October 29, 1975
Page 34246
Mr. MUSKIE. I have listened with interest to the discussion, and it resembles some of the discussions I have had earlier with the staff, reflecting discussions between the Budget Committee staff and the Interior Committee staff. We have tried to get at the heart of what is involved.
It seems to me that the semantics of the discussion can be confusing. My understanding with Senator JACKSON, which was to be implemented by a colloquy this afternoon, amounted to this: that notwithstanding the passage of S. 327, actual funding is subject to the new budget process and subject to the appropriation process; that passage of S. 327 does not amount to a prejudgment of what that funding will be following consideration by budget process and the appropriation process.
I was satisfied that that was the case. I hope that the discussion that has taken place does not have the effect of undermining that understanding. If it does, then it seems to me that we have problems that should be resolved before we act finally on the bill. I was satisfied with the understanding we had arrived at with Senator JACKSON. I have carefully read the proposed colloquy, and it seems to me that the whole thing is pretty clear.
I simply raise the question now to the distinguished manager of the bill, as to whether or not at this point we might bring the discussion to a head by entering into that colloquy and making it a part of the record, unless the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is in disagreement with the thrust of that colloquy.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I think the colloquy is perfectly agreeable.
The Senator would add a further dimension beyond the colloquy, from the statement just made, and I take this exception to the statement the Senator made.
The Senator said, first, that land and water conservation funds for future years — and, indeed, for this year — would be subject first to the budget process and second to the appropriations process. I certainly agree with that. The law so provides. But the Senator went further and said that this bill represents no judgment as to what those levels should be.
Mr. MUSKIE. It does not constitute a prejudgment as to what those levels will be. Obviously, those who support this legislation have very specific ideas about what it should do.
The point I am making is that the passage of S. 327 does not have the effect, and should not have the effect, of tying the hands of the Budget Committee or the Appropriations Committee with respect to what the funding will be next year. That is the very definite understanding.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The semantics are delicate here, but I think they are important.
It does not legally, ipso facto, require the setting of a budget level nor does it require appropriations at that level. The Senate, the Budget Committee, and the Appropriations Committee would be free to disregard what I see is a very clear mandate and a very clear judgment as to what those levels should be and hopefully will be.
If the Senator is asking whether the Budget Committee would be authorized to violate so clear a mandate and close their eyes to so clear a need and to disregard the judgmental considerations in this legislation, I would say the law so authorizes it — unfortunately, yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that if such an action by the Budget Committee is going to be construed as a violation of the law, then the colloquy takes on a different dimension from that which I had understood.
What the Budget Committee constantly is struggling with these days, as it seeks to bring government spending into some kind of rational order, are prior commitments that have produced uncontrollable spending. If what we are doing this afternoon is making another such prior commitment, from which we can depart only under a charge of violating a mandate of Congress, then I must say, as one Senator, that I do not want to have any part in that kind of prior commitment, and we should get into the substance of the legislation now.
The Budget Committee wants to start out with clean hands; and if the only way we can start out with clean hands in this next year is to discuss the substance of this proposal this year, today, or whenever the floor situation permits, then perhaps we should do that.
I understood that the result of this colloquy was to leave the Budget Committee free to make its judgments next year, without any such pressures. If that is not the case, then it seems to me that we need to clarify the situation beyond this colloquy.
Mr. McCLURE. I say to the Senator from Maine that he has put his finger precisely on the point I have tried to make consistently during the deliberations in the subcommittee and again on the floor of the Senate — that one cannot have it both ways. This is either a commitment to expend some money or it is nothing more than an authorization. The Senator from Louisiana wants to say that it is sort of between the two: It is more than an authorization and less than a commitment. Or is it a commitment and more than an authorization?
Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield, in the case of an ordinary authorization no credit is carried on the books of the Treasury.
Mr. McCLURE. But the Senator from Louisiana said that does not make any difference, that it is just a bookkeeping entry.
Mr. JOHNSTON. There is a distinction. If the Senator wants to tell me that it is a distinction without a difference, the Senator is free to construe it as he wishes.
I did not write the original language of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I did not create the procedures. I am simply continuing those procedures and continuing with the same language which has been used before.
Mr. McCLURE. If the Chair please, I think I have the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Very well.
Mr. McCLURE. I do not mean to be rude to the Senator, but I think the point must be made, and must be reiterated, that this is the first time that Congress has specifically said that we will set the ceiling, but we do not expect that amount of money to be spent. I understand the Senator from Maine as saying that that is the only basis upon which the Committee on the Budget can accept this legislation: if there is no prior commitment to appropriate or expend this amount of money next year. If I misstate what I understand the Senator from Maine to have said, I wish he would correct me.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has stated it as I understood it.
