April 5, 1976
Page 9382
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I wish to make a point of order against the consideration of this measure under provisions of the Budget Act, which, in essence, states that no bill or resolution may be considered if a bill affects spending authority prior to the adoption of the first concurrent resolution. Mr. President, as you know, the Budget Act requires the Committee on the Budget to adopt the budget resolution by the 15th of May and the Committee on the Budget in the Senate, just this last week, pursuant to the mandate of the statute, has concluded its work on the first concurrent resolution. The resolution will soon be reported to the floor of the Senate for action.
Again, the Budget Committee is required to do that by April 15, so that the House and the Senate may then confer on their respective actions and come back with the conference agreement prior to the May 15 mandate.
The purpose of the act was to allow the Budget Committee to take a look at the priorities of spending in the fiscal year affected by that concurrent resolution and to establish the priorities by concurrent resolution, which, of course, is subject to the action of the entire Senate in approving or disapproving or modifying the concurrent resolution reported by the Committee on the Budget. That action has not yet been taken this year. I therefore make a point of order against the consideration of this legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the point made by the distinguished Senator from Idaho is a valid point under section 401(b) of the Budget Act. Technically, both the bill and the principal amendment that will be offered, I take it, during the course of its consideration, are subject to limitations of section 401 of the Budget Act. That section provides for a point of order against any entitlement reported after January 1 which takes effect prior to October 1.
I was well aware of this technicality that affects the pending legislation. The purpose of the section is to make sure that entitlements do not take effect prior to the adoption of a second budget resolution and completion of the reconciliation process. New entitlements would be less vulnerable to reconciliation if they had already taken effect by the time of the second resolution.
The Dole proposed amendment also would be subject to a point of order under that interpretation of the act. Nevertheless, I consider it inappropriate for the Committee on the Budget to make that point of order, and I should like to say why, briefly, if I may.
In the first place, the need for food stamp reform is urgent in the public mind. We should not block consideration of a bill that would save several hundred million dollars to a half billion dollars or more on technical grounds.
Second, the second concurrent resolution, which Congress adopted last December, virtually ordered the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to report such a bill with an effective date in this fiscal year. The statement of managers accompanying the conference report of the second concurrent resolution stated the conferees' expectation that administrative or legislative changes would be made in the food stamp program in fiscal year 1976 to save $100 million. Although the timing of this bill and the intention of the House Committee on Agriculture to delay it further makes 1976 savings unlikely, nevertheless, I think the Budget Committees are in a poor position to object that a committee which tries to comply to the second concurrent resolution should be barred from doing so on a technicality. It is for that reason, Mr. President, that I had decided not to raise the point of order myself and that I think it unwise to raise it at this point. I think that what the Committee on Agriculture has done was anticipated by the Committee on the Budget and by the second concurrent resolution, and it is now for the Senate, as a whole, to resolve the subsequent questions that have been raised.
The Budget Committees are not legislative committees. We do not deal with the detailed substance of legislation such as that which is before us. It is our job and our responsibility to insure that matters of this kind are considered in an orderly way, consistent with the process. So it is not my inclination to raise the point of order.
Under the circumstances, the section 401(d) point of order having been made by the distinguished Senator from Idaho, I should have to support it as a technicality. But, as I have discussed with the distinguished floor manager of the bill (Mr. TALMADGE), under the Budget Act, a procedure open to him is a motion to suspend section 401(b) with respect to this point of order, and I should support that motion, for the reasons that I have outlined here briefly in my comments in connection with the proposal of the Senator from Idaho.
With that, I shall be happy to yield the floor.
Mr. TALMADGE. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget for the statement he has made. I concur with him completely.
The Budget Control Act, of course, was made and designed and written into law for the purpose of trying to prevent rapid escalation in increases of the cost of Government. What the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has done in this instance is just exactly the opposite of that — we are trying to stop runaway escalation in the cost of a Federal program and bring it under control. The bill that the committee has reported to the Senate would reduce the estimated cost of the food stamp program for fiscal year 1977 from $6,325 million to $5,695 million, or a net savings of something on the order of $630 million.
