September 17, 1975
Page 29089
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not have an amendment to offer, but I do have a statement on behalf of the Committee on the Budget that will take perhaps 10 minutes.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 3 minutes to me without losing his right to the floor?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) proposes an amendment.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 40, line 22 delete "$85,249,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$85,824,000.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, there is an amendment to H.R. 8069, appropriating $575,000 for the President's Commission on Olympic Sports.
The Commission, created by Executive Order on June 19, 1975, is charged with these basic functions:
The Commission shall conduct a full and complete study and evaluation of the United States Olympic Committee (a federally chartered corporation), its activities, and its present and former membership groups on a sport-by-sport basis as they relate to the effectiveness of United States teams in international competitions in the Olympic Sports.
... an analysis of the organizational and developmental problems in each Olympic sport
... an analysis of the financial and facilities requirement of each sport and recommend ways to provide needed funds.
At present, the Commission's funds for its 1-year life are $569,000 of reprogrammed HEW moneys. This amount is clearly not enough to do the job requested by the President in his Executive order and reaffirmed on September 9, 1975, in his meeting with members of the Commission at the White House.
An additional $575,000 is necessary to insure that the Commission accomplishes its purposes.
Specifically, the additional funds are necessary to:
Allow the Commission members to meet an adequate number of times to consider the testimony of the many witnesses who have perspectives of the problems of amateur sports in this country.
Allow sufficient numbers of witnesses to testify before the Commission.
Provide sufficient funds to enable the staff to respond to large volumes of requests for public information.
Provide funds to support the use of consulting groups comprised of athletes, coaches, and administrators to work with the Commission in the sport-by-sport analysis of problems affecting each of the Olympic sports.
Provide funding for necessary travel by both Commission members and staff to conduct the numerous fact finding interviews with the fullest possible range of persons — athletes, ex- athletes, coaches, officials, and administrators — who are knowledgeable about the U.S. Olympic Committee, its membership, and the 28 Olympic sports.
Provide a staff of 14 professionals and 7 clerical/secretarial support personnel needed to assist the Commission members with the basic facts and preliminary analyses required for the Commission members to produce Commission reports and judgments that are logically developed and responsive to the Executive order.
Mr. President, I have discussed this matter with the Senator from Washington, the manager of the bill, and I amend the amendment so that the figure will read $85,519,000. This would give the President’s Commission the amount of money that HEW indicated at the time of our hearings would be necessary for them to complete their work. They are an especially chartered corporation, dealing with the very difficult problem of our relationship to Olympic sports.
I urge the managers of the bill to accept the amendment, so that we will fully fund this 1-year Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HELMS. Does the Senator desire to make his statement after all the amendments have been submitted?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to make it at this point, because I think Senators who hear the statement might find it useful background to consider in connection with any amendments that are offered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. MAGNUSON. There is no amendment pending. The Senator from Maine is making a statement.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Several amendments have been submitted which will be called up when the Senator from Maine has finished.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I undertake to make this statement, at this point, for two reasons.
First, this is one of the large appropriations bills, and the Budget Committee is constantly asked how this fits into the budget resolution.
So it seems to me, at this point in the budget process, in connection with this bill, that it would be useful if I were to lay out for the Senate the nature of the new budget process, how it relates to an evaluation of appropriations bills of this kind, and what problems may be coming down the road.
I begin by making some comments related to a newspaper column which appeared in the Washington Post this morning.
Mr. President, nobody promised us a rose garden when we undertook budget reform. We knew the task of addressing our National fiscal priorities and beginning the long hard road back toward a balanced budget would be a thankless one.
We knew those whose favorite programs would be cut would complain we were damaging the national interest, and those whose programs were allowed to grow might complain the growth was not fast enough. But we took on that responsibility. We waded into the briar patch of budget reform. We did so because of our conviction that failure to put the Congress and the country on the course toward fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget was to abandon our responsibility to our people. It was to condemn our own and our children's future to the burden of massive deficits and limitless and largely unplanned growth in Government.
I think it is fair to say, at the end of our first year, that the Budget Committees of the House and Senate, with the help and support of the Membership and committees of both bodies, have gained a toehold in the struggle toward fiscal responsibility. We have established a scorekeeping system which, though still imperfect, gives us a way of viewing our spending decisions as we make them against that congressional budget. We have decided in at least two areas, the school lunch program and the military procurement bill, to send bills back to conference which, in each case, threatened to cost $200 to $300 million more in spending than our congressional budget contemplated.