Mr. McCLURE. That is the way I would have understood the expectation of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I read from the proposed language in a colloquy which Senator JACKSON and I had and I understand he approved?
Mr. McCLURE. Certainly.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is Senator JACKSON'S statement:
I know that next year, the members of the Budget Committee, when they come to consider the First Budget Resolution of fiscal 1977, will give this legislation every possible consideration.
The actual funding for this legislation will be the result of the process through which the Budget Committee evaluates economic and fiscal policy, considers requests for Federal spending, and does its best under difficult circumstances to provide the proper levels of funding and the best ordering of priorities.
That language does not suggest to me that if we do other than fund this bill fully in accordance with the numbers in it, we shall be in violation of any duty that we owe to Congress or to the Senate.I am not interested in going into next year's budget or considering that budget under any such pressure. If the question of actual funding is to be decided today — the actual funding for next year — then perhaps we had better get into the substance of this program today. But if full funding is subject to the processes suggested by Senator JACKSON'S colloquy,then I accept that, too.
I am interested in the land and water conservation fund. It has been a worthwhile program. It has made significant contributions in my own State, so I am not hostile to this program at all. But I also understand that what is involved here, in the view of the Senator from Louisiana, is a $14 billion commitment through 1989 to fund something over $3 billion in additions to the Federal Government's holdings in this field, plus State holdings — a commitment for not only that $3 billion in projects, but another possible $11 billion in projects that have not been identified and whose merit has not yet been established. This kind of commitment that far into the future, as a future restriction on the Federal budget, is something that the Committee on the Budget has to be concerned about if we have any responsibility at all.
I understood from the colloquy that had been worked out between Senator JACKSON and myself that, as chairman of the Committee on the Budget, I should not regard myself as so bound. Rather, as chairman, I can go forward with the responsibilities which Senator JACKSON spelled out in the language I just read, free of any kind of stigma if we should come up next year with different numbers than are here.
I am not trying to throw a monkey wrench into the legislative machinery, but I think the Committee on the Budget is entitled to a clear policy decision this afternoon. I do not want to go work next year and come here on the floor with a number less than the Senator suggests we may be committing ourselves to and find myself in the midst of an argument that I have somehow broken faith with the Senate or broken faith with the sponsors of the .bill. I want no part of that. I want a clear slate.
Mr. McCLURE. Let me respond to theSenator from Maine and then I shall yield to the Senator from Louisiana, because I know that he, too, wants to comment.
First, I agree with what the Senator from Maine has said, that the Budget Committee view of this action is precisely that there is no future commitment. If that is true, this is, in essence, nothing different than an authorization bill, which may carry some unexpended balances into the future.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say something to the Senator?
Mr. McCLURE. Certainly.
Mr. MUSKIE. Speaking as one Senator, if this becomes law under circumstances which I thought would pertain, I personally feel this is a little stronger commitment than the ordinary authorization bill, but I would not regard it as a commitment that would tie the hands of the Committee on the Budget. That is the difference.
In other words, I think that the way this fund has been established suggests an order of commitment above that of the usual authorization bill. That may be psychological more than legal.
Mr. McCLURE. But to the extent that there are unexpended balances — that is, amounts identified in this legislation which were neither appropriated nor expended — that imbalance between spending each year would become greater as the carryover authorization became greater.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right, and that would not add, I think, to the binding effect on the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. McCLURE. The gap would grow year by year.
Second, I want to make one small correction in the mathematics we are dealing with. The full amount of the authorization here is not directed only toward the Federal projects. This is a division between Federal funding and funding of the State programs.
So the real comparison of the $15 billion over the 15-year period should not be related to the $3 billion in Federal backlog at the present time; it should be a comparison of $5.6 billion of that addressed to the Federal backlog of $3 billion.
I think, nevertheless, that the point should be made that, if this is not a trust fund, it is very little more than an authorization. If it is not just a very little bit more than an authorization, then it does commit Congress, including the members of the Committee on the Budget who vote in favor of it, and under the direction of the Senate, to try to come upwith $1 billion next year.
I do not think we can have it both ways.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the Senator and I hope that before this action on this bill is finally taken, we will clarify that point.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, if I may make an observation, let me say, first of all, as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation, that I worked very closely with my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. JOHNSTON) in trying to work out the best possible deal we could on this legislation. I recognize, on the one hand, that there is great and intense interest in the National Park System, to mention only one facet of those areas into which funds from this land and water conservation fund could go. There is great interest throughout the United States.
