going back to that system – I do not know – but we did it for revenue sharing.
Mr. PERCY. But there is not any question that local officials from the mayor of Cairo, Ill., to Mayor Daley, of Chicago, Ill. would want revenue sharing to be continued in the same manner, if it came up for a vote today.
Mr. MAGNUSON. We may have to go back to that.
Mr. PERCY. As I indicated, I should like to close my colloquy with a quotation from the President's budget looking ahead as to the effects of Federal spending:
Federal spending has shifted markedly in the past twenty years – and with particular abruptness in the last five years – away from direct Federal purchases of goods and services, for such programs as defense and space, and toward direct Federal payments to individuals and aid to state and local governments. From 1959 to 1973, payments to individuals and aid to state and local governments have almost doubled as a percentage of total outlays, and increased five-fold in dollar terms.
The present outlook indicates that (such payments) under existing programs will grow to about 58% of total outlays by 1979. Between 1975 and 1979 these outlays will increase by $58 billion and reach a total of $227 billion.
It is very difficult to say that we are the captain of our own ship and that we are going to manage our own affairs, when much of the money that passes through Congress, passes without going through the Appropriations Committee. It passes without that committee having a chance to take a look at it and at least report the legislation to the floor of the Senate with good, firm recommendations. Therefore, I would be greatly concerned if this amendment were adopted. I think it is of such importance that we should have the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Connecticut yield?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I am pleased to yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to put a question to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut; but before doing so, I should like to make one or two observations.
First of all, neither the committee provision nor the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut is going to meet the problem described by the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. RIBICOFF. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. So it is not a choice between the amendment offered by the Senator from Connecticut and some type of overall measure. What we are considering here is a choice between the provision in the bill and the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. It is to that that I think we should focus our attention. It is to this, too, that I should like to put a question to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I shall be pleased to try to answer the Senator's question.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, the re-referral provision of the bill would place the bill in the physical possession of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, the Appropriations Committee would also have physical possession of the entitlement provision for the same purpose.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Under the bill, the Appropriations Committee could amend the bill. Under my amendment, they could not amend the bill but could report back to the Senate, and could offer an amendment on the floor of the Senate to be considered by the entire Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Connecticut and I disagree on the effects of sending the bill back. The Appropriations Committee could not amend the bill.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct; but they could have 10 days to make their recommendations.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am trying to identify the similarities, if we can identify them. I may say to the Senator that, as I understand the committee bill, it is re-referred to the committee.
Mr. RIBICOFF. It is re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations; that is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. The committee can recommend amendments, make any other recommendations, or submit a report to the Senate.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. Under the Senator's amendment again, the Appropriations Committee could take possession of the bill, consider amendments, recommend them to the floor of the Senate, and make such other recommendations as it may wish.
Mr. RIBICOFF. It is not actually physically sent to the Appropriations Committee, but they are assured 10 days in which to report.
Mr. MUSKIE. The point I am making is that, like any other Senator who is not a member of the Appropriations Committee, members of the Appropriations Committee could get copies of the bill, consider it, and make amendments. We are construing situations that do not exist.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I think the Senator is making the point very well.
Mr. MUSKIE. The whole argument relates to the word "re-referral," because there are those who are concerned about veterans legislation and the jurisdiction of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, who say that the word "re-referral" means that the bill gives the Appropriations Committee substantive jurisdiction over a bill which is now considered in the Veterans' Affairs Committee. I did not believe that when we supported that provision, and I do not believe it now. I do not believe the committee version changes jurisdiction with respect to veterans legislation one iota. If I thought it did, I would not have supported the re-referral provision in the first instance.
The only effect of the committee provision is to give the Appropriations Committee 10 days to look at the bill and make such recommendations as it may choose to make to the Senate. That is all that is involved in the committee bill; that is all that is involved in the Senator's modified amendment. So if those provisions provide 10 days, then the Appropriations Committee can get the bill, develop whatever recommendations it chooses, and submit them to the Senate. I think that to describe either thing in different terms would be a disservice to an understanding of what this amendment provides.
So all we are debating is the word "re-referral," and making an argument about the conditions which have been woven around the word "re-referral." I think it is a distinction without a difference.
So far as I am concerned, that is a re-referral, and I can disabuse those who have an interest in the legislation. I am all for striking the word "re-referral."