We on the Budget Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, have addressed the Budget Committee's work in a bipartisan spirit. An overwhelming majority of the committee has supported each of our committee decisions and key votes. So has the Senate. We have not looked for thanks for our efforts. Any reward for this work will come slowly. It will come in the form of a return to the sound fiscal management Congress owes the taxpayers.
But we have made a beginning. And in making that beginning, we have been criticized in quarters we had to anticipate would assail us. This morning's newspaper contains an error-ridden attack on the military procurement conference report. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of these remarks, that article and a memorandum stating the accurate facts be included in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not intend to further respond at this point to that political column. But it is worth noting that its conclusion that "Congressional budget reform is really a Senate shell game to fleece the Pentagon" stands in stark contrast to the analysis of the same vote by such organizations as the Americans for Democratic Action and the Council on National Priorities and Resources whose positions criticizing the Pentagon budget are well known.
Shortly after the Senate's action in rejecting the military procurement conference report, which is the subject of this morning's political gossip column, the Council on National Priorities and Resources issued a report, which I ask to be included at the conclusion of these remarks, entitled "Senate Budget Committee Secures Defeat of Defense Authorization Bill — Grave Implications for Domestic Programs." That report concludes:
Muskie and the liberals on the Budget Committee seem to have been seduced by the conservatives ... This action will most likely exact a heavier toll on programs oriented to human needs.
The ADA report on this vote stated:
Any major increases in social programs, such as expanded food stamp benefits, or any major social initiatives — such as National Health Insurance — will be extremely difficult to achieve with the budget limits. If Muskie can defeat Stennis and the Pentagon, he almost assuredly can defeat the Child Nutrition Act amendments conference report.
I ask unanimous consent that both these reports be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, subsequently, as all Senators are aware, we did return the child nutrition conference report to the Conference Committee for further reductions to make it more consistent with the budget resolution.
I do not mean to complain this morning about the burdens faced by all members of the Budget Committee and of the Senate as we strive toward fiscal responsibility. Distortions like this morning's newspaper carried are a well known part of the Washington game. Rather, I address this point simply to assure the Senate that, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will not be swayed by such criticism from a course of steady-as-she-goes toward a balanced budget, and I know this is true of the other members of the committee and all Senators. We are grateful for your support this year. We look forward to its continuation.
I understand, of course, that criticisms of the recommendations we make will come from the whole spectrum of politcal ideologies and a wide range of citizens' concerns. The only way to avoid this kind of criticism is simply to open up the Treasury to unrestricted pressures and to give a blank check to anybody who wants support from the Federal Government.
Turning now to the Labor/HEW appropriation bill before the Senate, we are concerned that, although in general that bill is consistent with the spending allocations contained in the first budget resolution, nonetheless, certain spending in the health area which it contains will cause an increase in the health function of the budget. This increase derives not only from the substantial administration reestimates of the increase in the costs of existing programs mandated by law, but also from new spending provided by the appropriation itself. I understand the argument can be made that this additional money should be included in this bill to provide trading leverage with the House of Representatives, whose bill is lower in cost and does not contain this particular problem. I understand the amount involved is less than 1 percent of the total cost of this bill.
Under these circumstances, I do not suggest the Senate recommit this bill to the Committee on Appropriations at this point for further reduction, since that reduction may come in the conference betweenthe two Houses.
And if it does not, the Committee on the Budget can recommend recommitting that bill to the conference to make those reductions. However, should amendments be offered to reduce those amounts during this debate, they will have my support.
Mr. President, before proceeding to the details of the labor, health, education, and welfare appropriations bill for 1976, I wish to clear up some of the confusion that has arisen over how to "Keep Score" on the budget. I think the confusion has been frustrating to the Committee on Appropriations; I think it has been frustrating to other Senators who have tried to get the details of the budget, and it surely has been confusing to those who have undertaken to make comparisons between the scorekeeping performance of the House of Representatives and that of the Senate.
The procedures involved in the first budget resolution this year did not address specific programs in a manner that would permit comparison of individual appropriation bills to the resolution targets. In the process leading to the first budget resolution, the Committee on the Budget considered broad functional aggregates only, and indeed, I believe that is the proper approach.
Under the terms of the Congressional Budget Act, the job of dividing up the budget resolution totals distributed to appropriation bills is the responsibility of the Committee on Appropriations after Congress adopts the budget resolution. Under the act the Budget Committees are to stipulate to the Appropriations Committees the total, by function, available within the budget resolution for all appropriation bills. The Appropriations Committees are to report back to their respective houses how they have divided that total by subcommittee. That report, which we shall receive next year, forms the basis for subsequent comparison of individual appropriation bills with the budget resolution targets.