I note that my good friend from Oklahoma is interested in the establishment of the Chickasaw National Recreation Area in his State. Similar interest in establishing national parks is found, without exception, in practically every State in the Union. There is at least one area, if not more, that is unique and singular and, frequently is, at the same time, very fragile ecologically. These areas can be destroyed, as the Senator from Louisiana has pointed out.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HANSEN. I am happy to.
Mr. BELLMON. The Senator has mentioned Chickasaw National Recreation Area. Perhaps I should keep the record straight. If this figure is being raised from $300 million to $1 billion a year to accommodate the Chickasaw National Recreation Area, we will be glad to withdraw that.
That is a small project which involves trying to get two presently Federally owned tracts of land. That is a few acres, with relatively few thousands of dollars. I should be happy to give that up if it will keep this from going through the ceiling.
Mr. HANSEN. I appreciate the generosity of my good friend from Oklahoma. It does square with the view I have had of him for a long time, that he is a conservative man, a reasonable person, and one who is not out in the forefront of those who say, "Let us cut the budget, but let us cut it in your area and not in mine." I compliment him for that.
I was not trying to call attention to that particular proposal in the State of Oklahoma as a justification for the legislation which we are now considering. Rather, I mentioned that particular area simply to make note of the fact that we all are interested in the preservation of those particularly cherished and unique parts of the country, insofar as Federal land acquisition goes.
We recognize that such areas may be fragile, that they can be destroyed. We recognize and welcome the sort of protection that can come from the special handling given to elements within the National Parks and the National Monument System.
A point I was trying to make, however, is, as everyone knows, that these are difficult times. They are tough times economically for the United States. We have a great many demands on our resources.We have far more good uses to which money can be put than there is money to satisfy those demands.
Yet, I think — along with my good friend from Louisiana — we recognize that there are, in our judgment at least, certain priorities that could very well be established in utilizing our limited financial resources. We can postpone some acquisitions by the Federal Government. We can postpone, if we must, the development of public use facilities in acquired recreational areas, if the choice comes down to this. If we are going to take steps to establish and add to the National Park and Recreation System, on the one hand, thereby requiring an outlay of capital, we can try to move forward simultaneously with full development as well as acquisition of these recreational areas, an approach which usually costs more money initially and frequently leaves large inholdings of privately owned property. The choice here, insofar as I am concerned, can be made rather easily.
I would say let us take those steps to make the land acquisitions now in order to insure the protection of the fragile values that we cherish and to protect the taxpayers against future inflation of land values. These lands are deserving of the protection that the National Park System can afford, rather than to try to make them fully available for public use in the short term.
Mr. President, the debate that has occurred so far this afternoon, I think, underscores the dilemma the Interior Committee has faced in trying to answer in a rational way the problem of preserving parklands in an era of inflation and economic restraints. We tried to shape this legislation to get the best possible deal we could. It was my understanding that the language in this bill we are now considering did go beyond a simple authorization; that it did entail more than what normally might be construed to be implied by that sort of action; that there would be some commitment, albeit perhaps only a moral commitment, by the Budget Committee to recognize what those of us on the InteriorCommittee felt was necessary in order that the Government of the United States would not find its hands tied in the acquisition of prime park and recreation lands.
If we are not going to be able to count on any more money than is actually reflected by those portions of this Land andWater Conservation Fund, which can truly be considered a trust fund and not subject to any appropriations process and readily available to this committee, then,it would seem to me, we have got to cut back on our program, because there is, as the Senator from Louisiana has pointed out, a backlog already on the books of massive funding that requires action by the Federal Government, to say nothing of the responsibilities we owe to the several States in order to participate in those projects that will be supported in part by Federal funding under congressionally approved legislation.
I would like to ask my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, what his feeling is at this point. Having heard the debate as I have, does he have the same feeling that he and I shared when we came to the floor earlier this afternoon, hoping that this bill could be passed and that the assurances of adequate future funding are there? I am not trying to say there has been anyone backing up on those assurances, but I think there is at least some doubt in the mind of the Senator from Wyoming, somewhat less confidence than I had when I came here. I believe that I understood not only what the Interior Committee proposed but also what I assumed was a consensus reflecting the feelings of the Budget Committee as well, and I hope that my belief is now fully justified and supported in light of the discussion that has taken place.
Mr. JOHNSTON. If the Senator will yield to me at this point perhaps I can clear up the misunderstanding.
