July 10, 1975
Page 22209
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of explaining the impact of the McGovern amendment on the first concurrent budget resolution. I think the discussion between the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and the distinguished Senator from Kansas has already disclosed the dimensions of that impact, but I think I should, as chairman of the Committee on the Budget, spell that out in more detail.
Mr. President, the school lunch program is among the most successful human resources programs ever devised by the Federal Government. It assures millions of children of adequate nourishment at reasonable cost and in a manner which makes certain that the benefits get directly to those who need them most.
This bill extends, with some modifications, the statutory authorization of the various child nutrition programs. As reported by the State Agriculture Committee, H.R. 4222 would do the following:
First, it would extend through September 30, 1977, the school breakfast program; and
Second, it would change the poverty level guidelines used to determine eligibility for reduced- price school lunches so that they are based on more recent data.
Further, it would extend purchasing authority for food products for donation to child nutrition programs, and extend the special supplemental food program for women, infants, and children, among other changes.
When the Budget Committee met in April to develop the first budget resolution, we were confronted with a President's budget for child nutrition programs that assumed legislative reductions of about $600 million in budget authority and outlays in this important child nutrition program. However, the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry advised us that the President's proposed legislation would not be enacted, so the budget resolution assumes an extension of current law for the school lunch and other child nutrition programs.
The budget level assumed for child nutrition programs in the resolution — BA of $2.4 billion, outlays of $2.3 billion — was based on the Agriculture Committee's recommendations in its March 15 letter to the Budget Committee. Since that time, the Department of Agriculture submitted to the Appropriations Committee a new estimate based on congressional intent to reject the President's proposals and extend current programs. The Department's estimate is $0.1 billion higher than the budget authority and outlay figures used by the Budget Committee.
For the bill before us today, H.R. 4222, the Agriculture Committee's report estimates the bill's cost at $0.2 billion in budget authority and outlays over and above the Department's estimated cost of extending current law. This puts the bill $0.3 billion over the spending level assumed in the budget resolution. I ask unanimous consent that a tabulation of these different estimates be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the tabulation was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Budget estimates for Child Nutrition programs, fiscal year 1976
[In billions]
BA Outlays
1. President's February budget $1.792 $1.714
2. Agriculture Committee's March 15 recommendation 2.399 2.321 3.
3. Levels assumed in H. Con. Res. 218 2.4 2. 3
4. Excess costs of HR. 4222 over H. Con. Res. 218:
(a) as passed by the House + .6 + .6 (b) as reported to the Senate + .3 + .3
5. Excess costs of H.R. 4222 over Department of Agriculture's submission to Appropriations Committee:
(a) as passed by the House + .5 + .5
(b) as reported to the + .2 + .2
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senate Agriculture Committee, through amendments to the House-passed version, has lowered the lost of this bill by $0.3 billion. However, I repeat, its cost will exceed the budget resolution by $0.3 billion, and will also exceed a more recent estimate of the cost of simply extending current law by $.2 billion. At this point, I ask unanimous consent to enter for the RECORD a list of the programs and amounts which make up the excess of $0.2 billion over current law. These figures are from the committee report.
The additional $0.2 billion in spending over the Department's estimate of current law breaks down as follows :
Fiscal year 1976 (millions)
Subsidies for school lunches for low-income children +$38
Non-school food program + 41
Commodity procurement + 76
Women-Infants-Children (WIC) special food assistance + 50
+205
In short, the situation we are confronted with is this: Reestimation of program costs by the administration has raised the cost of the child nutrition program by $100 million more than was estimated in the congressional budget. These costs would be incurred if we made no change in the program. The Senate Agriculture Committee, while reducing the cost of the House-passed bill by an additional $300 million, nonetheless has added $200 million to the cost of simply carrying on the existing program. The amendments made by the Agriculture Committee seem to have considerable merit and, while I would have preferred that the budget target be adhered to, in this case I intend to support the committee's recommendation that these program additions, in addition to what they requested from the Budget Committee, are necessary at this time. I will vote for this bill.
