April 30, 1975
Page 12548
Mr. DOLE. I could only suggest to the Senator from Oklahoma and others that I recognize the difficulty in bringing about quick cuts in any program. We did discuss and did direct certain areas of inquiry into the food stamp program in the Budget Committee. But in medical assistance alone the GAO found recently that the program for the disabled and elderly, medicaid, has developed so fast that major abuses – I am talking about abuses, not about the program – are costing taxpayers $3 billion a year. Now, $3 billion a year can do a lot for those under medicaid if we had proper administration of the program.
Under the food stamp programs, the Agriculture Department proposes to hold back part of its share of the administrative expense of the food stamps to States, and they do it not to scuttle the food stamp program, but because they argue that State errors and deceptive practices by States are costing the taxpayers $740 million.
I do not believe, as I look over the Budget Committee report, that we got into specific programs. But I would say that if we get into AFDC programs, an early study conducted by HEW says that there was a combined 41 percent error rate in the program. Now they are trying to put a lid on it; they are trying to reduce that error rate on ineligible, underpaid and overpaid from 3 to 5 percent.
So, it seems to me, it would not take very much digging to reduce that deficit by $2.2 billion. Whether it is training of reservists, simulated flight training, flight pay, or base closures in the defense budget, or employee travel, construction, new office space, there are, I think, literally hundreds of examples where through a stretch-out or reduction in programs we could realize the necessary saving.
I recognize that the amendment does not go far enough to many, and to others it may cut too deeply. But I would again underscore I am talking about .9 of 1 percent. I understand that the Brookings report on where some future budget cuts might be made to hold down the growth budget such as grants programs, certainly could reduce costs.
A review of pay comparability of civilians and the military, the need to have one salary system where the benefits are somewhat balanced in different categories are other examples of potential cuts.
So without being more specific, I think the Senator from Kansas has tried, without undercutting the efforts of the Budget Committee, to be responsible in suggesting that we can provide the leadership.
We have the potential in the Congress and the power in the Senate and the Senator from Kansas hopes the amendment will be adopted.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, I was struck by an observation made by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, who appears to have left the Chamber, suggesting that the prospective deficit in the committee budget is some major percentage of what the total Federal budget was 10 years ago.
These kinds of comparisons, Mr. President, are extremely deceptive and I do not think they are particularly useful.
As a matter of fact, if I recall the numbers correctly, the gross national product in this country in 1932 was around $50 billion, so that the deficit we are talking about is 50 percent larger than the total gross national product in 1932, if that is a useful comparison for anybody to make.
In that same year, it is noteworthy that we suffered an unemployment rate of about 22 percent. Almost 20 million Americans were without work. I do not think we would want to transfer those conditions to date in order to get the Federal deficit down to that proportion of the gross national product in 1932.
I think another point has to be made. There is so much talk about the Federal debt that I think we ought to put it in the context of total debt in this country.
In the special analyses section of this year's budget, there is a chart on page 45 which shows the percentage distribution of net indebtedness in this country. It is interesting that chart the Federal debt is little more than 15 percent of total debt in this country.
Private debt is by far the largest share. By private I mean consumer debt and corporate debt, and it is the fastest growing debt in this country.
So if one wanted to pick out horrendous figures to startle the imaginations and to strike fear into the fiscal hearts of average American citizens, one could point out that they themselves are borrowing horrendous amounts of money at a faster clip than ever before in American history.
One could make the same point with respect to corporate debt. Even State and local debt, despite the constitutional limitations on that kind of debt, has been growing faster in these last 20 years than Federal debt.
Of the three categories of debt, consumer debt, corporate debt, State and local debt, Federal debt has been the slowest growing since World War II.
So as we inquire as to the justification of a debt-oriented economy, we ought to look at the total picture and not simply the Federal debt.
I commend the attention of my colleagues to that chart on page 45 and I ask unanimous consent that the paragraph immediately under the chart be included at this point in my remarks.