In this first year of activity, we did not attempt to apportion the targets to the various committees that provide spending authority, and the Committee on Appropriations, therefore, has not been able to provide the Senate with the split by individual bill. Given that situation, the best we can do this year is to provide an up-to-date status report on each of the budget functions in which the Labor-HEW appropriations bill falls.
This one bill includes programs which are found in six different functional categories of the budget. However, it does not include all of the programs that are found in each of those functional categories. The bill cuts across those six functions. The frustrating problem that faces the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on the Budget this year is to identify that part of each function that relates to this particular appropriation bill.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Why did the committee on the Budget find it necessary to make the process so confusing? I do not understand how it works. Why could the committee not follow the appropriation bill so its analysis would be simple, understandable, and we would all know what we are doing and what we are expected to do?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. 1, the Committee on the budget did not create this problem. This problem was created in the budget process as it developed from 1921 until the enactment of the budget reform legislation last year. The budget which the President sends to us is not broken down by Appropriations Subcommittees, it is broken down by the 17 functions. So if we are to make recommendations to the Senate based upon our evaluation and disagreements with the President's budget, we have to take into account those 17 functions and then try to relate those functions into the appropriation bill that the Senator is concerned with.
Mr. McCLELLAN. It does make it very confusing.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with the Senator completely.
Mr. McCLELLAN. And that is one of our troubles. I think the members of the Committee on Appropriations are just as concerned about the budget problem and sound fiscal policies as is the Committee on the Budget. But we get different budget ceilings, we get them submitted in different forms. Whereas this bill is reputed to spend more than the concurrent resolution by the Senate Committee on the Budget, we also hear that the total of this bill is under the concurrent resolution according to the House Budget Committee. Is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not quite that black and white.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Well, now, that gets more confusing. Why — if we are given a certain amount for these functions, when we total them up, can we not tell whether this bill exceeds the congressional budget resolution?
Mr. MUSKIE. My speech is in answer to that question.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I think the Senator said so.
Mr. .MUSKIE. I shall be glad to get into it.
Mr. McCLELLAN, I think the Senator said so a few moments ago.
Mr. MUSKIE. Before I get into the detail of the six functional categories, if I may say to the distinguished Senator from Arkansas in answer to his first question, we are undertaking a dialog with the Office of Management and Budget to try to work out an accommodation between those functional targets that the budget now is built around, and the Committee on Appropriations.
They understand our frustrations. They have indicated a willingness to work it out. The simplest thing would be to have the functions broken down within the Appropriations Committee by appropriation bill.
The second thing the Budget Reform Act requires us to do next year is develop a crosswalk — that is, a procedure for translating the functional targets into the appropriation bills with which the Senator's committee has to work. Under the Budget Act, the Committee on Appropriations breaks that down itself. We do not do it for them.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I understand that. What I am trying to emphasize is that there is now much confusion, there is lack of cooperation, and there is need to eliminate the confusion and to establish the cooperation.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with that.
Mr. McCLELLAN. But it is now a stateof abject confusion.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think that is the case. I think we have been moving pretty well up to this point. I think we all pretty well understand.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I asked the Senator the simple question, a moment ago, if this bill does not go over the concurrent resolution. He went off talking about something else, instead of answering me yes or no.
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not go off to answer something else. I said that if I might complete the answer to his first question, I would answer the second question.
But, in the meantime, the Senator has raised another point.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Just answer this.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am trying to answer your question.
Mr. McCLELLAN. We are getting more confused. I asked a simple question whether it goes over the Senator's budget.Now, the Senator cannot answer it because he has to go into something else. That is the point, that is what is wrong.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator had not interrupted me to ask a question, he would have had his answer now.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I have been waiting.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator wants to restrict my response to the format of his question.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I would like to have a yes or no answer to my question. That is what I am asking for.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am perfectly willing to answer any question the Senator has. But when he asks a question, I think I have the prerogative of answering it as fully as I can and commenting on any editorial comments the Senator feels disposed to make.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Well, if the Senator does not want to say yes or no–
Mr. MUSKIE. I prepared a speech
Mr. McCLELLAN. I will say, yes, the bill is over the concurrent resolution, and sit down. If the Senator wants to say it is not over, let him say so.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will say yes or no in due course.
