May 9, 1974
Page 14108
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first of all, before commenting on this amendment, I would like to say just a few words, now that we have more than two or three Senators on the floor, about what I intend to do later in order to bring this matter to a head and permit the Senate to vote on it up or down and get it behind us.
After the Senate acts on the Proxmire amendment, I will offer a substitute for the Tower amendment, so that we can get a vote on the merits and get away from the procedural side trips we have been engaging in this afternoon.
Mr. President, with respect to the Proxmire amendment, I am for ceilings on Federal spending. I am not sure I am for this one. I might be for a lower one. I might be for a higher one. But I have not yet given as thorough consideration as I would like to the questions that should go into the setting of that ceiling.
The Senator from Wisconsin has. The Senate's firm figure is $295 billion. Maybe if I had gone through the same exercise that he has gone through, I might have come up with the same conclusion. However, this legislation – the CIEP authorization, S. 2986 – did not focus my attention on what a budget ceiling should be.
I have been engaged for the last year with my colleagues on the Government Operations Committee and on the Committee on Rules and Administration, and on the floor of the Senate, in developing budget reform legislation designed to give us a rational method for achieving a limitation on Federal expenditures, taking into account all the figures; but I just do not have that specific information.
May I say, with all due respect to the Senator from Wisconsin that I am not about to take anyone's figure out of the air this afternoon on what a ceiling should be. It may be too high. It may be too low. However, this is not the time to talk about that decision. The Committee on Appropriations is working on it, and based on its record over the last 16 years that I have been a Member of the Senate, the Appropriations Committee has always done a responsible job. On the record, I think always without exception, although my memory may be inaccurate, the Appropriation Committee has always cut the appropriations requests made by the President, and it has been responsible. It was responsible last year, and I assume that the Appropriations Committee is doing its work and is going along in the process, which is a long one, and a process which originates in the House. I also assume that in due course we will know what the Appropriations Committee thinks ought to be the limit of Federal spending.
I would like to see that process reformed along the lines of the budget reform bill, so that we can take a fix earlier in the year. However, we have not reached that point as of now. We have not had the benefit of the kinds of budget reform legislation that we will have later. So why should we accept this figure proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin early in the year, in the midafternoon of May 9, 1974.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, what we do not want to do is to leave the impression with the people of this country that this is the answer to the problem. As to the bill introduced by the Senator from Maine, I understood from the Senator from Wisconsin that this was an alternative solution to the problem. I do not think it is an alternative solution to the problem.
I think what the Senator is talking about, that has to be considered, is something that ought to be considered very carefully However, I do not think it ought to be a substitute for the idea and the philosophy that has been declared in the legislation introduced by the Senator from Maine.
That is the one thing that is bothering me at the moment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am terribly concerned that we not put the Senate in a position of voting against a budget ceiling, however restrictive it may be, however arbitrary it may be, without having the specific information, because we do not want an image that we are against the budget ceiling.
We all understand the effect and intent of an amendment of this kind. It would stampede us in the direction of voting for any figure that someone dreams up, so that we can be on the side of the angels and budgetary restraint, and favor a ceiling on budget spending.
I am not prepared to be in favor of any such figure of this kind on the basis of inadequate preparation so early in the year.
I assume that the Senator from Wisconsin has given a great deal of thought to the elements and details of his figures so that he would know exactly what programs he would be for and what programs he would be against and what he would or would not spend, based on his budget recommendations. But I have not yet had an opportunity to make that kind of an analysis.
But I have supported and worked for budget reform legislation because it gives a rational and reasonable basis for proceeding, and presents a target early in the year so that we can have the final fix on it later in the year.
I am for it. The Senate is for it. The House is for it. We are in concert. We will report a bill that we can recommend to both Houses, and it should be signed by the President. When that has been done, and when it becomes effective, we will have effective budget reform. However, I do not think that this amendment proposed today is the way to do it.
The legislation we have before us is geared to fix our attention on the issue of controlling inflation and shortages through monitoring. This is not the whole answer to the problem of inflation. Federal budgets are a part of the answer. Agriculture is a part of the answer. Food policy is a part of the answer. Export and import policies are a part of the answer. There are a great many parts that go to make up the answer.
But all that this legislation can hope to do is to try to contain inflation through economic monitoring of policies.
We ought to find it possible to deal with these limited questions this afternoon and to resolve them one way or another without venturing into all the other areas for which we are not prepared, I believe, on the Senate floor today.
So I would not favor the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin, with all due respect to his ability and intentions.