July 1, 1976
Page 22062
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not have a long statement. I was waiting to see whether the Senate was ready for some of this exciting budget rhetoric, but since it has been requested, I have no hesitation to do it.
As I have done on other appropriations bills, I should like to comment on the relationship between this one and the first budget resolution. At the outset, I shall say I support the bill. I think it offers a fine example of budgetary restraint by coming in at a level below the subcommittee's spending allocation under section 302(b) of the congressional budget Act.
The Transportation Subcommittee's allocation under section 302(b) amounts to $6.1 billion in budget authority and $14.4 billion in outlays. The reported bill provides $5.4 billion in budget authority and $3.9 billion in outlays. In addition, CBO estimates that outlays arising from prior year authority are $9.9. billion, so that total fiscal year 1977 outlays for these programs amount to $13.8 billion. Enactment of H.R. 14234 as reported would, therefore, leave $0.7 billion in budget authority and $0.6 billion in outlays available within the subcommittee's allocation.
There are a number of potential claims on this remaining allocation which could produce supplemental appropriations. For example, I understand that there could be additional appropriations required for newly enacted highway and railroad programs, and also for additional interstate/mass transit substitution projects. However, the first budget resolution anticipated these additional requirements, and the subcommittee's allocation remaining after passage of this bill should be adequate to provide for these supplemental appropriations. In addition this bill, plus the possible supplementals, is generally consistent with the first budget resolution functional targets.
I am pleased to note that the reported bill includes obligation ceilings for the highway and airport development programs funded through trust funds. The House bill does not. These are valuable programs and it is important that they be adequately funded to satisfy our growing transportation needs. But it is also important that the Congress apply some practical limitations on program growth in any 1 year. If it did not, then there would be little protection against an unexpected temporary upsurge in new program commitments that could threaten both our outlay and deficit targets in the budget resolution. If that were to happen, then there would be pressure to adjust for overruns in the trust fund programs by reducing spending on appropriated programs. This would be unfair to both the Appropriations Committee and the programs involved.
The budget crosswalk assigns responsibility for the outlays of these two trust fund programs to the Appropriations Committee, for it is appropriations that must provide funds for liquidating their contract authorizations. But if appropriations is to be held responsible for those outlays, in fairness it must have at least some control over those outlays. It is exactly such control that is provided by the reported bill through its recommended obligation ceilings.
I commend the distinguished chairman, Senator BAYH, and the other members of the Transportation Subcommittee for reporting a bill that is within their allocation targets and consistent with both the letter and spirit of the first budget resolution.
So I take this opportunity to express hope to my good friend from Indiana, whom I compliment on bringing this bill to the floor well within the allocation, and urge him to stand fast on those particular points in the conference.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I should like to respond to the Senator by expressing deep appreciation to my friend from Maine. I am sure he noticed a flicker of a smile on my face when he talked about the budget limitations on the highway spending. He and I were arguing, when, in last year's budget, I was trying to take the ceilings off because I thought we could spend the amount of money available there then. I still feel that, last year, we could have, but that was last year's battle. I think it is obvious to anybody who looks at this year's situation that there is no way we can spend $12 billion, yet we are going to be charged with it under the Budget Act, so why not put it down to where we are meeting the needs and if it looks like we need more, we can add to that in the supplemental.
Mr. MUSKIE. Correct.