January 29, 1976
Page 1561
ASSISTANCE IN MEETING FEDERAL CHILD CARE STANDARDS
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill (H.R. 9803) to postpone for 6 months the effective date of the requirement that a child day care center meet specified staffing standards (for children between 6 weeks and 6 years old) in order to qualify for Federal payments for the services involved under title XX of the Social Security Act, so long as the standards actually being applied comply with State law and are no lower than those in effect in September 1975.
Mr. MONDALE. Third reading, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a third time.
The bill was read a third time.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, I have a few minutes of observations I would like to make in connection with this bill and how it affects this fiscal year. I will not prolong it any more than I need to, but there are some technical points I think all Senators ought to bear in mind in connection with other legislation that may come along before the end of this fiscal year and will bear upon this legislation, as well.
Mr. President, first of all, new standards have been implemented for the provision by States of social services under the current Federal matching grant program. A regulation setting standards for child day care centers, however, has met with some resistance on the part of the day care providers. They argue that they cannot afford to hire the additional staff which is required under the provisions of the new regulations.
The Finance Committee has delayed the enforcement of the new day care center standards until February 1, thereby allowing Congress an opportunity to resolve the present dispute without sacrificing the new standards. The bill before us, cosponsored by Senators LONG and MONDALE, provides financial assistance to the States for the purpose of helping the day care providers meet these Federal standards. The full year cost of this bill is $250 million. The cost, however, for the remaining part of fiscal 1976 is only $125 million.
In addition to financial assistance, this bill would expand the tax credits available to child care providers for hiring welfare recipients. These changes would be effective immediately but would not affect revenues in fiscal year 1976. According to finance committee estimates, these changes would decrease revenues in future years by amounts up to $28 million in fiscal year 1980.
The spending resulting from this legislation falls in function 500 of the budget — the function containing education, manpower, and social services. On page 33 of the latest Senate Budget Scorekeeping Report, you will find that the spending in this function is presently lower than the target included in the second concurrent resolution on the budget by about $2.8 billion in budget authority and $1.3 billion in outlays.
Therefore, the spending resulting from H.R. 9803 as reported would not violate the allocation for function 500 in the report on the second concurrent resolution nor the aggregate spending ceiling enacted by the Congress on December 12, 1975.
I would like to remind my colleagues, however, that the existing margin in function 500 is no embarrassment of riches. It is not an invitation for a spate of new programs in this particular function.
This bill represents the first of many claims on the existing margin in function 500 that may come up for consideration in this session. Additional future claims may include spending requests for older Americans, the handicapped, child and family services, and much larger claims for programs such as public service jobs. The Budget Committee and the Congress anticipated these priorities in the second concurrent resolution, and provided sufficient funds in the functional allocations to accommodate priority legislation funded at reasonable levels. We can accommodate these priority items but no more.
The programs in the education, manpower, and social services function address the problems of the neediest groups in our society. Unless we are able to remedy the problems of the aged, the handicapped, and the unemployed, and improve the quality of education for the Nation's children, we cannot expect any of these groups to be full and equal participants in our Nation's affairs.
I am also convinced, however, that we must watch our spending in this functionas carefully as we watch spending in other functions. Otherwise, we will be put in the unfortunate position of having given with one hand and taken away with another.
I plan to vote for this bill but I do so only with the understanding that this legislation represents only one of many competing uses for the additional funds remaining in function 500.
That is the first point I would like to make, may I say to my colleagues.
I would also like to raise an important procedural issue concerning the budget act as it applies to the consideration of H.R. 9803. This legislation before us provides for a new entitlement for the States to receive funds for child day care centers.
Section 401(b) of the Budget Act provides that it shall not be in order in either the House or the Senate to consider any bill or resolution providing new entitlement authority which is to become effective prior to the first day of the fiscal year beginning in the calendar year in which the entitlement is reported. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that new entitlements are subject to the reconciliation process as part of the second concurrent resolution on the budget, which is to be passed in September prior to the beginning of the fiscal year.