One of the reasons the Senator is confused is because too many people have looked for simple answers to a very complex problem, and no one is more aware of its complexity than the Senator who has been chairman of the Appropriations Committee for all these years. But now I will get to the Senator's question.
I have referred to the fact that H.R. 8069 funds programs found in six functional categories of the budget: Community and regional development; education, manpower and social services; health; income security; veterans benefits and services; and law enforcement and justice. Three of the six functions — income security, veterans and health — are over their outlay targets. The threat to these three targets is primarily due to underestimates on the part of the executive for mandatory spending programs.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I asked only a simple question whether this bill exceeds the concurrent resolution. I do not know why it takes a half-hour's speech to answer it. Maybe it is yes or no. If it is not, if the question cannot be answered yes or no, just say so.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have not found the Senator reluctant to take as much time as he needs on the floor to explain any point he wants to make.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I give the Senator the rest of the day. I am not interrupting.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have tried to put together an explanation of this process which would be useful to at least 99 Senators and, I hope, 100. So, Mr. President, I would like to give my colleagues a brief review of where we stand with respect to the target for each of the six functions at this time.
For community and regional development, the Labor-HEW appropriations bill for fiscal 1976 contains $0.6 billion in budget authority, and $0.5 billion in outlays. If my colleagues will turn to page 27 of the Senate budget scorekeeping report, they will see that this is compatible with the target for this function and, in fact, leaves a margin in both budget authority and outlays.
H.R. 8069 provides budget authority of $6.9 billion and $5.1 billion in outlays for manpower and social services programs. Page 31 of the scorekeeping report shows that the spending in the education, manpower and social services function is also under the target by $1.2 billion in budget authority and $0.7 billion in outlays. I must point out, however, that there are many possible demands for spending in this function which have not yet been considered by the Appropriations Committee, which are enumerated on page 33 of the scorekeeping report, such as over $2 billion for temporary public service employment, $0.5 billion for education for the handicapped, and $0.1 billion for the Developing Disabilities Act.
The Labor-HEW appropriation bill contains $15.5 billion in budget authority and $11.3 billion in outlays for programs in the Health function. This is $0.9 billion over that portion of the President's budget request which the appropriations committee considered, and $0.2 billion over the House-passed bill. Page 35 of the scorekeeping report shows that the health function is over the target for budget authority by $0.4 billion and outlays by $2 billion. Of this overage, $1.2 billion is accounted for by the pending legislation on health insurance for the unemployed which, if not enacted, would reduce the outlay overage to $0.8 billion. Some $0.7 billion of this outlay remainder is due to upward reestimates for uncontrollable spending programs which were submitted by OMB after the. enactment of the first concurrent resolution on the budget.
Excluding the $1.2 billion for health insurance for the unemployed and $0.7 billion for reestimates, health remains $0.1 billion in outlays over the target and I must point out that there is major health legislation which has not yet been considered in the Senate, as shown on page 37 of the scorekeeping report.
H.R. 8069 includes $13.2 billion in budget authority and $11.7 billion in outlays in the income security function. The scorekeeping report shows on page 39 that outlays in this function are over target by $0.4 billion. These programs are almost all uncontrollable entitlement programs. Those paid out of trust funds, such as social security, have permanent budget authority and are not a part of this bill. Others, such as AFDC and SSI are in the appropriations bill, but their costs are not in fact limited by the amounts in this bill. If the costs of these programs prove to be higher, there will have to be a supplemental appropriation next spring to meet these higher costs. For the few controllable accounts in this function, the Senate committee bill reduces the President's request by $89 million, roughly the same figure as in the House-passed bill.
Although this bill contains only a small sum for veterans benefits, it provides an opportunity for me to point out continuing difficulties in the veterans benefits and services function. I would like my colleagues to turn to page 43 of the scorekeeping report which indicates this function is over target by $1.1 billion in budget authority and $0.9 billion in outlays. As you may remember, when the veterans appropriation bill was before the Senate, I had an opportunity to discuss with Senator PROXMIRE the spending pressures on this function. Since the President submitted his budget to Congress in February, there have been $1.4 billion in upward reestimate in mandatory spending programs. This puts increasing pressure on those programs which are controllable and all other legislation which is currently pending.
The last function included in this bill is law enforcement and justice, found on page 47 of the scorekeeping report. The $25 million in budget authority and $22 million in outlays for this function in this bill is consistent with the target.
So the real answer to Senator McCLELLAN cannot be yes or no. There is $86 billion in Presidential requests still to be reported by the Appropriations Committee.