However, I must oppose amendments to the bill which will further increase its cost.
As I pointed out, H.R. 4222 would exceed the $125.3 billion target outlay figure for the income security function by $0.3 billion. However, there will be reestimates for some of the other programs in that function. The estimate for food stamps may have to be increased. Unemployment compensation outlays may have been overestimated by the budget committee and may be revised downward. Other less significant reestimates are likely for other programs.
However, it is too early to tell what the net effect of these estimate changes will be, so I think we should judge this bill in light of the ceiling set last May when we passed the budget resolution, and from that perspective it clearly exceeds our budget outlay target.
The amendment to H.R. 4222 proposed by Senator MCGOVERN and other Senators is an attractive one. It would require all schools in the lunch program to offer reduced-price meals to students from families in certain income brackets just as they now offer free meals to the neediest students. The amendment would also raise the eligibility ceiling for reduced-price lunches from 175 percent of the poverty line to 200 percent, about $10,000 a year for a family of four
There is no question that many children, including some in my own State of Maine, where incomes tend to be lower than in some other States, would be aided by this measure.
The cost of these changes, however, would amount to at least $200 million more in outlays this year. This would bring the cost of this bill half a billion dollars higher than the budget resolution we agreed to just 8 weeks ago.
Mr. President, I will cast my vote against these amendments reluctantly. Like every other Senator, I wish that we could meet each new human need identified. The painful reality that led to the enactment of the Budget Act is that we cannot meet all our needs all at once all the time.
We must establish priorities. We must limit our spending, to the maximum extent we can, to the actual resources we can prudently make available.We face the most staggering peacetime deficit in history this year. Through the budget process, we have managed to lay before Congress a sound fiscal plan with emphasis on job creation and meeting human needs. It substantially reduces the portion of the budget the President requested for armaments. It enlarges the portion of the budget devoted to meeting our citizens' needs here at home, especially through the creation of new jobs.It increased the amount of the budget for this very program, the Child Nutrition Act, by $600 million more than the President requested.
If the Budget Act is to mean anything, it means that at some point we must say, "This much and no more," and on this bill we are at that point. We have reached that point in the committee version of the legislation.
If the McGovern amendment is adopted and added to the committee bill, the committee bill, at that point, would exceed the budget resolution by almost half a billion dollars. I ought to repeat the genesis of that figure so that we can see upon what it is based.
The President's February budget provided for the child nutrition programs $1.8 billion of budget authority, and $1.7-plus billion in actual outlays for fiscal 1976. As I said, in its report to us of March 15, the Committee on Agriculture estimated that the program would cost $2.4 billion in budget authority and $2.3 billion in outlays. It was that figure which the Committee on the Budget adopted for the budget resolution. So the figures in the budget resolution are $2.4 billion in budget authority and $2.3 billion in outlays.
Since that time, there has been a re-estimate of the costs of continuing the program under current law. That re-estimate which is a legitimate and appropriate exercise, increased those numbers by $100 million.
The committee's four additions, added to the $100 million, reflect a $300 million increase above the number in the budget resolution.
Senator McGovern's amendment, which is a most attractive one, would require all schools in the lunch program to offer reduced-price meals to students from families in certain income brackets, just as they now offer free meals to the neediest students. In addition, his amendment would raise the eligibility ceiling for reduced-price lunches from 175 percent of the poverty line to 200 percent. That would be about $10,000 a year for a family of four. The price of that amendment — and I repeat that it is an attractive one — would be from $150 to $200 million, according to the estimate of the Committee on the Budget staff. So the total impact on the budget resolution would be half a billion dollars or thereabouts.
I say to my colleagues again that in the budget resolution, we undertook, with the advice of all the authorizing committees and the Committee on Appropriations, including the Committee on Agriculture, to get the best possible advice on what was needed to do the essential job that this budget ought to do. We cannot do everything in addition that is attractive or that we would like to do, or that can be justified on one ground or another, that would appeal to any of us or all of us. We have to say no occasionally, and I regret that this is one of those occasions when I must rise, as chairman of the Committee on the Budget, to say no to this amendment.