I think all we have done is to clothe the word "re-referral." We have retained the right of the Appropriations committee to look at any entitlement provision, retained the right of the Appropriations Committee to look at any amendment, retained the right of the Appropriations Committee to report an amendment to the floor of the Senate.
The elimination of the word "re-referral" may be the kind of subtle change that the Senator from Illinois projects, but I do not see that fearful result. I think the difference between the two, as I have stated, is a distinction without a difference.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Senator a question on this particular point.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I get from the Senator from Connecticut a response to the question which took me a little time to develop?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I think the Senator is correct, but the word "re-referral" becomes very important so far as the veterans of the country are concerned. The difficulty that arose was when the committee exempted the trust funds, the social security funds, from the procedure The veterans became horrified, thinking that their compensation from pensions and other benefits would be placed in a different category and treated differently than social security. I think we will all find that, historically, we have tried to keep veterans’ benefits in tandem with changes in the social security law.
The Veterans' Affairs Committee has always worked with the other committees to make sure that there was not an imbalance. Suddenly the veterans see in this bill a danger they will face. They want to place the veterans’ benefits on the same basis as social security benefits. Am I stating the situation accurately?
Mr. CRANSTON. The Senator from Connecticut is stating exactly what is involved in this matter. I am delighted that the distinguished Senator from Maine has taken part in the discussion, and made the point about what we are talking about and what we are not talking about with this amendment.
The Senator has gotten us right down to the meat of the matter.
I would like to stress one other point while I have the floor. I would like to make the point that this amendment actually tightens the controls, rather than reducing controls over these entitlements. I believe the amendment in its present form – and I thank the Senator for narrowing down the discussion to what we are really talking about and excluding what we are not talking about – actually provides for more control than we would have without amendment. The amendment provides that we can only consider these entitlements after June 1, when we know what the total budget picture – expenditures and revenues proposed – will be.
Otherwise we could have had a situation where the Appropriations Committee would have considered the matter, the Budget Committee would have considered the matter, the Senate and the House of Representatives would have passed the bill, and it would have been enacted into law before we knew what the total budgetary picture was under the first concurrent resolution, and we might thereafter have found we had made a mistake, when it would have been, in practical fact, too late.
Under this amendment, when we cannot consider the entitlements until after June 1, the Appropriations Committee will have its voice, the Budget Committee will know all the factors, and Congress will know all the factors. We will then have an opportunity for better control
under this timetable than under the original bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. I doubt that many Senators have had a chance to read this amendment, so on this point, let me read the provision of the amendment.
In the first place, I emphasize the point that entitlement legislation cannot be brought to the floor until after the first concurrent resolution is adopted. Under the committee bill, entitlement legislation could come up before that time, and the only recourse then would be under the re-referral process under the bill.
Mr. CRANSTON. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. Secondly, the amendment says this:
The Committee on Appropriations of that House – meaning whichever House is involved – may, within 10 calendar days–
That is, legislative days–
– beginning with the day following the day on which it is so reported, submit a report to its House setting forth its recommendations with respect to the level of the new advance spending authority provided by such bill or resolution.
Then there is this sentence:
It shall not be in order in that House to consider such bill or resolution until the Committee on Appropriations of that House has submitted the report required by this paragraph or, if such Committee fails to submit such report, until the expiration of such 10-day period.
I think there is ample safeguard here of the prerogatives of the Appropriations Committee. I think there is ample safeguard in the language for the right of the Senate to have all information and all alternatives before it, before it votes on new entitlement legislation.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. And that is precisely the objective of the provision in the committee bill.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, who has the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has the floor.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. RIBICOFF. I yield.
Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Georgia is under the impression that this amendment, although I am sure that the author is aiming it toward the veteran–
The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The time of the Senator from Connecticut has expired. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. NUNN. Will the Senator yield time on the bill for one question?
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time would the Senator like?
Mr. NUNN. I think about 4 minutes would be enough.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the Senator 5 minutes.
Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Georgia is in sympathy with the case which the Senator from Connecticut has made regarding veterans and social security. I wonder if the Senator would modify his amendment to apply only to veterans, thus avoiding a loophole here that the Senator from Georgia believes would apply to nonexempt trusts. I am under the impression that nonexempt trusts in most cases, in fact in 95 percent of the cases, are entitlements, and if that is so, we have at least 60 or 70, or perhaps 100 nonexempt trusts which will come under this amendment.