It is probably true that the distinguished Senator from Idaho is technically correct in his point of order because it does refer to a new entitlement. There may be some individuals who would have new entitlements under the bill reported by the committee, but who did not have entitlements under the present law.
But the fact remains that this bill is designed to eliminate affluent families from the food stamp program, to eliminate college students from affluent families from the food stamp program, and to try to reduce the element of fraud and waste in the food stamp program.
I believe the majority of the Senate, at least the majority of the Agriculture Committee, feels that way about it. This program has gotten completely out of hand. People are gravely concerned about it.
They see evidence of fraud and abuse and mismanagement almost daily and the country is crying out for corrective action.
So with the support of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, I move that the Senate suspend 401(b) of the Congressional Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that Franklin Jones of the Budget Committee staff, and Margo Carlisle of my staff, be granted privilege of the floor in all stagesof these proceedings.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I think we should very closely and carefully look at the procedure which has now been suggested. This is a departure from the intention of the act.
If the Budget Committee Act is to be given an opportunity to work as the authors of the act intended, we should not casually suspend its provisions.
I know my good friend, the chairman of the committee, is not doing this frivolously. I do not intend to imply that. But just as the Senator from Maine said that he understood why I was asking that the Chair rule on the point of order and that it was a technical matter, that the Senate ought to work its will on the substance of the food stamp program, I say to the Senator from Maine that I agree completely and I did not raise the point of order from the standpoint of frustrating the ability of the Senate to get to the substance of the matter, but in an attempt to raise the budgetary procedure question which I think we must maintain.
If, as a matter of fact, every time it becomes convenient to ignore the Budget Act, we simply make a motion and pass it, to waive the provisions of the act, the act has no substance.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator Yield?
Mr. McCLURE. I am happy to yield without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. The motion that has just been made by the distinguished Senator from Georgia (Mr. TALMADGE) is a procedure that is permitted by the Budget Act, just as are waiver resolutions permitted by the Budget Act.
Now, those procedures are intended to give flexibility to the act. They ought not to be casually or frivously used, and in that I concur wholeheartedly with the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
Neither of us would advocate such frivolous or casual use of the procedures provided by the act.
The Parliamentarian advises me that this motion is contemplated by the Budget Act as a procedure open to the Senate in order that it not be frustrated in exercising its will.
I have given my reasons for supporting the motion of the distinguished Senator from Georgia. It is not frivolous or casual, as the Senator heard me make my point.
It was in the second concurrent resolution that we did anticipate, assume and urge consideration of cost savings proposals in the food stamp program.
Indeed, unless my memory plays me false, we did it in connection with last year's first concurrent resolution. So that for a year now, we have been pressing, as the Budget Committee, for reforms in the food stamp program and it has taken months to get to the point where we are.
But having urged it for all these months, having mandated it, in effect, with the second concurrent resolution, then it seems to me we have succeeded in producing the deliberate, rational kind of consideration of the issue that the budget act mandates that we urge upon the Senate whenever we can.
So this is not casual, it is not frivolous. Rather, I think consideration of the bill today, or this week, or whenever the Senate acts upon it, is the culmination of almost a year's effort by the Budget Committee to get the Congress to focus on the very kinds of reforms that are incorporated in this bill.
I do not think it would be particularly useful at this point to use a point of order to prevent the Senate from acting now and have to wait until sometime next October — which might be one consequence of raising the point of order now — or having the Budget Committee convene itself as a substantive committee to make a preliminary evaluation and finding on the substantive aspects of this legislation before the Senate can work its will.
We tried that a little bit last week in connection with the first concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1977 and we did not get into it as deeply and comprehensively as many Members would like.
So it is my feeling the Budget Committee has influenced the course of events here, has been a factor in bringing this issue to the floor, and that we ought not now raise this technical point.
When I say that it is a technicality, I do not mean to treat that frivolously either. It is only by means of technicalities of that kind from time to time that we can work a substantive result.
I am not criticizing the Senator for raising the point. I simply reached the conclusion that it is inappropriate at this point to raise the point of order in the light of what brings us here this afternoon in connection with this legislation.