Mr. HANSEN. I yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSTON. First of all, I want to assure the Senator that the colloquy which I now plan to read, which has been agreed to by the Chairman of the full Interior Committee, is fully extant and fully operable as far as I am concerned.
Mr. President, like the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , I recognize that in this confused and difficult economic period we must pay careful attention to Federal spending and to Federal spending priorities. For this reason, on behalf of the Interior Committee, Senator JACKSON has discussed the critical need for, and budgetary implications of, S. 327 with Senator MUSKIE, the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. President, if passed, S. 327 will authorize to be appropriated an additional $700 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, this additional $700 million, taken in connection with all of the other programs which have been either enacted or are presently under consideration in this area of the Federal budget, would place great stress on spending priorities in fiscal 1976. For that reason, neither the Interior Committee nor I plan to seek appropriations for fiscal 1976 from the proposed increase. The distinguished ranking minority member of the Interior Committee, Senator FANNIN, and the Chairman, Senator JACKSON have recently written to Senator MUSKIE expressing our intentions on this point, and I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.,
October 23, 1975.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE
Chairman,
Senate Budget Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are writing in reference to the discussions which have taken place between the staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the staff of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. We are pleased to provide you with the following views of the Interior Committee concerning S. 327, legislation to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Acts of 1966, as amended, to establish the National Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes.
Although it is the view of the Senate Interior Committee that the programs which will be funded under the authority provided by S. 327 are sound and justified, we recognize the severe pressures on the Federal budget this Fiscal Year, 1976, and the importance of exercising Congressional restraint in spending. We believe, therefore, that it would be appropriate to defer any significant increases in expenditures pursuant to the new appropriations authority contained in S. 327 until subsequent budget cycles.
As you are aware, Title I of S. 327 would increase the base level of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) from the present $300 million per annum to $1 billion per annum. Some concern has been expressed that this increase would result in a massive budgetary impact whether or not these funds are appropriated. This concern is based on the assumption that the L&WCF, in the manner of the Highway Trust Fund, would earmark monies in the Treasury and make them unavailable for other programs. This is incorrect with respect to all but a small portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
An explanation of the source of revenues for the L&WCF may help to clarify the situation. The Fund is composed of all revenues from motorboat fuel taxes, entrance fees to units of the National Park System and recreation areas administered by the Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service, and the sale of Federal surplus property. These revenues have amounted to between $60 and $80 million per annum and they are segregated. These funds under existing law may not be spent for purposes other than those authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
The difference between the amount of those revenues and the authorized level of the L&WCF, which amount to about $230 million now and would be about $930 million under S. 327, is made up from revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing; but these are not earmarked revenues, they represent merely an accounting entry on the Treasury books.
In reality, Treasury marks a credit to the L&WCF to the extent of OCS revenues authorized, but does not borrow such amounts for other Federal purposes unless this Congress should actually appropriate the full amount for purposes of the Fund. Absent an appropriation, the moneys are available (except for the $60-$80 million from recreation revenues) for other projects, and the L&WCF account carries a credit which can be drawn upon in future years.
We understand that the staff of the Senate Budget Committee has ascertained from Executive Agencies that the above description of the situation reflects the practice followed by the Treasury in the past. There is no intent in S. 327 to alter the practice in administering the increased authorization.
You may feel free to use this letter in a floor statement and we will be happy to arrange a colloquy if you feel that it is necessary.
Sincerely yours,
HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman.
PAUL J. FANNIN,
Ranking Minority Member.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I know that next year the members of the Budget Committee, when they come to consider the first budget resolution for fiscal 1977, will give this legislation every possible consideration. The actual funding for this legislation will be the result of the process through which the Budget Committee evaluates economic and fiscal policy, considers requests for Federal spending, and does its best under difficult circumstances to provide the proper levels of funding and the best ordering of priorities.
I am grateful for the help and counsel of the Budget Committee on this matter and I salute the work of the Budget Committee in helping to bring order to the process of spending our taxpayers' dollars.
I might add, I have supported the Budget Committee in some other matters which I would like to have seen increased. I have supported the Budget Committee not only in its inception, but in what it is trying to do.
If I may go a step further, in addition to this colloquy, I have conceded, as the law concedes, that this increase does not bind the Budget Committee. It does not constitute a trust fund. It does not constitute an appropriation. As the colloquy states, the Budget Committee will give every possible consideration to the funding — I believe the words are "consistent with the Budget Committee's evaluation of economic and fiscal policy."
There is no question about that, I would remind my distinguished friend from Maine.