I wish it were not the case. But if we were to breach the budget on this, we would simply be opening the door to further breaches on other worthwhile programs as we go down the line. So I urge my colleagues to consider that this is a significant, important breach of the budget resolution.
We ought to take that into account. If we do not do so now, when we get to the second concurrent resolution in September and October, we shall have an even more difficult challenge to reconcile the ceilings that we set in May with the resources that we decided in May were available for essential government functions.
I have undertaken to do this kind of analysis for every piece of spending legislation that has come to the floor and I shall continue to do so.
In addition, we are inaugurating, this week, on behalf of the Congressional Budget Office and the two budget committees, a scorekeeping function, that is complicated, to translate the functional numbers of the first concurrent resolution into the spending legislation that worked out a way to do so and the Senate will receive, on a weekly basis now, an up-to-date score on what we have done with spending in the light of the first concurrent resolution. So that will be a routine report.
In addition to that, I shall undertake, either personally or through other members of the committee, to give the Senate this kind of analysis. I assure the Senators that I do so with regret in the case of this particular program. It would have particular meaning for the people of my State. Just this week, stories in the Maine press reported that Maine is among the five poorest States in terms of family income in the country. We have 20 percent of our people under the poverty line. Our people feel the pressureof inflation and unemployment greatly. But they are also concerned about the integrity of our economic system and the responsibility with which we expend the resources of this government. If the budget reform legislation is to mean anything, it has to mean that we are willing to accept its discipline, not only with respect to those programs which we may not be enthusiastic about, but also the programs that have real, heart-plucking implications such as this one.
Discipline is discipline. It cannot be directed only at the defense budget or only at the space budget or only at those programs that have no relevance to our own States and our own needs. Discipline has to be across the board, when we are talking about $365 billion of spending in a fiscal year.
It is in that spirit, may I say to the distinguished Senator, my good friend from South Dakota, who has been the real champion of these school lunch and food stamp programs — it is in that spirit that I present this factual report to the Senate.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the Senator yield to me just a moment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I do yield.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Senator propounds a question or makes a statement, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 1 minute without the Senator having the floor losing his right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,may we determine in some way whether we can complete action on this bill today and if not, we will proceed to put it over until tomorrow. Will the Senators be agreeable to a time limit on the pending amendment?
Mr. McGOVERN. I say to the Senator from West Virginia, I am ready to vote on it now. I think the issue is understood by Members of the Senate. I do not wish any additional time. I think perhaps the Senator from New Jersey may wish to be heard briefly on this.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, if I can say my little piece on it now, I will say it. I made a statement yesterday following the introduction of this amendment, which I cosponsored.
In support of it, I think it is a good amendment. I appreciate fully the purposes for which the Senator from Maine has just been addressing himself. He is doing his duty as he sees it and, as I think, this body want him to do it. I think in this instance the purpose of the amendment overrides the considerations he has suggested, and I fully support the amendment. I think it is an excellent one. With that I have no further need to comment on the amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for two more minutes under the same conditions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Reserving the right to object, if a request has been made, this amendment would add approximately $180 million to an already very generous program, a program that is already over $200 million above the revised budget.
While I do not anticipate there will be any lengthy debate, I just do not believe we should have a short time limit on an amendment of this importance, especially in view of the fact that the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) , the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, is sounding a word of caution and a word of fiscal responsibility in this matter, and certainly is holding up a danger signal with respect to the amendment.
I feel it should be fully discussed. I do not intend to discuss it overly long, but still I would not want to agree to a short time limit.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,would the distinguished Senator from Alabama and the other Senators agree to vote on the pending amendment no later than 6 p.m. today?
Mr. ALLEN. No.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. He would not.
Does the Senator from New Jersey have an amendment once this amendment is disposed of?
Mr. CASE. I have an amendment which, I understand, is probably going to follow this one. I should like to suggest that I have a half-hour overall, 15 minutes on each side would be adequate.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. On the Senator's amendment.