There being no objection, the paragraph was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Since 1945, however, private debt has increased as a proportion of total debt in every year, and in every year the Federal debt held by the public (including the Federal Reserve System) has decreased as a proportion of the total. State and local government debt has risen in amount every year and has risen in proportion to total debt for the period as a whole. From the end of calendar year 1953 to the end of 1973, Federal debt held by the public rose 54%, State and local government debt rose 510%, and private debt rose 515%. By the end of calendar year 1973, Federal debt held by the public was only 14 % of total debt. As a result of these trends, Federal debt and borrowing, although still significant, have become relatively much smaller influences in the financial markets.
Mr. MUSKIE. Now, if I may direct my attention more specifically to the Dole amendment, the Senator makes a very tempting argument that surely in a $365 billion budget, it should be possible to cut another 1 percent.
Well, it is so tempting that if we adopt it and we reduce the outlay figure to $361.8 billion, then why not make the argument again and say that surely with a budget of $361.8 billion, it is possible to cut 1 percent. That would then take us down, presumably, to about $357 or $358 billion.
Then let us make the argument again that surely in a budget of that size it is possible to save an additional 1 percent.
By taking that step-by-step approach, we could get this budget down to half of what it is, by only cutting 1 percent at a time. Surely somebody would be able to find somewhere in a program for comic books, or all the other programs on the list the Senator from Kansas had, another 1 percent that we could cut.
But the trouble with the argument is, may I say to the Senator, that the Budget Committee went through all of the 16 functions at considerable length trying to identify places where we could squeeze out fat. We did not get down to the comic books, I concede. Ours is not a program- oriented committee. Ours is a function-oriented committee.
Nevertheless, in examining the totals to be spent in any function, we went into considerable detail and no member was inhibited or restrained from injecting into his argument any program which he felt ought to be eliminated or cut and which would justify a reduction in the function.
[Disturbance in the visitor's gallery.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will please suspend until the Sergeant at Arms can restore order in the gallery.
The Senator will resume.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I say, no member was restrained from using any program, or any ridiculous example of Federal spending, or any accumulation of it, to justify a cut in the functional total for any of the 16 functions.
So I do not buy this argument that we did not pay attention to the details.
Now, may I say that after the committee had gone through all of the 16 functions trying to put together as tight a budget as it could, we then addressed ourselves to several proposals to cut spending across the board.
The first cut was the Hollings amendment to cut outlays across the board by 1 percent – the same figure that the Senator is talking about, a mere $3.5 billion. It was rejected by a vote of 11 to 3 for the very reasons I have been trying to spell out and that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma spelled out.
Then we had the Nunn amendment to cut all of the temporary recovery programs included in the budget, $4.5 billion. That resulted in a tie vote, 7 to 7, and lost. There was also the Chiles motion to cut $2 billion from the bottom line to be distributed in function 500, which was the education, manpower and social services function, health, law enforcement and justice, and general government, and that lost by a tie vote of 7 to 7.
So the committee addressed itself to these kinds of cuts.
Now, I understand the temptation to buy the argument that 1 percent could not be all that difficult. It does not appear difficult, but let me make two points.
One, it was too difficult for any Senator to apply such a principle in committee. No Senator who offered an across-the-board cut was able or willing to specify which functions ought to be cut. No Senator.
Second, if we reduce outlays by this amount, we are going to have to find that $3.2 billion somewhere. Just this past week I received a letter from the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. This chairman in the record voted for that $25 billion cut yesterday. What was the thrust of his letter to me? I will read it, since the Senator from Kansas is ranking Republican on that committee.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have enclosed for the consideration of the Committee on the Budget a request by committee members for an additional $3 million for foreign market development for fiscal year 1976. As the letter indicates, the threatened loss of $7 billion in U.S. exports is an emergency that deserves immediate consideration. Therefore, the members of the committee feel that an immediate increase of $3 million in Federal funds for overseas market development is
imperative.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself another 5 minutes.
This request from the chairman is a most worthy objective, in this Senator's judgment. But that is an additional spending.
If the Senate adopts the budget ceiling suggested by the Senator from Kansas, it is then my responsibility to say no to things like this, and it is the Senator's responsibility to say no to things like this.
This issue is going to crop up in every authorization bill and every appropriation bill that comes to the Senate from now until September. We are going to have to learn to say no to some of these things.
There is not some magic pot that contains $3.5 billion unrelated to the real service needs and existing programs. We have to cut these if we are to go any lower.