In addition, new entitlements becoming effective in a future fiscal year cannot be considered until the passage of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for that fiscal year. In this way, Congress can bring new entitlements under better long-term budgetary control.
In the Senate Budget Committee deliberations on the second concurrent resolution on the budget last fall, H.R. 9803 was considered and amply discussed. In addition, as I have noted earlier, the funds provided in this bill are consistent with the allocations of spending contained in the report accompanying the second concurrent resolution. H.R. 9803 will become effective in fiscal 1976, and was fully subjected to the budgetary control procedures implemented for fiscal 1976.
Technically, however, it was reported in this calendar year and not in the last calendar year. It thus comes under section 401(b) of the Budget Act. But as a result of the consideration that the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee gave to this legislation in connection with the second concurrent resolution, it seems to me inappropriate to apply the safeguards intended to apply to fiscal 1977 legislation to a bill which takes effect in fiscal 1976 and which was considered in the fiscal 1976 budget process.
I should like to emphasize, however, that the procedures contained in the Budget Act clearly apply to new entitlements contemplated for fiscal 1977 at this time. First, new entitlements becoming effective in fiscal 1977 may not be considered by the Senate until after the first concurrent resolution on the budget for that year has been adopted. As my colleagues know, the deadline for enactment of the first concurrent resolution for fiscal 1977 is May 15.
Second, it will not be in order to consider any new entitlement in this session of the Congress unless it is to become effective after October 1, 1976, the beginning of fiscal year 1977. I mention these procedures at this time only to give notice to my colleagues that we will strictly adhere to these procedures of the Budget Act in order that we can gain better long-term control over entitlement programs. To emphasize once again, new entitlements for fiscal 1977 will not be in order until after the passage of the first concurrent resolution, and all such new entitlements must be reported to the Senate by the end of calendar 1976 in order to comply with the requirements of the Budget Act.
Mr. President, I would like to note that my State of Maine will receive $1.2 million annually from this legislation to implement the new day care standards in this bill. These new standards will permit more flexibility for the States than the old 1968 standards. Since Maine is already in substantial compliance with the new standards in this bill, the additional funds provided in this bill will enable Maine to continue its leadership role in providing new and improved day care services.
Mr. President, in order that the RECORD may be complete with respect to the pending legislation and the consideration that was given to it by the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee; I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD several documents at this point.
There being no objection, the documents were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
To: Senator Muskie
From: Marc Lackritz
Subject: H.R.9803. and the Budget Act.
Date: January 29, 1976.
1. The spending provisions in H.R. 9803 were thoroughly considered as part of the budget process for fiscal 1976. The cost was explicitly discussed during the Budget Committee markup of the Second Concurrent Resolution in November and the Conference on the Resolution, and there was no effort by the bill's sponsors to evade the control of the budget process.
2. The spending in this bill ($125 million in fiscal 1976) is within the amount for function 500 in the Second Concurrent Resolution. That function is presently under the Second Concurrent Resolution target by $2.8 billion in budget authority and $1.3 billion in outlays.
3. Senators Mondale and Long wrote you on October 8, 1975, to determine whether the spending in this bill would be consistent with the totals in the Concurrent Resolution (see attached letter): Your reply, on October 10, 1975, indicated that this bill was consistent with the Concurrent Resolution (see attached letter).
4. The main purpose of section 401(b) of the Budget Act was to insure that new entitlements each year are fully subject to the reconciliation process prior to the beginning of the fiscal year in which they are to take effect. This bill was subject to the discipline of the Second Concurrent Resolution in November and December and was debated by the full Committee, thereby fulfilling the purpose of section 401 (b). It is only through quirks in the first year calendar that this bill affecting fiscal 1976 gets snared in. the web of procedures governing bills for fiscal 1977.
MEMORANDUM
To: Senator Muskie.
From: Mark Lackritz.