If the Senator would confine his amendment to veterans, which is obviously the Senator's main wish, I believe we could reach some agreement here.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I say to the Senator from Georgia that he is also talking about payments to needy aged, blind, and disabled persons. I do not feel personally that I want to exclude that category of people, nor medical assistance for the needy and food stamps. We are talking, really, of the most needy segments of our population, and I believe it is important to place them in a situation where their needs are taken care of and placed in the same category of social security recipients.
Mr. NUNN. Suppose we included all those groups, but confined it to those groups, instead of having broad entitlements. I am in sympathy with that. Suppose we take in them, as well as veterans, and try to restrict it to that.
The Senator from California and the Senator from Connecticut have been talking about veterans, veterans, veterans. The Senator from Georgia agrees with them on that. But what the Senator has done, as I read his amendment, is make a loophole that is large enough for all bills in the future which will in any way be debated, or when their author thinks they will be hard to pass, he will seek to put them under the term entitlement legislation or under the term of an exempt trust, and we can see, as I said a while ago, that we could have 70 percent of the general funds going into trusts that will still be exempt, and that would come under the term entitlement legislation if they are not exempt. So I am asking if the Senator will confine his legislation to the specific categories the Senator from California and the Senator from Connecticut aim to help.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, may I say that the programs I listed in my earlier statement – veterans' pensions, veterans' compensation, veterans' educational payments, medical assistance to the needy, aid to the aged, the blind, the disabled, and food stamps – those are the categories I have in mind. There may be others, but they do not come to mind right at this moment.
Mr. NUNN. There are a good many others. I do not think it is fair to present this amendment as one to assist veterans only, when it includes other broad categories.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I say that in my opening statement I named the other categories besides veterans. I do not want this body, however, to receive the impression that this applies only to veterans. Veterans are perhaps the largest category, but there are the additional categories I have named.
Mr. NUNN. Is the Senator willing to limit his amendment in any way, then, or does he want to include all entitlements, including nonexempt trusts, of which I am informed there are many?
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I ask the Senator, if I limited the entitlements to those I have named, would the distinguished Senator then support my amendment?
Mr. NUNN. I would join in supporting it, if the Senator from Connecticut would limit it so that we would not be creating a loophole of unknown dimensions here, such that no one would know what we are talking about. I would join with the distinguished Senator in urging the adoption of his amendment.
Mr. RIBICOFF. How would the Senator from Maine feel about that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator from Georgia has expired. Who yields time?
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time? The Chair inquires of the Senator from Illinois, on whose time?
Mr. PERCY. Can the time be equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Georgia that I stand on the amendment as it is.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I withdraw my request for the quorum.
Mr. NUNN. How can we vote on an amendment when no one knows how broad it is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I wonder whether there is any difference between the original bill and the amendment. I invite the attention of the Senate to page 149, which reads:
Whenever any bill or resolution which provides new advance spending authority described in subsection (c) (2) (C) is reported by any committee of the Senate or the House of Representatives, such bill or resolution shall then be referred to the Committee on Appropriations of that House with instructions to report it, with the committee's recommendations, within ten calendar days (not counting any day on which that House is not in session) beginning with the day following the day on which it is so referred.
There is a line in that provision on which I stated yesterday in response to a question put to me by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS), that I was of the opinion the original bill did not give the Senate Appropriations Committee any authority to make changes in the substantive provisions of the bill as it was reported by the committee having the jurisdiction.
On the bottom of page 150 of the bill, and the top of the page 151, it reads as follows:
The Committee on Appropriations of each House shall have jurisdiction to report any bill or resolution referred to it under paragraph (2) with an amendment which limits the total amount of new advance spending authority provided in such bill or resolution.
My interpretation of the provisions of the bill was that the only amendment the Senate Appropriations Committee could make or suggest was one limiting the total amount as contradicted to changing any specific provision as to who was entitled to the benefits of the bill.