The chairman will answer his own question, in part at least by the amounts in those bills.
If I may summarize what I have been saying about the six functions which have programs funded by this bill.
With respect to No. 450; if this bill is enacted as it was reported to the Senate, function 450, community and regional development, will be $4.4 billion under the budget target for budget authority, and $2 billion under the budget target for outlays.
With respect to function 500 education, manpower, and social services, if it is enacted as it was reported, that function will be $1.2 billion under the target for budget authority, and $0.7 billion under the target for outlays.
With respect to function 550, Health, the amount over or under the target is affected by what happens to unemployment insurance. If that is enacted, then that function would be over the target by $0.4 billion in budget authority and $2 billion in outlays. If it is not enacted, then the health function will be $0.8 billion under the target in budget authority and $0.8 billion over in outlays. Again, I point out that $0.7 billion of the $0.8 billion overage in outlays is due to upward reestimates by the executive for mandatory spending programs.
With respect to function 600, Income Security, if H.R. 8069 is enacted, we are $0.3 billion under the target in budget authority, $0.4 billion over in outlays, again primarily due to reestimates.
With respect to function 700, veterans benefits and services, if this bill is enacted, we will be $1.1 billion over the target in budget authority, $0.9 billion over in outlays.
With respect to function 750, law enforcement and justice, we are consistent with the target in budget authority and under target for outlays by $0.1 billion.
May I make the point that against this we have to take into account that in some of these functions there is legislation pending which potentially has a large price tag. Some of that legislation, if enacted, would take us over the target, and I urge Members to look at the scorekeeping report in order to get this perspective.
Furthermore, I want to point out that due to reestimates in mandatory spending programs, it is quite clear that if we enact spending legislation which is already enacted or in process or requested by the President, we could exceed the budget resolution targets by $9.4 billion in budget authority, when the total is adjusted to comparability, and by $6 billion in outlays.
The pressure of reestimates, the pressure of rising interest costs and other pressures may have already taken us above the budget deficit target which we established last Spring.
Finally, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point two tables which will show the summary of the six functions, both with respect to budget authority and with respect to outlays as affected by the pending bill.
There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Tables omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I in closing congratulate the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON). It is not easy to try to work in this complicated area, particularly when we try to accommodate functional totals with appropriations bills. He has done it with his usual attention to detail and to the merits of programs involved.
What I have had to say today is not designed in any way to be a criticism of him or his efforts.
I feel a particular responsibility to vote against increases because if I do not set some kind of an example nobody will, and I have to take some political heat for some of those votes.
With respect to the appropriations process as a whole, and I think we have to look at it that way, the Appropriations Committee deals with budget priorities, not for a single appropriation bill, but in the context of all of its appropriation bills.
In most, if not all, of the years that I have been here, the Appropriations Committee has cut Presidential requests on the appropriations side and I would be surprised if that is not the case this year. It may well be that some of these tentative overages may be more than offset by cuts in subsequent appropriation bills or in conference.
I simply want Senator MAGNUSON to know that I understand that there are many steps in the appropriations. Additionally, we have another opportunity in the second budget resolution to take all of the reestimates, and economic changes into account. I simply thought it might be advantageous at this point in the appropriations process to make these observations.
EXHIBIT 1
THE SENATE SHELL GAME
The most recent "scorekeeping" report by the Senate Budget Committee, showing excessive defense spending and reduced non-defense spending, suggests that the much acclaimed congressional budgetary reform is really a Senate shell game to fleece the Pentagon.
In fact, Congress clearly is reducing defense spending and increasing non-defense spending. The reason this does not show up in the monthly scorecard is an accounting change by the Senate staff which, at least temporarily, appears to reduce non-defense for future spending by a huge $27 billion. That accounting change will probably be corrected in time, but the figure juggling reflects a clever anti-Pentagon operation only now becoming clear.
The budgetary reform, while actually cutting Pentagon spending more deeply than domestic programs, gives the opposite impression. If we cut school milk funds, demand liberal budget reformers headed by Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine, you must reduce missiles and aircraft carriers. The result: enough conservative Republicans joining Muskie to create a new Senate anti-defense coalition endangering long-range defense programs.
Architect of this coalition is Muskie who preaches "fiscal discipline" but is firmly committed to cutting back the Pentagon and boosting social welfare spending. Such "reordering of priorities" is the goal of Muskie's Senate Budget Committee staff (including its defense specialist, Andrew Hamilton, a former softline staffer on the National Security Council).