Mr. McCLURE. I thank the Senator from Maine for his remarks, although I confess I am disappointed that he, as chairman of the Budget Committee, would elect the other course of action.
The reason I raised the point of order, as I did, was that over the weekend, looking at this bill and the various amendments that are offered by various Members of the Senate, most of which I think are now printed or at least have been circulated and brought to the attention of a great many Members, it is not at all clear whether this bill will add or subtract from the total cost of the food stamp program as it works its way through the Senate.
I was trying to determine for myself what the Budget Act means with regard to the bills as they come from committee, and the amendments that will be later offered on the floor of the Senate, because it is clear that there are a number of distinctions that need to be made. As we learn how to use the Budget Act, we are going to have to make some rulings and decisions as to its meaning and accept some procedures that interpret the act so that it may be the device that the Senator from Maine and myself, and I am sure the Senator from Georgia, desire it to be.
One of those questions that the motion to suspend seems to me to completely ignore is the distinction between obligational authority and spending authority, the so-called question of entitlements because I think while there is an ambiguity in the law as to whether the reductions in obligational authority are covered by this waiver procedure or not, there can be no doubt in the act, when we read it carefully, that the spending authority, the entitlements programs that may be added by a bill or an amendment, are specifically covered by the provisions of the act.
There is, at least to some degree, an increase in entitlements under the bill as it comes from the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. But, more important, at some point in this debate as we go through this bill, we are going to be confronted with not small but massive changes in the law that very greatly increase the entitlements if those amendments are adopted.
I have no illusions that the Budget Committee is an authorizing committee; I have no illusions that the Budget Committee can look at a program as a line item; I have no illusions that the Budget Committee can look at the individual amendments which will be offered and, by line item, approve or disapprove and, therefore, dictate to the Senate what shall be done with individual amendments. But I think the Budget Committee does have a very clear authority and a very clear responsibility to look at the overall aggregate effect of legislation as it comes to the Senate with regard to the targets that were set in the first and second concurrent resolutions of last year, which will be set in the first concurrent resolution to be adopted by the Senate in the very near future, and by the Congress as a whole by May 15.
Those targets, again, are not programmatic targets. They will not be set with regard to the food stamp program. The food stamp program is only a building block in the discussions we have had in the Budget Committee with regard to the income maintenance function of government.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCLURE. I will be happy to yield for a question.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask these questions in order to be clear as to what the Senator's objective is. The purpose of section 401 is to give the Budget Committee and every Member of the Senate a procedure for absolutely blocking the effective date of entitlement legislation until October 1 of the year in which the first concurrent resolution is to be dealt with. Is that the Senator's objective?
Is it his view that we should not consider this legislation at all until next October 1?
Mr. McCLURE. It is my position that before it is appropriate for the Senate to act upon legislation creating new entitlements, the first concurrent resolution must have first been adopted by the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. The act is explicit in section 401. It is not only the first concurrent resolution having been enacted, but also the reconciliation process should have been finished. That will not be finished before the latter part of September. So section 401 is designed to protect those elements of the process, the first concurrent resolution and the reconciliation process.
If the point of order is raised for the purpose of protecting the process, then presumably the objective is to block the consideration of the legislation until sometime next September.
Mr. McCLURE. I would say to the Senator he is referring to one section of the budget law while I refer to another. I refer his attention to section 330(a) ; which says, and I will read it:
It shall not be in order in either the House of Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or resolution, or amendment thereto, which provides—
And it lists four different things among which are new spending authority — until the first concurrent resolution on the budget for such year has been agreed to pursuant to section 301.
There is a provision in the act also that says that the Budget committee"can, upon the application of the appropriate committee, grant a waiver from the provisions of that section." The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry did not seek such a waiver in this instance. My belief is that they should have done so.
I think there is another ambiguity in the law which we are going to have to resolve at some point.