So I wonder whether there is any substantial difference between the original bill and the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut,
Mr. RIBICOFF. This is what the Senator from Maine and I, in our colloquy, felt we had arrived at in order to clarify the matter in trying to work this out. We believe that we had come to a compromise that did not really wrench the basic purpose of the Government Operations and the Rules Committees in formulating this legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct, I say to the Senator, and this approach was one that I suggested this morning.
Mr. ERVIN. The next question goes to the question of re-referral.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is another case of a possible interpretation that the Appropriations Committee, under these circumstances, could actually amend the bill. What the Senator from Maine and I were trying to work out is the result that the distinguished chairman of the committee believes is in the bill. There was a question of ambiguity. I believe that this is what the Senator from Maine and I tried to work out in the amendment to my amendment.
Mr. ERVIN. In other words, the Senator from Connecticut feels that the amendment is necessary to remove the ambiguity.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct.
Mr. ERVIN. That it might be susceptible to interpretation different from the specific provision that has nothing to do with this one.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I believe that is so. That is what we attempted to work out with the Senator from Maine as a compromise.
Mr. ERVIN. Under the amendment, the Appropriations Committee, or the referral of the bill to it, would have retained authority to make recommendations as to changes in the substantive provisions as to who is entitled to the benefits of this particular bill as sit forth in the original bill. The amendment of the Senator from Connecticut would remove any ambiguity on that point.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That is correct. They could not actually amend the bill, but they could make recommendations in their report.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator from North Carolina yield for a question?
Mr. ERVIN. I yield.
Mr. NUNN. Does not the Senator from North Carolina realize that under the proposed amendment, the Appropriations Committee would not have to make a report, that there is simply permissive language saying that they may make a report; yet the bill itself makes it mandatory that the Appropriations Committee make a report on the issues. So that we have gone from mandatory to permissive.
Mr. ERVIN. That does not make much change because they can recommend that no changes be made. We would not disable any individual Senator who disagreed with the bill as reported by the committee having jurisdiction from proposing any amendments.
Mr. NUNN. What if a Senator had a report but did not know what the entitlement would do?
Mr. ERVIN. He would be in the same fix if you have a mandatory provision saying they shall make recommendations as the recommendation that there should be no change.
Mr. NUNN. Except they would have to have a report.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, if I may interject there, under the bill, if the Appropriations Committee did not report in 10 days, it would be discharged. There is no requirement that it report.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President. I yield myself 3 minutes, one of which I would be happy to yield to the proponents. I think I can summarize quickly my firm conviction that the amendment should be rejected.
First, if there is no substantial difference between the committee language and the amendment, I see no real reason, then, to change the language that has carefully been reviewed by the Government Operations and the Rules Committees. The more the proponents of the amendment talk about the narrow differences, the more I realize that there is no real reason to change at all.
Second, the Senator from Maine used the word "rereferral." I find no mention of rereferral as it relates to the action provided for in this amendment.
On page 159 of the bill, at the bottom, it simply indicates that the bill shall be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Well, it may not have been there ever. So, it is not rereferred.
On page 151, at the top of the page, the bill provides that the Appropriations Committee can only make or offer an amendment which limits the total amount of new advance spending authority described in subsection (c) (2) (A) or (B) or any amendment which provides such new advance spending authority.
So I very vigorously oppose the amendment as I would oppose any amendment that would compound the problem faced by Congress at the end of the session after we have passed a second concurrent resolution or a third or a fourth and then we come down to the end of the line and have a reconciliation bill which puts us up against the situation where we have to roll back many of the expenditures already authorized and approved.
I feel that we should face the issue earlier and give the Appropriations Committee a chance to study the bill, send the bill back to the floor of the Senate, or send the bill to the authorizing committee, showing the impact that that bill and the entitlements provided would have on the spending limits we have already agreed to, and do this as we go along, rather than pass them all over and face the music when the reconciliation bill comes through and handle it like supplemental appropriations and throw up our hands at the last minute, and raise the ceiling, and have to study the effect on the spending limits each and every time we break through some targeted point.
For all these reasons, I oppose the amendment..
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HATHAWAY). The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut.
On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr, President, let me take some time on the bill. May I say the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. McCLELLAN), asked earlier this afternoon for an opportunity to engage in colloquy, so I would hope that we could do that at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Whatever time the Senator from Arkansas desires.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I am very sorry that I had to leave the Chamber a while ago and have not been able to hear all the colloquy and discussion on this subject. What I was trying to find out was the difference between the bill and the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut.
