March 20, 1974
Page 7493
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I thought the committee was putting quite a responsibility on the Congressional Office of the Budget when it required that Office to make studies for 5 years on fiscal matters. This amendment would require a study on matters having a very indirect relationship to the bill, not for 5 years, but until the last lingering echo of Gabriel's horn trembles into ultimate silence.
In addition, it runs contrary to the purpose of this bill, which is to enable Congress to do what it can to set the Federal financial house in order. This amendment would require the Office to make studies which really are the business of Senators and Representatives and Presidents. The Office would have to study, on a continuing basis, all legislation, trends, and developments in Government at the Federal, State, and local levels, and related trends and developments in the private sector which affect the Nation's growth and development goals and priorities. The Office would have to make studies related to every possible aspect of the future of this Nation.
I agree with the distinguished Senator from Minnesota that that might be desirable, but I think a different organization should make those kinds of studies, instead of what is essentially an organization to study fiscal and economic conditions of the country to enable Congress to prepare a congressional budget for 1 year at a time.
This amendment would change the entire concept embodied in the Congressional Office of the Budget, and for that reason I do not think it has any place in this bill.
I suggest to the Senator from Minnesota that he consider setting up some other agency to study national goals and priorities and all these things which relate not only to congressional legislation but also to State legislation and the affairs of the private sector. That is entirely beyond the scope and intent and purpose of this particular bill.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, what is the time situation on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time limit on the amendment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I recognize the sincerity of the argument of the distinguished chairman. I think he is dead wrong, and I want to address myself to it.
The Federal budget is not an item unto itself, and that is what has been wrong around here. The Federal budget is related to State budgets and local community budgets, but we pay no attention to State and local budgets. The Federal budget is also related to the private sector, and the private sector is related to the Federal budget.
For this body to try to ignore the fact that a budget of more than $300 billion has an impact upon the private economy is to deny its reason for being here. To say that what develops in the private economy has no effect upon the budget is to ignore what the tax revenues will be, what the income of the people will be.
This amendment is only a guideline for the Congressional Office of the Budget to try to take into consideration, for the purpose of informing Congress, what the impact of this budget will be for fiscal year 1975, 1976, 1977, or whatever year is being used, on the long-term growth and development of our country. Also, to advise what its impact will be on priorities and goals of our country. I think this is a logical extension of the five budget projections. But again I most sincerely say that if we in Congress think by legislating on a Federal budget we are immune from what is going on in the private sector of the economy, we are living in a fool's paradise. What happens in this regard has a great effect on the economy. It will have a great effect on the gross national product, an impact that will be felt at Federal, State, and local levels. We cannot prepare budgets in a vacuum and we should not.
I think the bill before us is an extraordinarily good document and I have paid my compliments to the committees. They have done an extraordinarily good job, but that does not mean it cannot be improved.
The Government of the United States is the only government in the world that does not have some instrumentality or some agency to give some sense of direction to national growth and development. One can say, "Well, this ought to come on some other bill." But the time is now; the task is urgent, to quote Victor Hugo, since we all like to be kind of intellectual around here.
The longer we put this off, the worse it will get. Had we had this before, we would have known more about the energy situation. What does this have to do with the oil industry? It has a great deal to do with the oil industry in terms of the impact of research or the lack of research.
One item after another is involved here. The entire transportation system of this country is involved. Are we going to say that the Federal budget will have no impact on the growth of the transportation system of this country? What kind of transportation system are we going to have; what kind of transportation system should we have? Are we going to ignore in each national budget what should be the goal of this country in transportation? Or are we going to say that it is the problem of the railroads, that it is the problem of the buslines, that it is the problem of the airlines? That is the trouble and today our transportation system is inadequate for the task.
Mr. President, we may not adopt this amendment, but that would not be the first time we have failed to do what we should do. The need to prepare some system for ascertaining goals and priorities of this Nation is clear and unmistakable, and if we do not do it in Congress, the executive branch should do it by itself, but I hope we can do it in partnership. For Congress to have a mechanism to work with the private sector on national growth and development is absolutely essential.
We have housing legislation involving billions of dollars. But that is not the only problem. The problem is: Where are the people going to live? Where should they live? Under what conditions should they live there?
In this body we passed a great Environmental Protection Act, which is long overdue. The author of the bill, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) is in the Chamber. It was long overdue, but no one took into consideration what would happen through the change in the economy with that kind of legislation. Let us have a goal with respect to gas and oil. For instance there is the impact upon the automobile industry.
This amendment proposes to ask the Office of the Budget, which is a congressionally created office, to give us some idea where we are going and what the impact will be year by year upon the total, long-range goals of this country. Hopefully, we can set some goals and priorities. I doubt anyone here knows what our goals and priorities are. We have not made up our minds with respect to what we want to do and what timetable we want to have for accomplishment of our objectives. We do not have any goals.
What are our goals with respect to housing and health, with respect to manpower training and education? We have not made up our minds. Everybody cannot be on first; somebody has to be in the dugout.
Again, I want to say this is not the kind of amendment I think the Nation ultimately will need. I think we need at the national level an office of national growth and development and we need in the Congress a joint committee on national growth and development. I think we need to start to plan for the use of our resources and to have a mechanism for setting up goals and priorities, for setting up guidelines, forecasts and projections. But just to project a 5-year Federal budget without relation to its effect on the balance of the economy is not the answer. It is better than what we have. The 1-year annual budget has serious limitations. The 5-year projection is a commendable improvement but it is important to know what the budgets in those 5 years will do to the total national economy.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think it needs to be argued that the process the Senator urges is a process that is needed, not only in the executive branch of government but also in the congressional branch, as well. I think it is important to point out to the Senator that we did consider legislation of this kind briefly in committee in connection with this budget reform legislation.
The distinguished Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) introduced legislation asking us to consider adding it to the budget bill. At that point in the consideration of the budget bill we felt we had not had an opportunity to give mature consideration to that function as a responsibility of the proposed congressional office of the budget so the Senator from Florida was urged to have the bill reported separately. It was reported separately and it is on the calendar as S. 1414. It has the support of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. ERVIN) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY), and I think it has the support of the full committee. It well may end up in the congressional office of the budget. It may well do that, but we felt most of the 8 months of effort we gave to the budget reform bill should be devoted to the budgetary responsibilities and that we should not casually introduce this very important responsibility at a late hour in committee consideration of the bill.
I speak for myself and I think for the other Senators named. We are all for this kind of approach. We see it as being part of the responsibilities of the COB down the road, but we did not want to over-complicate the pure budget reform with which we had been occupied most of this year. So I would like to associate myself with the Senator in connection with most of what he would like to do. But S. 1414 will have the support of the committee, I think, and perhaps end up at the same place.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator. I always feel the time to do what needs to be done is when the time arrives and since the committee has seen fit to approve this concept – and I was unaware of that – I hope it would not seem out of place to give it consideration in this bill.
Ultimately, as has been indicated, it has had committee consideration. But I must say, with all due respect, that even if it had not had committee consideration, that does not necessarily deny the opportunity to offer it here on the floor and, hopefully, have it acted upon with favor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I make this point clear? It was because we were not certain that the Congressional Office of the Budget was the place in which ultimately to rest that responsibility that we proposed to set it up separately. The Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) would set up a separate Office on Goals and Priorities. We think it better to start it down that road rather than tie the two together. That is a pragmatic judgment. As the Senator has said, any Senator has the right to do so and any idea can be proposed on the floor if the Senator so wishes. I thought it would be useful to the Senator's discussion to give him this legislative history.