Now, to what extent does that constitute a moral commitment, a goal?
Mr. President, we now have on the books some $3 billion of Federal recreation land acquisition authorizations. If all we are doing here is passing a further authorization which will not have any more status, or any more effect, or be any more of a commitment, or of any more signifcance than a restatement of what we have already done when we created the National Parks, we might as well not pass this.
Consistent with the Budget Committee's and the Appropriations Committee's evaluation of economic and fiscal policy it does constitute, in my judgment, a moral commitment, a statement of priority, and a goal to be met.
What that means in my judgment, is that if the Budget Committee should find that economic and fiscal restraints in their judgment, do not prohibit the full appropriation of these funds, then it would constitute a moral commitment. It would constitute a goal to be met, and a goal for long-range planning.
Surely, Mr. President, this legislation must mean something more than the same $3 billion which has already been authorized.
I hope that this statement clears up some of the confusion, and I hope that the Senator will regard this increase in the Budget Committee next year, after he has evaluated the economic and fiscal situations, as a real goal; and, if the economic situation of the country permits, regard this as an obligation, not a legal one, but rather an obligation to the people of this. country to try to meet the goals which we set when we established National Parks and Recreation Areas.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say to the Senator, I would, as I indicated earlier regard it as a high priority. I cannot at this point say that I will regard it as the highest priority over all other requests for Federal spending which we may receive.
We have to make those judgments not only in terms of the economic situation of the country but also in terms of other requests and within the priorities which the Budget Committee adopts. All of thisof course, the Senate will ultimately act upon.
So I would regard this as a high priority, higher than the usual authorization priority, for the Budget Committee to consider.
Mr. HANSEN. Will the Senator from Maine yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Could I read this first?
Mr. HANSEN. My question, rather, pertains to what the Senator is going to read.
Mr. MUSKIE. Very well.
Mr. HANSEN. I was just going to say, I am certain there are Members on this floor who have not had the opportunity of reading the entire colloquy and it would occur to me that it would be very useful if the colloquy, in its entirety, could be read, perhaps if Senator JOHNSTON could read the part that was to have been spoken by Senator JACKSON so that we could know exactly what is being said.
Mr. MUSKIE.The Senator has already read that.
Mr. HANSEN. Fine.
Mr. MUSKIE. He has already read that.
Mr. HANSEN. I just wanted to be sure that we hear now everything that will go into the RECORD on this particular point because it seems to me that this is very crucial to an intelligent vote on this issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let us proceed to the colloquy.
Mr. HANSEN. Yes.
STATEMENT READ BY MR. JOHNSTON ON BEHALF OF MR. JACKSON
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, like the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), I recognize that in this confused and difficult economic period we must pay careful attention to Federal spending and to Federal spending priorities. For this reason, on behalf of the Interior Committee, I have discussed the critical need for, and budgetary implications of, S. 327 with Senator MUSKIE, the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. President, if passed, S. 327 will authorize to be appropriated an additional $700 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, this additional $700 million, taken in connection with all of the other programs which have been either enacted or are presently under consideration in this area of the Federal budget, would place great stress on spending priorities in fiscal 1976. For that reason, neither the Interior Committee nor I plan to seek appropriations for fiscal 1976 from the proposed increase. The distinguished ranking minority member of the Interior Committee, Senator FANNIN, and I have recently written to Senator MUSKIE expressing our intentions on this point, and I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.,
October 23, 1975.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman,
Senate Budget Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: We are writing in reference to the discussions which have taken place between the staff of the Senate Budget Committee and the staff of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee.We are pleased to provide you with the following views of the Interior Committee concerning S. 327, legislation to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, to establish the National Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes.
Although it is the view of the Senate Interior Committee that the programs which will be funded under the authority provided by S. 327 are sound and justified, we recognize the severe pressures on the Federal budget this Fiscal Year, 1976, and the importance of exercising Congressional restraint in spending. We believe, therefore, that it would be appropriate to defer any significant increases in expenditures pursuant to the new appropriations authority contained in S. 327 until subsequent budget cycles.
As you are aware, Title I of S. 327 would increase the base level of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) from the present $300 million per annum to $1 billion per annum. Some concern has been expressed that this increase would result in a massive budgetary impact whether or not these funds are appropriated. This concern is based on the assumption that the L&WCF,in the manner of the Highway Trust Fund, would earmark monies in the Treasury and make them unavailable for other programs.This is incorrect with respect to all but a small portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
An explanation of the source of revenues for the L&WCF may help to clarify the situation. The Fund is composed of all revenues from motorboat fuel taxes, entrance fees to units of the National Park System and recreation areas administered by the Corps of Engineers and the Forest Service, and the sale of Federal surplus property. These revenues have amounted to between $60 and $80 million per annum and they are segregated.