Date: January 29,1976.
Subject: Timetable for section 401(b).
Section 401(b) of the Budget Act deals with the procedures to be used in the enactment of new entitlements, such as that contained in H.R. 9803.
The timetable for the enactment of these new entitlements is as follows:
May 15: No new entitlements beginning during the coming fiscal year may be enacted until after the first concurrent resolution is adopted.
September 25: Second Concurrent resolution and reconciliation are completed for the coming fiscal year.
October 1: New fiscal year begins.
December 31: All bills creating new entitlements for the fiscal year which began on October 1 must be reported to the floor by this date.
Because of the timing of fiscal 1976 and the Transition Quarter and because of the first year implementation procedures for the new Budget Act, this timetable was pushed back considerably for last year. As a result, the Second Concurrent Resolution was not enacted by the Congress until December 12, 1975, one week before the end of the session. Therefore, while the standing committees would usually have three months after the passage of the second concurrent resolution to report out any new entitlements for that fiscal year, this year the Finance Committee had only one week after the passage of the Second Concurrent Resolution to report out this bill.
As noted above, in the normal fiscal year when this process is underway, the standing committees will have three months after the passage of the second concurrent resolution to report out any new entitlements for that fiscal year. H.R. 9803 was reported out by the Finance Committee on January 26, one and a half months after the Second Concurrent Resolution was passed by the full Congress and within the usual period of three months that the standing committees would normally have.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
October 8,1975.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Senate Budget Committee,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ED: Last week, during Senate Finance Committee markups on S.2425, several Senators raised the question of the budgetary impact of this bill.
Briefly, S. 2425 would provide, in FY 1976, $187 million in outlays and $250 million in budget authority. These funds would be used to meet a financial crisis in federally supported child day care caused in part by the additional costs of complying with day care standards enacted by the Congress last December and effective as of October 1.
Our understanding is that S. 2425 would fall within Budget Function 500, Education, Manpower and Social Services.
As we read the Senate Budget Scorekeeping Report (No. 9) for Function 500:
The totals for spending legislation on which action has been completed in Function 500 is lower than the First Concurrent Resolution Target by $8.9 billion in budget authority and lower by $6.45 billion in outlays;
Including Senate-passed spending legislation (the HEW-Labor appropriation) pending in Conference with the House, the total remains lower than the Target, by $2.0 billion in budget authority and by $1.35 billion in outlays;
Including Presidential requests not yet reported in the Senate, the total remains lower than the Target, by $1.2 billion in budget authority and $0.7 billion in outlays; and
Including S. 2425 (which is spending legislation) the total would remain $0.9 billion lower than the Target in budget authority and $0.5 billion lower in outlays.
This analysis leads us to conclude that enactment of S. 2425 at this time would be consistent with the First Concurrent Resolution Target for Function 500.
We note from the Scorekeeping Report that there is additional authorizing (not spending) legislation presently before Senate-House Conference Committees. The results of the Conferences cannot be known at this time, but we observe that the maximum amount of authorization which could be approved would — if later fully funded by the appropriations process — amount to $0.9 billion in budget authority and $0.8 billion in outlays.
With enactment of S. 2425, it would appear to us that all of the potential budget authority associated with these bills could be accommodated within the First Concurrent Resolution Target for Function 500 — although some reduction in the maximum outlays might be required.
The Scorekeeping Report also indicates selected legislation not yet reported from Committee in the Senate which would add $5 billion in budget authority for FY 1976 and $2 billion in outlays in this function for additional public service employment. We note that accommodating this program at the levels shown in the Scorekeeping Report — regardless of action on other pending legislation in this function — would require an adjustment in the target in any event.
We would ask that you and your staff review our reading of the Scorekeeping Report, to assure its accuracy. We would appreciate your views at the earliest convenient time since we hope for prompt Finance Committee action to meet an emergency situation.
Sincerely,
WALTER F. MONDALE,
RUSSELL B. LONG, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C.,
October 10, 1975.