That is whether or not a bill or an amendment thereto which would result in a reduction of spending is covered by this provision. I think there is some question as to whether it was intended or not. Just reading the bill without interpreting the provisions, if we just read it technically, I think the ruling of the Chair would have to be that even a reduction is subject to that waiver requirement or the adoption of the first concurrent resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has referred to section 303. How about section 401? I do not have a copy of the Budget Act before me. I have only the memorandum of the committee's general counsel to the effect that the purpose of section 401 is to protect both the first concurrent resolution and the reconciliation process. I do not think the Senator and I need to get into an involved discussion of interpretations of the act because all I am seeking to learn is what the Senator's objective is. Is it to postpone consideration of the pending legislation until next September, or is it to create an opportunity for the Budget Committee to give consideration to this legislation before the Senate can act on it? Is it to pursue the waiver resolution route? I am simply trying to determine what the Senator's objective is. Then I can evaluate that objective better.
Mr. McCLURE. I say to the Senator I do not understand the reference to section 401 because I am not sure that it has such a limitation in it. So I cannot respond very accurately. The only exceptions I see in section 401 are the ones dealing with trust fund obligations and expenditures.
But section 303 just very clearly says, as I read it a few minutes ago, that we cannot consider the bill until the first concurrent resolution is adopted unless there has been a waiver from the Budget Committee.
Mr. CURTIS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator suspend for a moment?
Through the Chair, may I ask the Parliamentarian a question which is not clear to me from an examination of the Budget Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his question.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to section 401 of the Budget Act is the waiver resolution route available? In other words, can the Budget Committee, by means of a waiver resolution, which must be introduced and referred to the appropriate committees, take that means to waive the effect of section 401?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Parliamentarian advises that section 401 does not have a waiver provision. Section 303 has a waiver proviso.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is as I understood it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Also section 904, which has been invoked here.
Mr. MUSKIE. Section 904, then, is the procedure available to waive or suspend the impact of section 401.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Chair will read section 904(b):
Any provision of title 3 or title 4 may be waived or suspended in the Senate by a majority of the members voting, a quorum being present, or by unanimous consent of the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. So as I understand it, if the Senate is not to be blocked by a point of order invoking section 401, the only procedure available to the Senate is by majority vote to suspend its application.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will theSenator yield? I would say to the Senator that if he does it the way that is provided—
Mr. MUSKIE. I believe the Parliamentarian had not finished.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Since the Agriculture Committee had not used the procedure of requesting a waiver under section 303, that is perfectly proper.
Mr. McCLURE. But the Agriculture Committee may ask for a waiver under section 303, utilizing the procedure under section 303.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is raising a point of order under section 401.
Mr. McCLURE. I raise the point of order under section 303 that it not be order to consider the bill prior to the adoption of the first concurrent resolution. That is in section 303. Section 303 contains in it also the provision for the waiver. That is why it seems to me that that is the way in which we ought to function if we are going to try to preserve the Budget Committee, when the Budget Act is to have these matters referred through the Budget Committee and back to the floor with an appropriate waiver. If we do not do that, why should any committee, then, come to the floor—
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. McCLURE. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. TALMADGE. Does the Senator not think that a strange position, that the Senate cannot do what the Budget Committee itself could do, to wit, suspend or waive?
Mr. McCLURE. I would say to the Senator that is what the statute provides, and that is what was voted on by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and signed by the President, and is the law under which we operate. It provides for that procedure.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I believe—
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, before he proceeds for what I believe is another meaningful point?
Section 303 applies to legislation which first makes entitlements available in the fiscal year beginning next October 1, as an illustration. But when the legislation becomes effective in the current fiscal year, as this measure does, it is not subject to the point of order under section 303.
Mr. McCLURE. I understand the point the Senator is making.
Mr. MUSKIE. So only section 401 is available to the Senator raising the point of order.
Mr. McCLURE. I understand the Senator's point. That is another one of the ambiguities in this law. It is not certain, at least as I read the law, whether or not the fact that it may be applicable in this fiscal year or is effective in the next fiscal year, governs which section of the bill applies.
That is one of the reasons I raised the point of order, to get some determination of the application of the bill.
I now yield to the Senator from Nebraska.