I think as a budget committee one of our first responsibilities, clearly, is to make it possible for the Senate to get away from across-the-board cutting. One of our responsibilities is to make it possible for the Senate to make informed, precise cuts so that when we cut $3.5 billion we know what we are cutting. We should not give Members the excuse later to say, "Well, I voted for that cut, but I did not mean that $3 million for agricultural research," or "I did not mean to cut social security," or "I did not mean" this, that, or the other.
This process is supposed to impose discipline. The meat-axe cut is a temptation to indulge in our own priorities, and we have been doing it for too long.
We said, "I am going to vote for this new program of $5 billion because somewhere down the line I will find that $5 billion to my satisfaction." Or, "I will cut $3 billion from this program because somewhere down the line some unforeseen, fortuitous circumstance will arise that will not confront me with the consequences of that vote."
I can understand Senators whose economic philosophy dictates a more prudent budget course than that suggested by the Budget Committee. I do not quarrel with that. All I ask them to do – because I impose the same discipline on myself – is to tell me where they are going to cut and not leave it to chance that somehow the cuts will skirt the programs they are interested in and avoid damage to the agricultural program, avoid damage to the educational program, or avoid damage to the health program.
That is not budget responsibility.
May I say, that is not in any way a denigration of the distinguished Senator from Kansas. He gave us valued support yesterday, and I believe he is committed to this process. I am simply answering the argument because I think it needs to be answered here in the Chamber.
The argument of the Senator from North Carolina is an appropriate and legitimate argument. The fact that I do not agree with it does not make it irrelevant.
Now let me get to the specific numbers of the Dole amendment. It is my understanding that the Dole changes are designed to reconcile the estimates of the President and the committee by eliminating the real differences after adjusting the estimates so that they reflect the same assumptions. Presumably, this means that the Dole amendment totals reflect his estimate of where the President's budget actually comes out.
I shall give the Senate my own analysis of that point. On outlays, we believe that the real difference between the committee's estimate and the President's estimate is only $1.8 billion, not $3.2 billion as Senator DOLE suggests. The elements are as follows:
The President's April 4 estimate was $355.6 billion. The adjustments by the committee are as follows: We reduced Outer Continental Shelf leasing receipts by $4 billion because we had no evidence at all to suggest that the President's $8 billion figure would be realized. Indeed, all of the evidence we had indicated that even the $4 billion was overgenerous. But we compromised at $4 billion.
The second item: Unemployment compensation is going to cost us $1.9 billion more than the President's budget suggests. This is a hard estimate by the Budget Committee staff.
Food stamp and other assistance programs that grow with growing unemployment are going to add $600 million.
The medicaid program, which also grows in response to unemployment, adds another $200 million.
And then interest on the public debt, which is unavoidable and which is simply a product of numbers, adds another $900 million.
All of these additions should be included in the President's outlay figure, if that outlay figure reflected a candid and up-to-date analysis of the implications.
That gives us a total adjustment figure of $7.6 billion, which is $363.2 billion. So the relative difference is not $3.2 billion but $1.8 billion. If we are correct in that assumption, then what the Senator proposes is to go below the President's figure which is, of course, his prerogative. But I believe that point should be made clear.
We now get to what a $3.2 billion cut could conceivably mean. The total outlay figure of $365 billion voted by the committee came after exhaustive consideration of detailed recommendations made to it by all the committees in the Senate. I call the Senate's attention to the fifth chart. There will be seen a potential outlay total of close to $420 billion. That is not a figure that the Budget Committee picked out of the air. That does not reflect ideas generated by the Budget Committee.
Those are ideas that came out of the authorizing committees that are constantly working in their fields, plus other ideas that had clearly developed steam and momentum in the Congress. So there is $420 billion of ideas that we had to consider and dispose of one way or another in getting down to $365 billion. That difference is close to $55 billion of ideas and spending proposals, that the Budget Committee rejected. We did not include comic books in that list, but we included a lot of ideas with considerable merit which, in a less stringent environment, might well get the support, and the deserved support, of the Congress of the United States.
But we said "no" to that $55 billion shopping list in order to get down to $365 billion. Now the Senator from Kansas says,
Well, it ought to be possible to cut another one percent and then another one percent and then another one percent.