These funds under existing law may not be spent for purposes other than those authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
The difference between the amount of those revenues and the authorized level of the L&WCF, which amount to about $230 million now and would be about $930 million under S. 327, is made up from revenues from the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing; but these are not earmarked revenues, they represent merely an accounting entry on theTreasury books.
In reality, Treasury marks a credit to the L&WCF to the extent of OCS revenues authorized, but does not borrow such amounts for other Federal purposes unless the Congress should actually appropriate the full amount for purposes of the Fund. Absent an appropriation, the monies are available (except for the $60-$80 million from recreation revenues) for other projects, and the L&WCF account carries a credit which can be drawn upon in future years.
We understand that the staff of the Senate Budget Committee has ascertained from Executive Agencies that the above description of the situation reflects the practice followed by the Treasury in the past. There is no intent in S. 327 to alter the practice in administering the increased authorization.
You may feel free to use this letter in a floor statement and we will be happy to arrange a colloquy if you feel that it is necessary.
Sincerely yours,
HENRY M. JACKSON,
Chairman.
PAUL J.FANNIN,
Ranking Minority Member.
CONTINUATION OF STATEMENT READ BY MR. JOHNSTON ON BEHALF OF MR. JACKSON
Mr. JOHNSTON. I know that next year the members of the Budget Committee, when they come to consider the first budget resolution for fiscal 1977, will give this legislation every possible consideration. The actual funding for this legislation will be the result of the process through which the Budget Committee evaluates economic and fiscal policy, considers requests for Federal spending, and do their best under difficult circumstances to provide the proper levels of funding and the best ordering of priorities.
I am grateful for the help and counsel of the Budget Committee on this matter and I salute the work of the Budget Committee in helping to bring order to the process of spending our taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Interior Committee for his cooperation and I want to commend him for his work in the area of national parks. But even more, Mr. President, I want to commend him for his responsible leadership in affirming that spending decisions must bemade in the context of our Nation's overall budgetary priorities.
As the distinguished Senator knows, I am deeply concerned about the pressures on the fiscal 1976 budget and about legislation that might add to these pressures.
S. 327 is such legislation. If it is funded this year at the levels authorized, the budget targets the Congress agreed to last spring would be in grave jeopardy.
Of course, S. 327 is an authorization bill. It does not by itself provide budget authority or result in budget outlays. Decisions about actual expenditures are made through a process that now requires Congress to vote its own spending ceiling each year, based on the recommendations of the Budget Committee. But every committee and every Senator must exercise responsible leadership if the budget process is to work.
Mr. President, the Interior and related-agencies appropriations bill, now in committee, is legislation that does result in budget authority and outlays and therefore will require very close study. Like all Senators, I will study this bill and the appropriations it provides when it is reported and make a judgment then whether to support or oppose it.
We have received a letter from Senators JACKSON and FANNIN, chairman and ranking member of the Interior Committee, which has been placed in the RECORD and which would give assurances that the Interior Committee will defer requests for any significant increases in expenditures under the additional authorizations contained in S. 327, until future budget years.
Like all authorizations, this increased authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund is subject to the new budget process and will receive a full and fair examination in connection with next year's first concurrent resolution.
A special problem associated with the Land and Water Conservation Fund is the spending pressure created by congressionally-authorized additions to Federal recreational lands. As I understand it, there is presently a backlog of over $3 billion in land which Congress has directed be added to our park system. I am sure that all of my colleagues have, at one time or another, urged that land in their States be added to federally-held recreational areas. But I believe that, as part of the Senate's commitment to the principles of budget reform, we must all begin to take a harder look at these admittedly worthwhile proposals which, taken together, substantially increase pressure to appropriate Federal dollars.
Mr. President, I view our consideration of S. 327 as a landmark in the development of the new congressional budget process. We are establishing the important principle that the funding of all authorizations is subject to our budget process. We are establishing the further principle that the actual level of funding depends on the fiscal and economic realities of any given year. And we are proving that important authorizing committees can work with the budget committee in a spirit of cooperation.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I say, Mr. President, that statement and the statement which the distinguished Senator from Louisiana earlier read on behalf of Senator JACKSON were carefully worked out with Senator JACKSON and I think is a fair resolution of the issue.