Mr. EAGLETON Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from West Virginia yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. EAGLETON. I have a 30-second amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Would there be any objection to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey having a time limit.
Mr. ALLEN. I understand the distinguished Senator from New Jersey's amendment is in two parts, one that could be disposed of in a fairly short time, but I believe, according to the estimate, he has in excess of $100 million in the amendment to add to the bill, and I would not want to agree to a time limit.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Very well, Mr. President.
I thank all Senators for their consideration. We will proceed to play it by ear until the pending amendment is voted on, and then we will make a decision at that point as to whether or not we continue today on the measure or put it over until tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota has the floor.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I just want to take a minute to say that I feel I understand the point that the Senator from Maine has made, as the chairman of the Budget Committee, and he really has no other recourse than to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that this amendment does go beyond the budget guidelines. I think it is important that we be alerted to that, and we have to make a judgment as to whether there are larger and more fundamental considerations that have to be applied.
I think in this case it probably would give some reassurance to the Senator from Maine to draw attention to the fact that there are differences in the levels between the Senate bill and the House bill. We have a House bill that is at the present time about one-half billion dollars above the recommended budget guidelines. Even if this amendment that is now pending is adopted, we will still be at least $125 million below the level of the previously passed House bill.
In addition to that, I draw the Senators' attention to the fact that there is some maneuvering room there in conference where further reductions might be made in other aspects of the bill as passed by the House. I do think it is very important that this concept of the reduced price lunch be made available in all schools where a school lunch program is operating. I, for one, if I should have anything to do with the conference, certainly would be prepared to look at the possibility of some economy moves on the version of the bill as it emerged from theHouse and that would, perhaps, make it more acceptable to the Senator from Maine and his committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I add this: I appreciate that statement from the distinguished Senator from South Dakota.
Let me make this point: There are a lot of upward pressures on the budget, and a lot of them are in what are often described as uncontrollable areas, and the biggest such area is in the income security field.
What is involved in all here is on the order of $125 to $130 billion, including social security payments, SSI payments, unemployment compensation payments, food stamp payments, and they are so uncontrollable that the budget, by and large, reflects simply the latest estimatesof what the caseloads would be.
There is really no opportunity to control them beyond that, and if the economy continues to deteriorate in terms of unemployment, whatever else happens in the so-called bottoming out phase of the economic cycle about which we have heard a great deal from administration economists, if unemployment continues to deteriorate, then these uncontrollable costs are going to rise, foodstamp costs are going to rise, unemployment compensation costs will rise, and we have to be alert to those measures as we add to them, and this is the one area, the one big area, in the whole Federal budget where we are almost riding a horse that is out of control. I do not say that in any denigrating sense; I am not suggesting that we take action to cut back on the authorizations that show cost-of-living increases with Social Security beneficiaries, and so on. As a matter of fact, this budget rejects the President's notion of a ceiling on those kinds of payments, and lifts that 5-percent cap to the real cost-of-living increases. We have done that.
But to do more than that is a decision that the Senate ought to look at carefully in terms of what the final consequence will be, because it is my hope in the long run that when this first year's exercise under the Budget Act is completed we will have demonstrated the capacity of discipline in spending.
If we can demonstrate that capacity this year, then we will have a handle on the budget not simply for cutting spending but for directing spending into the areas which we consider of most importance to the country.
So establishing that discipline this year, I think, is terribly important. That is not to say that we ought to ignore the need for public employment opportunities, for example, to fill the gap left by the private sector. I think the administration has been way off base in vetoing legislation that Congress has enacted to deal with that problem.
Congress is working on other legislation in the jobs field to fill that gap because the objective of that kind of a program is to turn the economy around and eliminate that source of the Federal deficit.
So there is a need for carefully targeted programs directed to the highest priority needs. The Senator's amendment addresses the problem that is a high priority need, but we cannot do them all this year.
As the Senator says, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will make that point as eloquently as I can.
I appreciate the Senator's understanding.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the Senator.