April 8, 1976
Page 10107
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED REGARDING APPLICATION OF THE BUDGET ACT TO S. 3136
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the question before the Senate is whether, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, to waive the application of section 401 (b) of that act to the pending legislation, S. 3126, and the Dole amendment and amendments thereto. I intend to vote for the motion to suspend the application of section 401(b) in this case.
I do so because this motion is consistent with the purposes of the Budget Act and the presently binding second concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1976.
Section 401(b) is a technical provision of the Budget Act. It is designed to assure that entitlement legislation reported after January 1 of any calendar year not contain an effective date earlier than October 1 of that year. The simple purpose of this provision is to assure that such new entitlements, which are the extension of Government benefits to individuals who meet the requirements of the law, remain subject, like all spending, to the discipline of the second concurrent resolution on the budget which is adopted in September of each year. The drafters of the Budget Act were concerned that entitlements which become effective prior to that second budget resolution would be much harder to reconcile with other Federal spending.
I do not believe that the pending legislation and the Dole amendment to it present the problem that section 401(b) was intended to meet. The pending legislation was mandated in the concurrent resolution on the budget. In the statement of managers accompanying that legislation, the conferees stated that the amounts contained in that congressional budget assumed "legislative and/or administrative reform in the food stamp program are essential and that such reforms will be implemented in fiscal year 1976 to achieve a reduction of program costs of $1 million in budget authority and outlays." The Agriculture Committee is responding to that mandate. The effect of insisting on the literal application of section 401(b) to the pending legislation and amendments to it would be to frustrate that virtual instruction to the Agriculture Committee contained in the second budget resolution. We would also be saying to the country that needed, urgent, and publicly demanded reforms in the food stamp program must wait because of a technicality in the Budget Act.
Now some Senators may believe that section 401(b) should be waived in the case of the bill itself but not for the Dole amendment. I cannot accept that proposition. I believe that when the Senate considers the food stamp program it is entitled to consider that program in its entirety and to make needed reforms, even if some of them raise costs as well as lower them. This legislation as reported by the committee remedies a number of the more frequently criticized aspects of the food stamp program. The Dole amendment would not reinstate any of these abuses. I cannot see how we can vote to insist on the application of section 401(b) to the Dole amendment and not equally insist on its application to the bill, thus frustrating any food stamp reform until next fall.
That result is not acceptable to the American people. It is not acceptable to me. And it is not required by the Budget Act.
In fact, the mandate of the second concurrent resolution on the budget requires the Senate to consider this legislation at this time.
In writing section 401(b) , Congress meant to provide a safeguard against entitlement legislation being enacted without adequate consideration of the budgetary effect. The legislation currently pending was thoroughly considered by the budget committees in the context of the congressional budget resolution. Members will make up their minds about whether to vote for the Dole amendment and whether to vote for other amendments to the legislation or for the legislation itself upon its final passage, based on a number of considerations about the food stamp program.
This is as it should be. But the Budget Act was not intended to frustrate congressional action when that action is consistent with the current congressional budget. The consideration of the pending legislation is consistent with the current congressional budget.
As chairman of the Budget Committee, I above all am concerned that the application of any provision of the Budget Act be waived only in rare cases. This is such a case. I intend to vote for the Dole motion.