I have not figured out how many 1 percents that $55 billion represents. One percent of $420 billion is $4.2 billion; so, roughly calculated, we have done the Senator's exercise 13 or 14 times in order to get down to $365 billion. If we do it another 14 times, we can get much below the Senator's figure.
It is hard to argue that $1.8 billion to $3.2 billion cannot be cut from a $365 billion total. I can only say to the Senate that the committee recommendation is already very tight, and a cut of even this small amount could be significant.
I get back to the point I made earlier, that once we adopt a figure, the Budget Committees of both Houses, if this budget process is going to mean anything have to say, "No, no, no, no" to many proposals, just as the Budget Committee said, "No, no, no" to $55 billion of worthwhile spending proposals.
What are the likely possibilities for a cut of $3.2 billion? The Senator from Kansas has told us about comic books, but let me get to what the real possibilities are likely to be. The most likely possibility would have to be the few new programs for program increases in the committee budget. This cut cannot be made in a way to skirt this entire list of programs. Something on this list will have to be cut: real growth in defense procurement; needed increases in energy programs; assistance to hard-hit railroads; amounts needed to offset costs of inflation in education and social services programs; cost-of-living increases for social security and other entitlement programs; increases to maintain the real level of veterans compensation and pension; increases to prevent additional burdens on medicare and medicaid recipients.
A $3.2 billion cut cannot be made with a small change, if I understand the effective work that the committee did in tightening up the functional total. $3.2 billion in cuts will have to come from programs such as those. I recite them only to put the Senate on notice that those are the kinds of decisions we are going to face if we adopt that kind of ceiling; and I am going to be on the floor of the Senate, and Senator BELLMON is going to be on the floor of the Senate, pointing out those consequences of such a cut, as those consequences emerge in the course of our consideration of approprations measures from now on.
I have made my case at greater length than, perhaps, I intended; but I wanted to make some points in response to some of the debate yesterday as well.
I again express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Kansas for his support yesterday. I understand, I think, what is in his mind in connection with this amendment. But I think it is extremely important that this record be made as I have tried to make it.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I appreciate the statements by the Senator from Maine.
The Senator from Kansas might say, in defense, that had the Senator from Kansas been present on the last day the Budget Committee met, the result might have been different. I point out that vote No. 24, which would have cut $4.5 billion from temporary recovery programs, was rejected on a 7-to-7 tie.
On Chiles motion to cut $2 billion from the bottom line, there was a 7-to-7 tie.
Unfortunately, the day prior to that, the Senator from Kansas had taken a rather severe fall when trying to appear for a vote. Thus, the Senator from Kansas was unable to be at the committee for the final series of votes.
I suggest to the Senator from Maine – not as a defense – that had the senator from Kansas been there, the total budget figure might have been $5 billion less.
I am splitting the difference with the Senator from Maine. I am suggesting now a $3.2 billion cut.
With respect to the argument that we cannot cut across the board, we did it in the committee on a function-by-function basis with the Mondale amendment to cut out functions of national defense to $90 billion. That was one example. There are hundreds of programs in the Defense Department. When we started offering motions in the committee to cut $500 million from this functional area or that functional area, we were in essence cutting across the board. We did not specify where within that function the spending, cut should be made or the spending addition should be made.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's argument that the committee's function in deciding functional totals is an across-the-board process, I think, is an argument that we should change the nature of the Budget Committee. We deal only with functional totals and make assumptions which I think most of us try to express in committees about where reductions or increases are to come.
I think that every proposal I presented to the committee detailed the assumptions I was making as to where cuts could be made or increases should be provided, not that such assumption committed the Budget Committee or the Senate to the particular programs that I took into account. But that is something different, I submit to the Senator, than the kind of across-all- functions cut the Senator is proposing today.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Maine.
In addition to the comic books to which I made reference, a GAO report has indicated that abuses in the medicaid program are costing the taxpayers $3 billion a year. That is a rather substantial amount. In the food stamp program, because of deceptive practices and faulty reporting, about $740 million is not going to recipients but is being misused by the various States.
I submit that if we go down the list of votes taken in the committee the last 2 or 3 days, they were offered on a function-by-function basis.
