July 25, 1975
Page 24980
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I require some time on this amendment which I will support, incidentally.
I gather that the Senator from West Virginia is pretty much out of time. I want to give the views of the Committee on Budget.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Maine is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from West Virginia.
With respect to the amendment offered by Senator RANDOLPH and Senator BAKER, let me say this. The issue that is involved is simply this: At the present rate of spending in the highway program, if this amendment is not adopted, spending in that program will bust the congressional budget by $1 billion in fiscal 1976. That is it, pure and simple.
The Randolph-Baker proposal would reduce that impact by $200 to $300 million.
Even with the amendment, highway spending will take us above the congressional budget by a minimum of $700 million, according to present estimates.
It is for that reason that I support the Randolph-Baker amendment.
May I say, in addition, that as I understand the practicalities of trying to reduce highway programs in 50 States, probably we cannot completely avoid the budget busting effects of the present rate of highway spending.
I think the Randolph-Baker amendment is a practical response to this budget problem.
May I, Mr. President, simply lay out the reasons for the present situation.
We have all supported Federal assistance for highway development, as has the Committee on the Budget.
The Committee is on record along with the Committees on Public Works and Appropriations in recommending that the Senate vote to overturn the President's impoundment of highway funds.
Further, while the President recommended in his February budget message that the program level be set at $5.2 billion in fiscal 1976, generating approximately $4.8 billion in outlays, the Committee on the Budget reported a first concurrent resolution on the budget that assumed a program level of approximately $7.2 billion, with outlays of $6.2 billion.
As I say, Mr. President, that result was approved by all three committees which have a direct interest in highway spending, the Committees on Public Works, Appropriations, and Budget.
But these estimates are proving inadequate. We gave the program a stimulus in fiscal 1975 that is having unexpected impacts in fiscal 1976.
What is happening is that the States are finding it possible to obligate highway funds faster than it was estimated that they could.
The result is very simple, Mr. President, and I have them outlined in a table, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Tables omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may simply outline this in simple terms, with respect to obligations, fiscal 1975 obligations were estimated in the first concurrent resolution at $6.8 billion; the actual obligations for fiscal 1975 were $7.8 billion. In other words, we obligated at a rate in fiscal 1975 of $1 billion dollars faster than was anticipated. Fiscal 1976 obligations were projected in the first concurrent resolution at $7.2 billion; currently they are projected to approach $7.8 billion.
The result of this is that outlays for fiscal 1976 are currently projected at $7.2 billion, as compared to the first concurrent resolution estimate of $6.2 billion.
That is a billion dollars over the resolution, Mr. President, and that could prove to be a conservative number.
With the Randolph-Baker amendment, that outlay projection would be reduced to $6.9 to $7 billion.
I hope we will hold at that figure, as I have indicated to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, who is chairman of the Committee on Public Works.
The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works has cooperated fully with the Budget Committee all through this year. I have served on the Public Works Committee with him. The resolution numbers were set with his cooperation, and we just did not anticipate that the stimulus for the program which we set in place last year would have this kind of impact. Now we are trying to adjust. I commend the chairman for taking this responsible budgetary action, which recognizes what has happened and the need to exercise some discipline.
So I give my compliments to Senator Randolph and Senator Baker, and I urge the support of the Senate for this amendment.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I find myself in a very difficult position, listening to the arguments of three of my colleagues for whom I have the greatest respect, and under normal circumstances, I would be persuaded by their language.
For a long time, several of us have been opposed adamantly to executive impoundment as it was directed at the highway trust fund. This action, indeed, could be called legislative impoundment.
Under normal circumstances, I would be prepared to accept the logic. The economic situation being what it is today, I, for one, am reluctant to back away from the need to put some of these highway dollars to work, to continue the flow, and to keep these highways not only being built but also employing people who otherwise will be on the unemployment line or the welfare line.
I like to be cooperative; but I recall standing at my desk when resolution 69 was being debated and pointing out that at this time in our history, we need to let the State highway departments know that they can let those contracts, so that we can get ourselves out of this recession by putting people to work instead of cutting back.
This morning, I had a lengthy discussion, a sort of briefing session, with economists for whom many of us have a great deal of respect, one of whom was Mr. Arthur Okun. We discussed a broad range of subjects.
It was his assessment — and I must say that it is a parallel to most that I have heard — that the projected rate of economic recovery is going to have us at least 8 percent at the end of next year and that there is no way that the expenditure of moneys to build highways, to employ people, to keep them off welfare and off the unemployment lines, is going to increase inflation right now. We may have bottomed out, but the question is, are we going to get back on top? The process that presently is being followed is slow and tortuous.