The game began stacked against defense in the Muskie committee's original targets. The defense target was set below President Ford's request ($3 billion less for current spending, $7 billion less for new budget authority). The non-defense target was set above President Ford's request ($21 billion more for current spending, $17 billion more for new budget authority).
From that uneven beginning, the Muskie committee moved into a budget accounting quagmire navigable by few technicians and no U.S. senators. The committee's Sept. 2 scorecard shows Congress $4 billion over the committee target in defense budget authority and $9 billion under its target in non-defense budget authority.
How can this be when Congress cuts defense and increases just about everything else? The scorecard answers in a footnote. An accounting change removed $27 billion in long-term authority for public housing. Without that change, non-defense budget authority would be $9 billion above even the Senate's high target. This target may be lowered later to correspond to the accounting change, but the Muskie committee for now has given a false impression of defense proligacy and non-defense parsimony.
This fits Muskie's Senate tactics. On July 10, he rose to oppose a $180 million addition to the school lunch program on grounds it exceeded his committee's targets. He was overwhelmingly supported by the Senate, amid speculation Muskie had turned from spender to tightfisted fiscal conservative.
That speculation ended when Muskie dropped the other shoe Aug. 1, the last day before the August recess. Muskie again rose in the Senate to reject the defense procurement bill's final version on grounds it exceeded the target by $5.4 billion (a misleading figure partially caused by the Muskie staff's accountancy). Muskie's message: If you cut school lunches, cut defense as well.
Defense advocates scarcely consider swapping free lunches for missiles a fair trade considering the overall rise in social welfare spending. But Muskie's argument enlisted five conservative Republicans — Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma, J. Glenn Bean of Maryland, Robert Dole of Kansas, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and William Roth of Delaware. They provided the difference as the Senate rejected the bill 48 to 42.
It is no coincidence that all these conservatives except Roth belong to Muskie's budget committee. Relatively junior in seniority, they view the new budgetary process as their avenue to power.
Thus, a new anti-defense coalition has been built on internal Senate politics, on balancing minor social welfare cuts with major defense cuts and on impenetrable budgetry accounting. The Aug. 1 roll call reflects a possible landmark change in Capitol Hill defense politics that deeply worries the Pentagon. On Sept. 5, Muskie helped cement his coalition by successfully opposing the final version of the school lunch bill, thereby perpetuating the notion of trade-off.
Defense officials hope to break the coalition by convincing its conservative Republicans that they are victimized by figures which magnify defense spending and shrink non-defense spending. But the impulse for stronger national defense immediately following the Indochina debacle seems to be fading. The desire to equate elimination of free school lunches for children of $200 a week workers with cuts in military preparedness may be irresistible.
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.,
September 17, 1975.
To: Senator Muskie.
From: Sid Brown.
Subject: Comments on the September 17 Scorekeeping Article in the Washington Post.
1. There is a reordering of priorities as between defense/international programs on the one hand and domestic programs on the other hand. But this is not a Budget Committee reordering. It is the will of the entire Congress as expressed in the First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. It should be kept in mind that the President's budget requested major new program increases in Defense and almost no new program increases in the domestic area.
2. There has never been any attempt to cover up the $27 trillion budget authority item in the Senate Budget Scorekeeping Report (actually the figure is $27.6 billion). It is clearly footnoted in Summary Table 1 on page 9 and in the two functional tables in which it is located (Community and Regional Development and Income Security) .
3. The treatment of the $27 billion item in the Senate Budget Scorekeeping Report is exactly the same as in the scorekeeping reports of the Congressional Budget Office.
4. We removed the $27 billion from the scorekeeping totals because that is what the Senate did
in passing the HUD/Independent Agencies appropriation bill. The House version of this bill left this amount in, and the bill is now in conference. Until we know the outcome, we believe it is best for the Senate Scorekeeping Report to follow the Senate action. If the Conference outcome is to go the Senate way, we will make a comparability adjustment in the First Budget Resolution totals so as to show the "remainder" entries on the proper comparable basis. Meanwhile, the present treatment is clearly explained in three textual notes to the scorekeeping tables which are clearly apparent to anyone who reads those pages.
5. The $27 billion item affects budget authority only. It does not affect outlays which are the most important element in scorekeeping this year.
6. The Budget Committee opposition to the school lunch bill shows that we are just as concerned with overspending in the domestic area as in the defense/international area. Why would we oppose the school lunch bill if we had "doctored"the Scorekeeping Report in an attempt to show that domestic programs were under target?
