February 18, 1976
Page 3640
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want only a minute to make a statement on the budget status of this legislation.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may the Senator have what time he needs?
Mr. MUSKIE. Ten seconds.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have up to 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act authorizes appropriations for security assistance and related programs for fiscal year 1976 and the Transition Quarter. This bill makes major revisions and reforms in America's arms transfer policy; it is a significant step forward in controlling our arms sales abroad. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee and its Subcommittee on Foreign Assistance, led by Senators
HUMPHREY and CASE, has performed a yeoman job in tackling the complex issue of arms transfers abroad, and I commend them for their work.
My purpose in speaking today is to analyze the authorization levels that S. 2662 provides. Three of the programs authorized by the international security assistance bill come under the national defense function. Four are a part of the international affairs function. Together they establish a budget authority ceiling of $3,050 million, about $400 million less than the administration's request of October 30, 1975. The Congressional Budget Office estimate of outlays associated with S. 2662, if funded, is $1,267 million, $157 million less than the President's submission.
The Committee on Foreign Relations was particularly attentive to the guidelines within the spending ceilings contained in the second budget resolution adopted by Congress on December 12, 1975. In the second budget resolution, the functional totals for national defense and international affairs were based on assumed reductions in the President's security assistance request of $400 million in budget authority and $200 million in outlays. I am pleased to note the pending bill before the Senate reflects reductions from requested levels of approximately these amounts. The Committee on Foreign Relations has worked hard — and in concert with the Committee on the Budget — to accommodate the new budget process during their deliberations.
I want to take this time to review the status of the national defense and international affairs functions of the Federal budget. The military grant assistance, foreign military training, and foreign military credit sales programs are in the national defense function. Page 17 of the latest Senate budget scorekeeping report shows that spending in the national defense function would exceed the target included in the second budget resolution by about $300 million in budget authority and $600 million in outlays if the President's spending requests not yet reported from the Committee on Appropriations were fully funded. S. 2662 lowers the potential budget authority overage by $238 million, and lowers the potential outlays overage by $83 million. If we also assume that it is possible to absorb 10 percent of the pay raise costs and that outlays from prior-year military assistance trust fund balances can be reduced from the present official estimates — both of which were assumed in the second budget resolution — the totals for the national defense function would be slightly below the second budget resolution.
The remaining programs in S. 2662 are part of function 150 and include economic supporting assistance, a Middle East special requirements fund, narcotics control and the contingency fund.
On page 19 of the scorekeeping report, the international affairs function is shown to be about $300 million over target in budget authority and about $200 million in outlays if the President's spending requests not yet reported from the Committee on Appropriations were fully funded. S. 2662 lowers the potential budget authority overage by $163 million, and lowers the potential outlay overage by $75 million. This means this function would be slightly above the second budget resolution. Taken together, however, these two functional areas of the budget would be at the second budget resolution levels if S. 2662 were enacted and the other assumptions discussed above materialize.
Having said this, however, I caution my colleagues that all these figures I have cited are only estimates, and estimates change. While these two functions would be at the second budget resolution levels as of now assuming enactment and funding of S. 2662, this picture may change as time passes. In our recent debate on the milk price support bill, I pointed out that the second budget resolution estimates for the agriculture function have already been exceeded due to increases in mandatory programs already on the books.
The Congressional Budget Office is now assessing all of the fiscal year 1976 estimates, using the additional data provided along with the President's fiscal year 1977 budget, and will inform both Houses later this month whether further changes in our estimates are required. It may well be that the CBO's best judgment is that events have increased the estimates we are now using in various functions. Of course, the opposite is also possible — CBO could conclude that some of our estimates are too high — but we cannot count on that. To cite but one example, I am increasingly concerned that the second budget resolution estimate for Outer Continental Shelf receipts — which serves to hold down the budget authority and outlay totals — may be too high, and there may be other such cases. If these "reestimates" net out to an increase, we will have some difficult decisions to make later in the year, and I want my colleagues in the Senate to fully understand that.
I plan to vote for S. 2662. It is a necessary bill. It reshapes our national arms exporting policy. It asserts the role of Congress in this vital field. It is in line with the assumptions made by Congress in adopting the second budget resolution. But all of us must be aware of possible budget problems ahead. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I will continue to apprise the Senate of potential budget problems as soon as we see them.
As we approach the end of the year, we are going to begin to knock against the ceiling. It may well be that the Committee on Appropriations will want to take a look at this bill as we get down the road to the end of this fiscal year. I want to make that warningclear at this point.