The third vote was on an amendment by the distinguished Senator from Delaware (Mr. BIDEN) to cut out function 050, which is national defense. He wanted to cut it to $87 billion. I cannot recall that Senator or any other Senator giving us an item-by-item accounting of how that would come down from $94 to $87 billion. He said it was too large, and he made some general statements.
The Senator from Kansas believes that that is a precedent. All the Senator from Kansas suggests is that instead of doing it by function, we do it across the board
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that one of the reasons why the Biden amendment was defeated was that he did not detail the places where the cut was to be made, and that is precisely the reason why the Senator's amendment should be defeated.
Mr. DOLE. The Chiles amendment, which is No. 5, to cut national defense to $91.9 billion, was accepted by a vote of 11 to 4, and I suggest that the same argument was made to raise the amount by $5 billion.
The Senator from Kansas only points out that in an effort to satisfy what I knew would be an objection – and that it is an across-the-board, meat-ax approach – I pointed out some general areas where this Senator felt cuts could be made, whether it be transportation, maritime, agriculture, or whatever.
Essentially, I share the view expressed by the Senator from Maine: If we cut 1 percent today, why can we not cut 1 percent tomorrow?
The answer is that we, hopefully, may not be here tomorrow on this particular legislation. Maybe another amendment will be offered, if this one is adopted, to cut it 1 more percent.
It occurs to me that we can do that. The Senator from North Carolina has an amendment that will cut it a great deal more than nine-tenths of 1 percent. But insofar as across the board is concerned, I think we have well established that precedent within the committee. The Senator from Kansas says again that had the Senator been there on the final day – unfortunately he was not, because of no fault of the Senator from Kansas – the budget would have been less. The outlays and the deficit would have been reduced by about $6.5 billion. I think perhaps that amount would have been accepted by the committee and we would be here today arguing, instead of about $365 billion, maybe about somewhere around $358 or $359 billion, and the Senator from Kansas would not be offering an amendment at this time.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator from Kansas yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
I noted earlier, in the response of the Senator from Maine, that he made some comment about the table that shows all kinds of debt in the United States has increased and private debt has increased more than public debt; therefore, the increase in public debt should not frighten us. It is a little like the argument that my wife might try to use on me if, indeed, our family budget is out of balance and all of a sudden, she points to my spending as the cause of it and ignores her part of the spending. I can reply only that, well, since you have spent a great deal, if I spend a great deal, that will make it all right.
I am not sure that I can follow the argument that because private debt has increased, that justifies an increase in public debt.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not my argument. I just hear these horrendous numbers thrown around so that it seems to me that they ought to be put into perspective from time to time. It is not my purpose to frighten anyone into doing anything about their own spending or Government spending. My point is that we should try to make these expenditures responsibly and rationally, taking into account the consequences and perspectives. But the argument on deficit spending that I have heard here for the last 2 days goes on as though nobody else in this whole economy ever invests by creating debt, or ever meets temporary emergencies by creating debt.
Yesterday, Chrysler announced another rebate program. That is deficit spending, as I understand their financial condition. They are engaging in it. I have not heard any outcries against deficit spending by the private sector.
All I am trying to do is put this into some perspective. That is the whole purpose of the chart in the book. I do not think I was trying to frighten anybody.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
How much time does the Senator from Kansas have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas has 21 minutes.
Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator.
We went through the budget for weeks, literally weeks or months. We had seminars, we had panel discussions, we reviewed the budget by functional area, and we decided that we could not cut it by functional area. Then it is argued that we cannot cut it across the board. As I recall the general tenor of the discussions in the Committee on the Budget, they were along the line that we will not cut any of the programs from their existing level; we will allow all of the programs to grow by the amount of inflation and we will allow them the increases which are justified, because of economic downturn.
The Senator from Maine is exactly correct when he refers to the fifth chart over there, with $416 billion in desired spending, that shopping list that was presented to our committee by the authorizing committees. But every time something was reduced from that list to get to the spending level that is in the committee's resolution, it was a reduction in a request for new spending authority and was not a reduction in existing spending authority. So, while the people of this country are being asked to accept a recession which disciplines them, which causes them some reduction, while every worker in this country who is employed has a reduction in his standard of living, because the worker's real spendable earnings are down, we are saying that every Government spending program must be guaranteed its cost-of-living increase.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCLURE. In just a moment, I will.