Maybe this will clarify it. The bill as I understand it would refer backdoor spending bills, contract authority loans, and entitlement bills such as veterans pensions, black lung, and so forth, to the Appropriations Committee, and the committee would have 10 days to report back its recommendations and/or with an amendment to limit such spending. Is that a correct interpretation of the bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is correct only as to entitlements. There is a different provision with respect to contract authority and borrowing which would also come to the Appropriations Committee, but not under the provision to which the Senator is referring.
Mr. McCLELLAN.Tell me the difference between the amendment and the bill, in a succinct manner. What is the difference? We have the amendment to vote on.
Mr. MUSKIE. The provision in the bill would provide – just as the Senator has described it – that the entitlement legislation, whether it occurred prior to June 1 or after – June I being the day when the first concurrent resolution must be enacted – would be referred to the Appropriations Committee for 10 days for amendment or such recommendations as the committee may recommend for the purpose of limiting the spending which would be mandated by the entitlement authority.
Under the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, the bill as it comes out of the authorizing committee cannot go to the floor until the Appropriations Committee has had 10 days to consider it and to make recommendations to the floor with respect to it.
Mr. McCLELLAN. What is the difference between making recommendations and offering an amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. The difference is the elimination of the formal rereferral process.
Mr. McCLELLAN. How would it be before the Appropriations Committee if it was not referred to the committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. It would have been reported out of the authorization committee. The Appropriations Committee would be required, under this proposal, to take cognizance of it and to consider it in any way it wished. I have argued all afternoon that all we have been arguing about is a semantic difference.
The rereferral provision has raised questions on the part of many people, Senators as well as others, that what the bill does is change the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee with respect to such entitlement legislation, that it creates an ambiguity that is a threat to programs in which they are interested. Because I believe that the bill before the Senate is designed only to give the Appropriations Committee a chance to look at it and to evaluate its implications, I was willing to go along with the amendment. I do not think that the referral language of the bill was intended in any way to change jurisdiction.
All the amendment does is to eliminate that doubt. The responsibilities in the Appropriations Committee would be the same under either proposal. That is my view.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I think I understand. There is not enough difference; it is only a matter of semantics.
Let me ask another question: Does anyone believe that the Appropriations Committee can act responsibly within 10 days on a bill that proposes multibillion-dollar spending?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that is a legitimate question, but the 10-day period applies to both proposals.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I understand. I ask this: Does anyone think that the Appropriations Committee can act responsibly – do the evaluation and make a report in 10 days – on a big spending bill that is reported by a committee?
In the first place, the committee is not yet staffed to do it. Second, it would have to have a staff of experts – a limited staff, at least – for this purpose.
I am just pointing out that it seems to me there is going to be an overall budget committee; and if any committee is going to be staffed to do it under this bill, it would be that budget committee and the committee that is being set up in the bill, the Congressional Office of the Budget.
A responsibility is being placed on the Appropriations Committee which it is not capable of performing under the present circumstances. It makes no difference to me whether this is done one way or the other. The consequences are going to be the same. It is a burden, an impossible task in that limited time, with the staff the committee now has. The committee is not equipped to do it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, knows a great deal more about the capability of the Appropriations Committee than I do. But let me make a couple of observations.
Mr. McCLELLLAN. We can make a guess in 10 days.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the first place, I have made it clear that the committees did not intend to change the jurisdiction with respect to the substance of entitlement legislation. The referral to the Appropriations Committee was simply to get the Appropriations Committee's judgment on the budget impact, not on the details, the substantive details, of the legislation.
The second point I would make is that the Congressional Office of the Budget would be available to the Appropriations Committee in the same way that it would be to the budget committees, to make those kinds of analyses and to present to the budget committee the figures.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Who would have jurisdiction of this?
Mr. MUSKIE. This would give the Appropriations Committee an opportunity, and indeed a duty under this bill, to give the Senate the benefit of its judgment as to the budget impact.
Mr. McCLELLAN. But we do not have jurisdiction over the budget staff that is being set up. We have no jurisdiction over it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The language of the bill makes the Congressional Office of the Budget available to every committee.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It is available. We can call on them, yes. But we cannot direct them to get on to this and do it. In other words, we can direct our staff to get on something and give it immediate attention.