7. It should be noted that the five "conservative" Republicans mentioned in the article as opposing the military procurement bill also voted to recommit the school lunch bill. In fact the Senate voted 76-0 to recommit the school lunch bill. This is hardly an example of attacking defense and letting domestic programs off the hook.
8. The original targets of the Senate Budget Committee did indeed cut National Defense budget authority by $6.7 billion and National Defense outlays by $2.8 billion from the President's request (the September article uses figures of $7 billion and $3 billion respectively). But for all other programs, the Committee recommended only $8.8 billion more in budget authority and $14.7 billion more in outlays than requested by the President — not the figures of $17 billion and $21 billion cited in the article.
EXHIBIT 2
COUNCIL ON NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND RESOURCES,
August 7, 1975.
SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE SECURES DEFEAT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL – GRAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR DOMESTIC PROGRAMS
In an unprecedented move August 1st, the Senate rejected the conference report for the FY 1976 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 8674) by a vote of 48 to 42. The winning coalition — consisting of fiscal conservatives and liberals critical of the Pentagon — was led by Edmund Muskie, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and Henry Bellmon, ranking Republican on the committee. Opposition to the report centered on two issues:
It authorized appropriations exceeding the $100.7 billion spending target for national defense implicit in the first concurrent budget resolution by some $900 million in budget authority and $300 million in outlays.
Authorization of $60 million in advance procurement funds for a nuclear strike cruiser, slipped in during the conference, was considered a gross violation of the budget procedures outlined in the Budget Act.
Fifteen of the 18 Senate Budget Committeemembers voted to reject the conference report along with a majority of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The outcome certainly enhances the standing of Muskie and his new committee; the prestige of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees seems to be undercut as a result.
The floor action by Muskie and Bellmon is the first manifestation of their strategy to defend the first budget resolution by opposing conference reports which, in the view of the Senate Budget Committee, would "bust" the budget.
Although the rebuff to the Pentagon and the Senate Armed Services Committee is laudable on its own merits, the quid pro quo underlying this action will most likely exact a heavier toll on programs oriented to human needs. The first such victim will be the conference report on the school lunch program (H.R. 4222), which, in Muskie’s view, exceeds the spending target by $430 million. A vote on this conference report will be taken in September when the Senate returns. As Muskie put it during the debate, "it is a pernicious fallacy to assert that we can be true to the budget process if we exceed a budget target in one area without deciding at the same time where we are going to cut the budget in another area".
The hard reality is that the Muskie-Bellmon strategy of hewing to the targets set in the first budget resolution has the disastrous effect of prolonging the recession. It is now clear that the first resolution, adopted in May, falls far short of providing an adequate economic stimulus. For example, the fiscal policies established by the resolution would sustain intolerably high levels of unemployment — 7.8 to 8.2 percent — through 1976. Since even liberals have an aversion to voting for budget deficits, the Muskie-Bellmon ploy to promote "fiscal responsibility" will serve only to discourage needed initiatives in Congress to speed economic recovery. Muskie and the liberals on the Budget Committee seem to have been seduced by the conservatives. It is interesting to note that the House Budget Committee has not chosen to play their cards this way.
To put this situation in the proper perspective, consider the following:
The spending figures set forth in the first concurrent resolution are targets, not ceilings which are intended to guide, not control the subsequent deliberations of Congress on particular authorization and appropriations bills. By acting in the name of the Senate Budget Committee while providing leadership to oppose conference reports, Muskie is giving the first resolution a controlling role not intended by the Budget Act.
Only after the second resolution is adopted it is not in order for the House or Senate to consider any legislation which would increase spending or cut revenues. Even the second resolution could be revised to accommodate changing circumstances.
Instead of opposing conference reports on authorization bills, the proper time to deal with budget targets is during debate on appropriations bills. As Senator McClellan noted, "anything in the appropriations bill that exceeds what the Budget Committee thinks is proper is subject to amendment, subject to change, subject to debate, and the issue can be resolved". In the case of the Defense Authorization, that particular bill funded only 24 percent of the total military budget. Even if the manpower levels set in the bill were to be translated into dollars and cents, the bill would cover 56 percent of the military budget at most. On the other hand, the Defense Appropriations Bill to be taken up this fall will cover 91 percent of the budget (the remainder is appropriated in seven other bills).
The Pentagon is not likely to take this setback gracefully. The Budget Committees will surely be under more intense Pentagon pressure in the future. Given the predominance of pro-Pentagon conservatives on both the House and Senate Budget Committees, we may find that setting budget priorities means dividing a limited pie among domestic interests after the Pentagon gets its piece.