As a matter of fact, there was some discussion about whether or not we should agree with or disagree with the President's suggestion for a 5-percent cap on the cost-of-living increases for certain categories of pay and entitlements. The record is not precise on this point as to what the Committee on the Budget did in this area. It is precise on the point that there would be no cap on military retirement pay, there would be no cap on social security pay, there might or might not be a cap on military pay, there might or might not be a 5-percent cap on civilian employment by the Federal Government. But in virtually every instance, we were talking about the size of increase that was to be granted under this very tight budget – not whether or not there were going to have to be decreases, because Government income is down, because we are in a recession, because we have less income than we had last year. The report of the Committee on the Budget says that this is not a spending deficit, it is a recession deficit, which is simply another way of saying we did not spend ourselves into this, it is because the economy went bad that we have it. But it is implicit in that, that if income goes down, we do not cut our expenditures to match that decrease in income, we simply expand debt.
Reference was made yesterday afternoon to the fact that the bankers say we can finance that debt. Yet I think every one of us – I know I did and several others did – got a telegram from the president of the American Bankers Association saying we should not gauge the size of the debt by whether or not it can be financed, because we can finance any size debt we want to come up with if we simply expand the size of the debt and turn on the printing presses. He points out in his telegram, as I have tried to point out, that that has inevitable inflationary consequences.
As the Senator from Oregon yesterday pointed out, inflation is still the primary concern of the majority of the American people – certainly not those who are unemployed, but the majority who are still employed are more concerned about the ravages of inflation than they are about the effects of recession, and we, in this resolution, are not paying adequate attention to that concern of the American people. Nor do I believe we are adequately or accurately reflecting the consequences of our actions in this kind of budget deficit so far as the inflationary pressures will be concerned, say, 15 or 18 months from now.
I thank the Senator from Kansas for yielding this time.
Mr. DOLE. I assume we have no time problems.
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall be happy to yield any time the Senator wishes.
Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from Maine to respond to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. MUSKIE. I want to make this point: The Senator from Idaho said the committee's deliberations were concerned only with whether or not we were going to add to the inflation; that it cannot be cut. The Senator discusses this as if he were not a member of the committee.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator yield on that point, because I do not think he accurately repeated what I said? I was not referring to the President's budget when I was talking about increases or cuts, I was talking about last year's, the current fiscal year's, spending levels.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, I will take that. My point is still the same. The Senator talks as though he were not a member of the committee. The Senator was present, and he was in the position and had the prerogative of offering any cut in any function that would result in a reduction of current spending levels for any program, and he did not do so, to the best of my knowledge. He did not.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator yield further?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator did offer an across-the-board cut, after we had finished the functional discussion, but he offered no amendments as to the functions. There was one amendment to cut a function below current services. That was defense, and the Senator from Idaho opposed that.
Mr. McCLURE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator for yielding.
I think the Senator from Maine will recall that during the course of the deliberations and the several motions that were made on various functional cuts, I was present and voted, and I did vote for many of these cuts, some of which were adopted, many of which were not. When he made the list of motions that were made in the committee in attempts to reduce the size of the budget, not included in either the report or the Senator's recitation was the motion I made to cut by 8 percent across the board, which was decided by a voice vote, because after the Hollings amendment for a 1-percent cut failed, I thought there was no point in asking for a rollcall vote when it was obvious it was going to fail.
I did offer that cut because it was apparent that we had been unable, as we went through the functional categories of the budget, to reduce the size of the deficit, because of the overwhelming desire on the part of the committee to continue all of the programs at existing or higher levels.
Mr. MUSKIE. My point is still valid. The Senator offered an across-the-board cut of $29 billion when we were through with the functions. He did not offer amendments in the markup on the functions. So far as I could detect in the initiative he took, it was a program for function-by- function cuts that would add up to the $29 billion.