Mr. MUSKIE. Obviously, the Appropriations Committee and the Finance Committee, which are also given responsibilities under this legislation, should have sufficient authority to utilize the COB.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I say this to the Senator, and I say this now so that we may be on notice as to what we are doing: If the Appropriations Committee is charged with this responsibility, it should have under its immediate control some staff that is competent in this field. It cannot be said that "you have to do it." All we can do under the circumstances, in my judgment, under the proposed legislation, is that when it is sent to us, we will send it back.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the Senator.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I want to make clear that there would be a responsibility on the Appropriations Committee that is impossible for it to perform at present.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that is not the intent of the proposed legislation. If we have not implemented that adequately in the bill, we will do so before we finish work on the bill.
I cannot agree more with the Senator that those kinds of frustrations should not be imposed on the committee.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes in order to comment on the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
I refer the Senator from Arkansas to page 68 of the bill, which covers the provision as reported by the Government Operations Committee. This obviously would have provided more time for the Appropriations Committee to have operated and did not contain the 10-day limitation. That was placed on it as a result of revisions that were incorporated in the bill by the Committee on Rules and Administration.
The reason why the Senator from Illinois opposes the amendment is that there is indeed a difference between the Appropriations Committee simply being asked to make a report and literally having the legislation before it and being able to send the legislation back to the authorizing committee, or sending it to the floor with an amendment. There is a distinct difference. The difference has been minimized on the floor. I think there is a difference, and for that reason I prefer staying with the committee version.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to yield.
McCLELLAN. Without it being referred to the committee, the committee has no official jurisdiction over it. On this theory, any bill that comes out here that provides for spending, we would automatically have to take judicial notice and try to act on it.
Mr. PERCY. I think the Senator has put his finger right on the point. That is a big difference.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to comment on that. Talking about minimizing a difference, there is such a thing as maximizing a difference.
I wish to read from the Ribicoff amendment. It states:
The Committee on Appropriations of that House may within 10 calendar days (not counting any day on which the House is not in session) beginning with the day following the day on which it is so reported, submit a report to its House setting forth its recommendations.
This amendment confers jurisdiction and responsibility upon the Committee on Appropriations.
The language is really to maximize a difference. The language speaks for itself.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It states "may."
Mr. MUSKIE. It states "may." The Senator just said he is not sure he has the staff resources.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I do not think I have.
Mr. MUSKIE. The "may" is to be exercised by the Senator.
Mr. McCLELLAN.As pointed out, all we can do is send it back to you.
Mr. MUSKIE. On the question of whether this language imposes a responsibility on the Appropriations Committee. It is the intention of this bill to make the Congressional Office of the Budget available to every committee, and especially those committees which are subject to the procedural requirements of the bill, and that includes the Appropriations Committee. If there is any doubt about the provisions of the bill in that regard, we will certainly clarify it.
So I say to the Senator whatever maximization of differences we get, this amendment, if adopted, imposes a responsibility on the Appropriations Committee. More than that, this bill intends to provide the staff of the Appropriations Committee sufficient to meet this and all other responsibilities, just as it does to the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly so that I may make an observation for the Senator from Arkansas?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. NUNN. I think the Senator from Arkansas was not here when we pointed out in colloquy one certain difference that is important for the Senator's judgment. The bill as written would allow entitlement legislation to be considered at any point in the year provided it complied with the sending of the entitlement legislation to the Appropriations Committee. The amendment would require it be done after June 1. The significance is that entitlement legislation will have to be considered by the Appropriations Committee and the Senate during the same 3-months period when all appropriation bills have been considered. I made the point that the result may well be that entitlement legislation will bring sufficient pressure that it will be removed from all restraints and we will be right back at this point.
Mr. BROCK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PERCY. I yield.
Mr. BROCK. I wish to follow up on the point of the Senator from Georgia. It is important to note to the Senator from Georgia that the Committee on Government Operations reported this bill virtually unanimously with a section which gave jurisdiction over entitlement legislation to the Appropriations Committee. There was no referral or any question about it. Jurisdiction was placed in the Appropriations Committee because this section of our budget is the one segment that is totally out of control. We are talking about 58 percent of the total budget by 1979.