I hope there is some way in which I can persuade my colleagues to accept the full funding figure that is in the appropriation bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAYH. I am glad to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I respect Mr. Arthur Okun for his knowledge, for the expertise he brings to the esoteric subject of economics; but I also know that he thinks very highly of the importance of establishing the credibility of this budget process.
In the last 2 weeks, I have had placed on the desk of each Senator the current scorekeeping report indicating where we stand with respect to the targets we set in May. At the present time, we are barely on target. But as we look down the road in the Senate, many worthwhile and appealing proposals and programs are pending in committees. Many of these programs are designed to deal with the recession problem. If we add them all up — I am looking for the latest figures, and I will put them in the RECORD — they are on the magnitude of $12 billion to $14 billion.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. I suppose that at this point we could revert to our old and traditional practice of supporting everything that comes down the legislative road because it can be justified on economic terms, in recession terms, or what have you. That would be an abandonment of the budget process.
Frankly, I think it is my responsibility, more than that of any other Senator, to try to establish the credibility of that process. This is a billion dollar overrun, at the present reading, of program spending, and it is not because the responsible committees did not take a careful look at this program before the budget resolution was adopted.
I participated in the Committee on Public Works, as a member of that committee, in preparing the recommendation for the Budget Committee. We took it up with the Committee on Appropriations. We discussed it at length in the Budget Committee. We adopted the resolution of the Public Works Committee without cutting back a nickel. So that is where we are, I say to my good friend.
Mr. BAYH. I do not envy my good friend's terribly difficult position.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not want to be envied or commiserated with. I looked for this responsibility.
Mr. BAYH. I am proud the Senator is in the position in which he now finds himself, even though I disagree with him.
I was one who felt that the budget ceiling was significantly below where it should have been to turn this economy around. That, plus my reluctance to tamper with the highway trust fund, expressed in a very nonpartisan way for the first time against Lyndon Johnson, when he tried to do it, causes me to suggest to my colleague that I do not feel quite as conscience-smitten as he must because of the role he plays.
I do not think we went far enough in trying to get this economy turned around. But I certainly respect the tenacity with which the Senator presents this case.
I am prepared to put this matter to a vote and accept the will of the Senate, with the understanding that it is going to be an awfully difficult position for me, feeling as I do, confronted with the kind of opposition we are going to have in conference with the House, which really is going to see red with respect to our tampering with the highway trust fund.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say on that score that, as I read it, if we were to continue obligating at the $7.8 billion annual rate, the revenues of the highway trust fund would not support that level of spending on an indefinite basis.
So that we are talking not only about the overall budgetary impact, but also about the cash flow in the highway trust fund. The revenues would support it for 1976, but there would be difficulty after that.
Mr. BAYH. The Senator is absolutely accurate. But I am hopeful that by the time we get into the major reasons for the need to put people to work, the need no longer will be there. That is one of the concerns I have.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that I do not like to be in the position of being Scrooge.
Mr. BAYH. What was that word?
Mr. MUSKIE. S-c-r-o-o-g-e—lest the Senator misunderstand the Senator from Maine's regional pronunciation. [Laughter.]
The President's outlay proposal for 1976 was $4.8 billion. What we are talking about here is $7.2 billion. There is a vast difference, something like $2.4 billion, between those two numbers. I think that that is a sharp increase over the President's budget, and I think we ought not to be apologetic about it.
Mr. BAYH. I happen to sit there and watch all the administration officials parade before us and say, there is no way in the world the State highway departments can spend more than $6.6 billion. And the Senator knows very well that the figure was $7.8 or $7.9 billion or something like that.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. BAYH. I think the track record of pronouncements is not too good.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAYH. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Florida.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Maine, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for taking a stand on this, which I know is a difficult stand for him to take, or for any Member of the Senate. Highways happen to be one of the things that are nearest and dearest to all our hearts. I think what we are seeing here, though, is another demonstration that the chairman is determined to try to make the new budget act work. The only way that we can make the act work is, really, to be able to point out, when we start straying from some of the amounts and figures that we have set, especially on the floor, that we are straying and that this is going to put the budget out of balance. There is a second resolution that comes around at a time when everybody gets an opportunity to speak his piece. I think that would have to be a more appropriate time. But I do want to compliment the chairman, the distinguished Senator from Maine. I think he is taking an action that all of us really want to see the Senate take. We want to feel that we do have fiscal responsibility and that we are going to get control over the spending, but when it comes down to each particular issue, especially when it is a very sensitive one like roads, that is one we all kind of shrink away from. I know that it takes a lot of courage to do that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, who is a member of the committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank my distinguished friend from West Virginia. Three minutes is adequate.