The Senator has described the function of the Budget Committee as one to protect existing programs. No one said that. Everyone, including the Senator from Idaho, had the prerogative to cut more. For example. there were motions to cut function 050, which was defense, by $20 billion, or $10 billion, or $5 billion, in order to get current programs cut. That was done. There were two votes that would have had the effect of cutting the defense budget below current services, and the Senator opposed both of those. There were no other cuts proposed in an existing function by the Senator or any other member of the committee.
Certainly that was the Senator's prerogative. He might have thought that was a fruitless thing to do, but he did not test it. So I object to the characterization of the Budget Committee's deliberations as designed to protect current spending levels.
Any member of the committee, including the Senator from Idaho, had the prerogative of suggesting such cuts. To the best of my knowledge, the only cuts proposed were those in the defense function. The Senator from Delaware, I think, offered one; the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. ABOUREZK) offered one; and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE) offered one. Those were all opposed by the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. McCLURE. I do not mean to take all the Senator's time.
I did not intend to convey that the budget procedures were designed to protect against categorical cuts. I never made that statement. I certainly did not intend to convey that the procedures were designed for that result.
All I am saying is that that was the result, that the deliberations of the committee were as to how large the increases should be, based upon increased costs, based upon increased inflation, based upon the necessary expansion of programs which were implicitly assumed to be so-called uncontrollable items.
The Senator is not correct when he says there were no suggestions made to cut any functions.
The committee report itself shows that.
The Senator is correct in stating that I voted against the motions which were offered to cut the defense budget outlays. Those specific motions I specifically opposed. I supported all the others.
I thank the Senator from Kansas for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. I repeat my point that to the best of my knowledge, beyond the defense function, amendments designed to cut programs below current services were not made. There was disagreement about how much might be needed above current services. To the extent that those represented something smaller than someone else suggested, there were absolutely none.
Let me say to the Senator from Kansas that it has been suggested that we try to program the vote for 10 minutes to 1. There is going to be some non-germane discussion going on from 12:30 until that time, which would leave us with only about 4 minutes left.
Mr. DOLE. The Senator from Kansas needs about 1 minute. The Senator from New Mexico has some questions to propound to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I wanted to use the remainder of my time. Might I suggest that the votes come at the end of the non-germane discussions?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, are we already scheduled to get off this and onto some other matter at 12:30?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. Would a vote at 1 o'clock be better?
Mr. DOLE. A vote at 1 o'clock might be better.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would prefer to have 10 minutes. If the chairman is going to be on the floor, I wanted to exchange some views with him.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Dole amendment take place not later than 1 o'clock p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, a 0.9 percent cut will merely establish the budget goal which the Appropriations Committee will attempt to meet. It may be that a $3.2 billion cut cannot be made without cutting into important recession-fighting programs. If that is the case at the time of the second resolution in September, the budget figures can be adjusted accordingly.
Nevertheless, if we accept my amendment, the Senate will be on record in favor of an attempt to find the fat in the budget. We may find more than $3.2 billion. It may be that we can safely reduce expenditures, if not by more, by less. Perhaps by one-half of 1 percent. Even that would be an accomplishment.
Finally, I would restate my confidence in the budget process, in the committee, in its deliberations, and in the Senate of the United States. It seems to this Senator that we should not be bound by what the administration suggests might be the deficit. We ought to make our own determination, and insofar as across-the-board cuts are concerned, there is great precedent; they have been made within the defense functional category. So I do not believe that the amendment violates that principle at all.
I would reduce outlays by $3.2 billion, which would decrease the deficit by about $2.2 billion, and would reduce the deficit forecast by the administration from $59.6 billion to $57.4 billion.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me take just 30 seconds to make a point, because I may have been inaccurate in something I said to the distinguished Senator from Idaho, and I would like to make this clarification for the RECORD, and also address myself to the merits of the amendment.
In the budget, we did cut $1.8 billion from uncontrollable income security outlays. It was the thought of those who sponsored that cut that those savings could be achieved out of administrative savings.
The Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) yesterday suggested that such a cut would be very difficult to realize in fiscal year 1976, and said that on an annual basis that amounted to about $3.8 billion, and he thought that was really out of the ballpark.
That was a cut in current services in that sense, and I wanted to make the RECORD clear. I think the Senator from Idaho supported that.
Mr. McCLURE. I would say that is correct.