Somebody has to watch it, somebody in whom this body reposes confidence and trust. We placed that responsibility with the Appropriations Committee. That was stricken by the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Then, it was simply referred for 10 days and the Committee on Appropriations was given the staff with the direction to bring in the figure as it affects the budget, but they were allowed to offer amendments so far as the total funding level. Now, we have even stricken that opportunity for oversight and review from the authority of the Committee on Appropriations.
It may very well be you have been given a label without any substance to it and you are being put in a position of being criticized for not doing something you would not be able to do. I think that is the effect of the amendment, whether we overmaximize it or not. The fact is when we get back to the end of the year and all of these entitlements have been increased over the concurrent resolution passed in June, the Appropriations Committee is going to be hit with a situation where Congress has passed entitlements that violate the ceiling unless we cut back on specific programs and the Appropriations Committee is going to be burdened with having to cut back on the legislative programs to encompass the increase over which it had no jurisdiction. That is what is wrong with the amendment.
Mr, CRANSTON. Mr. President. will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. CRANSTON. The Senator from Tennessee speaks of 59 percent. We are talking principally about two entitlements: veterans and certain of their entitlements, and senior citizens and disabled persons, for a total of $5 billion. We are not talking about all or even most entitlements. Most, and by far most of the dollars, are not affected by this amendment.
Mr. BROCK. The Senator from Georgia asked the Senator from Connecticut to list them and he said he would limit it to those two.
Mr. NUNN. The Senator from Georgia has already accepted those two.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President–
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, may we have order? The Senate is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. PERCY, Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the Senator from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, the other point I wish to make is for those Senators who have come to the Chamber. A new and better control is proposed by this amendment because it requires that entitlements cannot be acted on by the Senate or House until June 1; until that time the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, and the entire Congress cannot know the entire situation on overall revenues and expenditures. Prior to that time, you deal with it only in a fragmentary way in the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee, without those committees or the Congress knowing the total picture.
This is a far better situation, and this amendment would add a responsibility to the Appropriations Committee which it does not have now. Now, the Appropriations Committee has no voice at all in entitlements of any sort.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, in the remaining moment I wish to respond to the Senator from Arkansas with respect to the inadequacy of the staff of the Committee on Appropriations to deal in such a short time frame with these problems.
This point was brought up by the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD). I would like to ask him if it is his intention to offer an amendment which will change the duties and functions under section 202 of the bill so that there will be a dual relationship and responsibility between the Director of the Congressional Office of the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations, as well as the Committee on the Budget, so that whenever a load is imposed on the Committee on Appropriations the staff would be available to help analyze, appraise, and provide sufficient information so that a decision could be made within the time frame.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Such language has been prepared.
Mr. PERCY. The Senator from Illinois would be most supportive of it,
Mr. President, service on the Committee on Appropriations has convinced me that many times the staff is inadequate for the job and the responsibilities we have, and this would place at the disposal of every committee and every Senator a group of professional people comparable in stature and quality to the Office of Management and Budget, which the Congress now lacks.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President. will the Senator yield for just a brief observation?
Mr. PERCY. I am happy to.
Mr. McCLELLAN. W e have a marvelous Appropriations Committee staff, but it is a housekeeping staff; it is not a professional staff that would normally be prepared to immediately make an analysis and report back intelligently to the Senate on an issue like this.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I would like to have about 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. ERVIN. I would like to say that I agree with the Senator from Tennessee. There was no reason why entitlement legislation should not be subjected to two committees, just as we do now generally with the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee. That is why, I believe, the bill reported unanimously from the Government Operations Committee provided for that on page 68. Under that provision, the Appropriations Committee could make amendments. It seems to me we are arguing here the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee, as to whether one should support the bill as it was revised by the Committee on Rules and Administration or the Government Operations Committee version. I think it comes to the same thing. I do not know which way I am going to vote when it comes to a vote, but personally I would like to go back to the Government Operations Committee version on this and have two committees look at the matter before we saddle the American people with billions of dollars of additional obligations; but neither the amendment nor the bill pending before us will accomplish that purpose.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment having expired, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF). The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced – yeas 31, nays 55, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]
So Mr. RIBICOFF's amendment was rejected.