I would like to repeat to the Senator from Louisiana that as far as I am personally concerned, I would regard the passage of S. 327 as a high order of commitment or priority in future years as we consider it, but not the highest and not exclusive of all of the other priorities that we must consider in our Budget Committee work.
We are now involved, in the Budget Committee, for the second time this year in consideration of the 17 budget functions of the Federal budget. We once again find ourselves in the middle of that debate over priorities, from defense to all the social programs, the environmental and conservation programs, as to how to allocate Federal resources. That, in my judgment, is the Budget Committee's highest duty.
I would like to yield, if I may, to my distinguished colleague (Mr. BELLMON) ,who would also like to comment.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.
Before I begin my comments, I wonder if the Senator from Louisiana will yield for a question.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, I yield to my distinguished friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. The Senator from Oklahoma was out of the Chamber when the Senator from Louisiana read part of the colloquy. I wonder if he would mind reading again the middle paragraph on page 1 of that statement.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, if passed, S. 327 will authorize to be appropriated an additional $700 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, this additional $700 million, taken in connection with all other programs which have been either enacted or are presently under consideration in this area of the Federal budget, would place great stress on spending priorities in fiscal 1976. For that reason, neither the Interior Committee nor I plan to seek appropriations for fiscal 1976 from the proposed increase. The distinguished ranking minority member of the Interior Committee, Senator FANNIN, and the chairman, Senator JACKSON, have recently written to Senator MUSKIE expressing their intentions on this point. And the colloquy goes on to ask a unanimous consent.
Mr. BELLMON. The copy I have reads,"For that reason, neither the Interior Committee nor I plan to seek appropriations for fiscal 1976 which would go beyond the presently available level of authorization." The Senator's text is apparently different.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not know what text the Senator from Oklahoma has. I know this text was cleared with the Senator from Maine. I believe.
Mr. MUSKIE. The copy I have is the same as that of the Senator from Oklahoma. There may be minor changes. I am glad the Senator brought up that point. As the Senator from Louisiana was reading his copy it occurred to me that I had the same language as the Senator from Oklahoma. I do not know what difference it makes.
Mr. BELLMON. It makes a substantial difference because the text I have says that neither the Interior Committee nor the Senator from Louisiana plan to seek appropriations for fiscal 1976 which would go beyond the presently available level. We are talking about raising that from $300 million to $1 billion. This would give the Senator from Louisiana in the Interior Committee $700 million of new funds, if I understand his statement.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand what the Senator read, he read he would not seek the amount of the increase.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator read his statement again?
Mr. JOHNSTON. For that reason, neither the Interior Committee nor I plan to seek appropriations for fiscal 1976 from the proposed increase.
Mr. MUSKIE. From the proposed increase.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BELLMON. I am glad to yield.
Mr. McCLURE. Do I understand from that, if it conforms to the text the Senator from Oklahoma has, that the Interior Committee would seek only that amount of money which is presently authorized, the $300 million that is presently authorized?
Mr. JOHNSTON. In fiscal 1976, the Interior Committee will only seek appropriations from this year's authorization and the backlogged sums, that is correct.
Mr. McCLURE. It is my understanding that it is quite likely that the administration will support an increase in the funding of that to the level of $500 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. For fiscal 1976?
Mr. McCLURE. No, in fiscal 1977.
Mr. MUSKIE. We are talking about fiscal 1976.
Mr. McCLURE. This bill, however, applies not just to fiscal 1976. Is it the intention of the Senator from Louisiana to say that this applies only to fiscal 1976 and not to fiscal 1977?
Mr. MUSKIE. There are two commitments. One is with respect to the present fiscal year, as proposed in the first concurrent resolution, Senator JACKSON andSenator FANNIN committed themselves not to seek any increases this year above the amounts presently available.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is under the order of the targets we adopted last spring. That commitment is made. With respect to the future, fiscal 1977 and thereafter, the commitment was simply that the Budget Committee in the budget process would work on it, taking into consideration the enactment of this legislation with whatever priority that suggested.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Mr. BELLMON. My point can be succinctly put if the Senator from Louisiana will respond to this question: In fiscal 1976 does the Senator from Louisiana or his parent committee intend to spend more than $300 million from the, land and water conservation fund?
Mr. JOHNSTON. There is presently authorized $300 million plus the backlog from previous years. It is my understanding that the administration has authorized, and we will seek, whatever that presently existing authorization under the present land and water conservation fund is. This bill in no way affects that. What we are saying in this colloquy is that in fiscal 1976 we will not use the additional commitment contained in this bill to seek one additional dollar over and above what presently exists.