Hon. RUSSELL B. LONG,
Chairman,
Hon. WALTER F. MONDALE,
Member, Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate,
Washington D.C.
DEAR RUSSELL AND FRITZ: I have your letter of October 8 regarding S. 2425. I believe your reading of, the Scorekeeping Report with respect to Function 500 (Education, Manpower, and Social Services) is accurate.
As you point out, there are a number of competing demands for the remaining funds in this function that need to be carefully considered. I am pleased that the Committee on Finance is considering these budget priority matters as it conducts its legislative business.
With warm regards, I am
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in addition, may I say I have discussed this with the chairman of the House Budget Committee. They have a different problem in connection with this legislation. H.R. 9803 was enacted in the House without additional funds. To present the House point of view to my colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that a memorandum to the House chairman, Congressman BROCK ADAMS, be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.,
January 29,1976.
Memorandum
To: Honorable Brock Adams.
From: Wendell Below.
Subject: H.R. 9803, Social Services Day Care Amendments.
Questions have been raised as to the applicability of the Budget Act of H.R. 9803, a bill which extends the moratorium on certain provisions of the present day care staffing requirements and which raises the Social Services entitlement ceiling in order to finance the implementation of the new standards. It appears that the bill as reported by the Senate Finance Committee violates sections 401(b) (1) and 303(a) of the Budget Act.
Section 401(b)(1) provides that no bill, resolution, or amendment shall be in order if it creates a new entitlement which will become effective before the first day of the fiscal year, which begins during the calendar year in which the bill or resolution is reported. Since H.R. 9803 was reported from the Finance Committee on January 26, 1976 the new spending authority contained in the bill should not take effect before October 1, 1976 — the first day of fiscal year 1977. Because some new spending authority would become effective upon enactment of the bill, it violates section 401(b)(1).
In response to this contention, the Senate Budget Committee staff argues that H.R. 9803 complies with the "spirit" of the Budget Act and that any violations are merely "technical." They contend that the FY 1976 spending authority contained in the bill was targeted in the FY 1976 budget resolution and that no purpose would be served by conforming the bill to the letter of section 401(b)(1). The House Budget Committee staff can find no indication that the new day care benefits were ever specifically contemplated in the FY 1976 budget resolution. While the resolution does target $48 million in budget authority and $121 million in outlays for "undistributed new programs" in the area of education, manpower, and social services (function 500), the amounts targeted are insufficient to cover the estimated $125 million cost of the program in FY 1976. In fact at least one other bill has been passed by the House which will be counted in the "undistributed new programs" subcategory.
Even if the FY 1976 costs of the day care bill were within the targets set out in the budget resolution, that fact would have little bearing on section 401(b) (1), the provisions of which are aimed at controlling backdoor spending, not enforcing the targets and ceilings contained in the budget resolution. In light of the fact that the "technical" violation would permit the creation of an entitlement with an anticipated annual cost of $250 million, it appears that there are substantial policy reasons for abiding by the letter, as well as the spirit, of the law.
Furthermore, H.R. 9803 appears to violate section 303(a) of the Budget Act, which provides that it shall not be in order to consider a bill, resolution, or amendment containing new entitlements for a fiscal year until the first concurrent resolution for that fiscal year has been agreed to. Section 4(b) of H.R. 9803 creates separate new entitlements, above and beyond the entitlement created by section 3, for FY 1976, the transitional period, and FY 1977. In FY 1977, the additional entitlement would cost $50 million. Consequently, consideration of the bill before the first concurrent resolution for FY 1977 is agreed to will violate section 303 and place the bill out of order.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have alerted the distinguished managers of the bill to the problem on the House side. They are quite aware of it. For myself, given the history of our specific and
comprehensive review of this legislation in the Budget Committee, I would say it is consistent with the second concurrent resolution and that the technicality raised by section 401(b) ought not to be raised on the Senate side at this point.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.