AMERICANS TOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION,
Washington., D.C.,
August 8,1975.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE DEFEAT OF MILITARY PROCUREMENT CONFERENCE REPORT
On August 1, 1975, the Senate rejected the fiscal 1976 military procurement conferencereport (H.R. 6674). The defeat was a major surprise; never before had a military budget conference report been defeated and almost never does Armed Services Chairman John Stennis suffer a major defeat.
The fight on the conference report developed suddenly, and in fact did not jell until July 30, two days before the vote. Until that time, Senate Budget Chairman Edmund Muskie had indicated an interest in a major fight against the conference report if and only if there was a significant chance of success. He did not want to risk a smashing defeat for the budget process. Muskie hoped to fight the bill on the grounds that 1) this authorization bill,"busted the budget" by $900 million in budget authority and $300 million in outlays and 2) the conferees added $80 million in long lead time items for a nuclear strike cruiser which had not been considered by the Senate and had been requested by the President in the middle of the conference meetings.
Serious support for the Muskie effort came when the ranking minority member of the Budget Committee, Henry Bellmon, agreed to join the fight against the conference report. Then the fight became bipartisan. Muskie and Bellmon sent around a Dear Colleague letter opposing both the military bill and H.R. 4222, the Child Nutrition Act Amendments conference report which was also ready for the Senate floor (it was subsequently pulled until after the August recess). Thus it became a brilliant double play against both "guns" and "butter" because both conference reports supposedly exceeded budget limits.
The Budget Committee fight on budgetary grounds made the difference in the 42-48 vote which defeated the conference report. A total of 13 of the 16 Budget Committee members opposed Stennis, including such Democratic middle-of-the-roaders as Hollings and Chiles, and Republicans like Bellmon, Dole, Beall and Domenici. The fight was broadened from simply "pro-defense" versus "anti-defense" to budgetary restraint versus high military spending.
The changed terms of the debate carried to Muskie's side such additional middle types as Bentsen, McIntyre, Glenn, Randolph, Johnston, Packwood, Roth and Stafford. The victory was won despite the desertion of a number of liberals including Hathaway, Ribicoff, Tunney, Williams, Inouye, Montoya and Symington.
Of course different Senators used different reasons to explain their votes. Bentsen was concerned more about the strike cruiser. McIntyre was upset over conference action on the B-1. Most of the liberals objected to the high level of military spending notwithstanding the budget ceiling.
Tunney voted with Stennis to protect the B-1; Symington was still miffed that Muskie had opposed his earlier "ceiling amendment" when the military procurement bill first came up.
The debate on the conference report was one of the better ones. Muskie handled himself extremely well in the floor debate. There was a good deal of direct debate between Stennis and Muskie. Muskie won despite the fact that there were some weaknesses in his case, including 1) why did he fight the authorization bill rather than wait for the appropriation bill when further cuts would be made, 2) some of the figures used by Muskie appeared somewhat arbitrary in determining how much the military bill exceeded the budget, 3) Muskie failed to fight the military procurement bill when it was originally on the Senate floor.
There are a number of lessons to be drawn from the defeat of the military procurement conference report:
1. Muskie's power in the Senate is enhanced immeasurably; he bested Stennis.
2. The budget process is well under way to being institutionalized, at least in the Senate
3. The budget process can now be employed as an effective method to control military spending; specifically, it will be useful in the fight to trim the defense appropriation bill due in September or October in the House and Senate
4. The Pentagon obviously takes the budgetary process much more seriously, and can be expected to fight to keep the defense function high in future years’ budget resolutions. And the Pentagon rarely loses.
5. The budget priorities fight will be more clearly fought out; with the Pentagon and its allies fighting harder for the military share of the budget, other organizations and interests trying for higher health benefits or education money or housing subsidies will have a tough fight against the military for their share of the budget.
6. Any major increases in social programs, such as expanded food stamp benefits, or any major social initiatives — such as national health insurance — will be extremely difficult to achieve with the budget limits. If Muskie can defeat Stennis and the Pentagon, he almost assuredly can defeat the Child Nutrition Act Amendments conference report.
7. The power of the Appropriations Committee has been diminished by the enhanced Budget Committee power; McClellan fought with Stennis and lost. The Appropriations Committee went 15-8 with Muskie against McClellan. The four Senators (Magnuson, Hollings, Chiles and Bellmon) who are members of both Appropriations and Budget all chose to vote with Muskie.