First, I join with the Senator from Florida in commending the Senator from Maine, the chairman of the new Committee on the Budget, for the stance he has taken here today. I am certain that if our ranking Republican (Mr. BELLMON) were here — he is absent because of a death in Oklahoma — I am sure he would be joining with the Senator from Maine, not in the sense of trying to say that the Committee on the Budget controls these situations, but, rather, telling the U.S. Senate the facts as this appropriation bill relates to the target areas that we set in arriving at an overall budget for the United States in the first resolution adopted by both Houses. That was historic. I think it is difficult in these trying times for the Senator from Maine, or anyone, to oppose maximum funding in an area such as this. It obviously indicates the seriousness that he and others place on the budgetary process as a part of good economics for America, not only this year but for many years to come.
In commending the Senator, it is obvious that I am commending the chairman of the full committee, the Senator from West Virginia, and the ranking member of that Committee on Public Works (Mr. BAKER) for they, too, have a real interest in maximum highway funding, especially when we are in these economic times when we know jobs are involved. I commend them for the compromise which they have offered here today, which, in their analysis, will keep the highway programs going, yet will bring some sense of balance and relationship to the budget resolution that we worked so hard on.
For those who are concerned about budgetary good sense and yet wanting to keep our highway programs going and wanting the budget reform to work and not be set asunder the first year, I certainly urge that the compromise proposed by the distinguished chairman of the Public Works Committee and the distinguished ranking member, Senator BAKER, be adopted by the Senate. It will be an excellent highway program, and yet it will be in good stead with reference to sound fiscal responsibility.
In closing, for the distinguished Senator from Maine, he could answer the distinguished Senator from Indiana, he could have said he did not agree necessarily with the ceilings. I serve on that committee, and I know he, perhaps, did not think we put enough in certain target areas. But that is what the process is about, and that is why he is here saying that the sense of both bodies is felt in that resolution, and he is here to defend it and call it to our attention even in this first year, the experimental year, of the new budget reform process.
I thank my friend from West Virginia for yielding.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I was going to inquire, with the indulgence of my chairman of this Appropriations Subcommittee, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 5 minutes, and the Senator from Indiana also has 5 minutes.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, let me say – and I shall reiterate what I said before – I just think that the economy right now is going to be well-served by the figure that is presently apportioned. We are talking not only about building highways, we are talking about moneys to go back to mass transit, on which the Senator from Maine is the principal mover; we are talking about building bridges that are about to fall into rivers; we are talking about widening some of these killer bridges; we are talking about railroad underpasses. We are just talking about additional interstate systems in here.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I point to my statement on the bill commending the Senator and the committee for what they have done in the rail transportation program. I think it is a real plus. It serves not only our economic needs but our future transportation needs, and I wanted to call the Senator's attention to that statement.
Mr. BAYH. I am grateful for that
I wish to point out we have our problems with a lot of people who think it is highway or no highway, and I think the time has come to take a look at a lot of these things, and I was pointing out the moneys now in controversy are not only involved in building highways but in providing other needed services and improvements which not only serve that goal but also put people to work at a time when we desperately need to put them to work.
Now, as strongly as I feel we should proceed, I look at two things. I look, first, at the clock and observe that the hour is late, and that many of our colleagues have been waiting around for the termination of this bill. We have gone much beyond the time we thought we would conclude.
Second, and I think from a more realistic standpoint, I have pretty good command of the process of addition and I realize it appears that the position of the Senator from Indiana is probably not going to be sustained.
So rather than put all of my colleagues through the process of further time-consuming by requiring a rollcall vote, I will say to my colleague from Maine we will accept this amendment, do the best we can, recognizing differences of opinion that have to be resolved.
I am prepared to accept the amendment and get on with final passage because there are a number of other appropriation bills now before us, and the leadership is most desirous of moving them before the weekend.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I would like to express my appreciation to the Senator, not in a personal sense, but for the consideration that prompts him to take that position.
May I say to him that I fully understand his reasons for wanting full funding of the program at the present rate of spending, and were it not for the position in which I find ourselves, I would find myself more cooperative than is the case this afternoon.
Let me make this one final point. We still have the second budget resolution to consider and the question of whether or not these programs should be expanded, in response to the economic situation, which we will then find it would be very much in order, and I assure the Senator that the Budget Committee is giving continuing consideration to the economic situation, and so our points of view may cross somewhere in September or October in a way that would accommodate the Senator's views.
Mr. BAYH. The Senator from Maine and the Senator from Indiana are usually looking down the same barrel.
Mr. MUSKIE. Parallel tracks.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time, and I accept the amendment.