Mr. BELLMON. At the present time, the concurrent resolution on the budget provides $300 million for fiscal 1976. We are not changing that?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, obviously this bill is not changing the budget ceiling. If the Senator is asking me to reduce the amount we might otherwise be asking, under existing law—
Mr. BELLMON. I am not asking that.
Mr. JOHNSTON. In order to pass this measure, I cannot make that commitment.
Mr. BELLMON. No, I am talking about inadvertently raising the ceiling.
Mr. JOHNSTON. No, we are not using this bill to raise what we would otherwise ask from the Budget or Appropriations Committees.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. BELLMON. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand the action of the House of Representatives is to provide $300 million for this fiscal year, and $9 million as against the backlog. The House has appropriated $309 million. This agreement with the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) was not intended to touch that. We can individually vote on whether or not that is too much, or too little, or what have you. Senator JACKSON committed himself not to seek anything beyond the presently available amount, as I understand.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is correct.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Wyoming for a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Frank Whittenberg be accorded the privilege of the floor during debate and voting on this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, before I go into a statement I was to make, I would like to simply conclude the colloquy by telling the Senator from Louisiana that I believe we are in agreement now, so far as fiscal 1976 is concerned, that the action we take will not substantially change existing law; but I would like to warn the Senator that, looking ahead to fiscal 1977, which will be the concern of Congress and the Budget Committee next year, fiscal 1977 looks like an extremely tight year as well, and I hope he will not get the impression that we are agreeing to authorize, for the consideration of the Appropriations Committee, the figure of $1 billion. I do not believe the committee is willing to consider that figure at this time, and I do not want the Senator to have that impression. We are not committing ourselves to any such amount.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, at the risk of repeating, I think we have a carefully structured colloquy which is now in the RECORD which I endorse. I endorse the statement of the Senator from Maine that he regards this as a high priority or a high commitment, and I am sure he will be reminded of those words in fiscal 1977. He will come back and remind me that he has also said it is not his highest commitment, it is not his highest priority; and we will probably engage in further debate.
I regard the commitment to recreation, to the acquisition of open areas before they are lost to the bulldozer, and to historic preservation as being not only a high commitment but a necessary commitment of this country, and I shall continue to remind the Senate, the Budget Committee, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and the Appropriations Committee of that commitment.
If the Budget Committee does not share that view to the extent of $1 billion next year, and because of economic or fiscal restraints cannot be as generous as we would like to be, it will be within the legal power of the Budget Committee to do so. I hope that the economic condition of the country will be such that they will see it in their power to grant the $1 billion.
Mr. DOMENICI Mr. President, will the Senator from Oklahoma yield?
Mr. BELLMON. I yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me ask the Senator from Oklahoma this question: We keep talking about the Budget Committee, and whether or not in 1977 they are going to approve $1 billion or something less.
I do not understand that we have such authority or such capacity or function in mind. This expenditure will be within one of the functional areas that contains far more than this fund, whether it is $100 million or $1 billion. Is that correct?
Mr. BELLMON. That is true, except that this year the Budget Committee is operating on a sort of trial basis, and we did not go into the subcategory considerations, as we are likely to do in fiscal 1977, in the preparation of that budget.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is there not this problem, I ask my distinguished friend from Oklahoma, the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee: Assume we are discussing the function of natural resources, which I think is function 300 or some such number, and assume we are trying to set a total figure on it: Will we not have this figure, be it $500 million or $1 billion, with other items of expenditure, be they outlays or authorized levels, and is that not also relevant, and should not this dialog reveal that we are not committing, say that $1 billion is right, to an appropriations committee or authorizing committee, depending on who does it, under this hybrid theory, and there would not be picking and choosing; it that not correct?
Mr. BELLMON. That is my understanding, based on the colloquy this afternoon.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is that the way the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee understands it?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, indeed. I think the Senator makes a very important point, that the function within which land and water conservation funds fall includes a number of areas, I do not know what the total number is, and priorities within that function are determined, of course, by the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. The reason I asked the question is that I think perhaps those reading this, whatever side of the issue they might be on, might be misled into thinking that it is going to be the Budget Committee which determines literally whether it is $100 million or $1 billion in 1977, and that is not our prerogative. We should not be leading anyone to that conclusion. As I understand the chairman, he is merely saying, as to the proposed expenditures, et cetera, that the Budget Committee, within functional area 300, has some kind of priority, if this bill passes, that is less than an appropriation and more than an authorization, but we will not pick and choose and asterisk it as if we were choosing the amount.