March 23, 1976
Page 7639
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have some observations to make in behalf of the Committee on the Budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is under control. Who yields time?
Mr. INOUYE. I yield to the Senator all the time he requires.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished floor manager of the bill.
Mr. President, the foreign assistance appropriation bill, H.R. 12203, reported by the Committee on Appropriations, totals $5.3 billion in budget authority and $2.2 billion in outlays for economic development and security assistance in fiscal year 1976 and $1 billion in budget authority and $400 million in outlays for the transition quarter.
The International Development and Food Assistance Act, the international security assistance authority bill, now in conference, and separate international development bank bills authorize the major programs funded by this bill.
H.R. 12203 also places ceilings on Export-Import Bank activity, but those ceilings do not directly affect budget authority and outlays.
The Committee on Appropriations and its Subcommittee on Foreign operations have performed a difficult job in considering requests for so many programs, many of which were submitted to Congress by the administration 4 months after the fiscal year began. I commend Senator INOUYE, the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, for his diligent work.
I commend the Appropriations Committee for the spending austerity reflected in this bill. The committee has reduced the President's fiscal year 1976 request by $500 million in budget authority and $400 million in outlays. In total, this bill is $300 million in budget authority and $300 million in outlays below the foreign assistance authorization levels already enacted into law or passed by the Senate. The functional totals for national defense and international affairs in the second budget resolution were based on assumed reductions in the President's security assistance request of $400 million in budget authority and $200 million in outlays.
H.R. 12203 makes appropriations for three functions: The security assistance programs fall in the national defense and international affairs functions. Programs for economic and financial assistance are in the international affairs function. Assistance for Cuban refugees in the United States is in the income security function.
With regard to the spending ceilings contained in the second concurrent resolution, let me put the bill before us today in context by discussing the additional legislation that may materialize during the remainder of the fiscal year and the likely outcome of an analysis the Congressional Budget Office is now completing of the budget estimates for fiscal year 1976 based on the latest available information on existing program costs.
Taking account of levels provided in this bill, plus the President's District of Columbia appropriations request yet to be reported, and supplemental requirements for programs already authorized, the totals for the budget as a whole are likely to be under the second budget resolution ceilings by $1.3 billion in budget authority and $1.5 billion in outlays. There are, however, several additional pieces of legislation that were assumed in the second budget resolution which need to be kept in mind. If all the following possibilities come to pass, the second budget resolution ceilings could be exceeded by $4.9 billion in budget authority and $300 million in outlays.
The Inter-American bank bill, if enacted, may require $255 million in budget authority and $7 million in outlays this year.
Energy, health, and veterans legislation now under consideration may add $900 million in budget authority and $300 million in outlays to the totals.
Public service jobs, summer youth, and other legislation in the education, manpower, and social services area may add another $1.5 billion in budget authority and $900 million in outlays.
Public works and antirecession assistance requirements could require $3.5 billion in budget authority and $600 million in outlays.
The $300 million overage in outlays is within the range of estimating error, and hopefully will not be a problem. But on the budget authority side, if we pass this bill, we will obviously need either to increase the second budget resolution ceiling or forego funding of many of these possible congressional initiatives. I would point out to my colleagues that part of the problem on the budget authority side occurs because of the New York City aid package. In establishing the second budget resolution ceilings, we specifically did not include provision for assistance to New York City since that matter was not settled at the time. Since then, spending legislation amounting to $2.3 billion in budget authority has been enacted by Congress for that purpose. At the time of the second budget resolution, we pointed this problem out and indicated the possible need to consider a third budget resolution later in the year to accommodate this assistance. As you can see, however, increasing the second budget resolution budget authority ceiling by the amount of the New York City aid would still leave us far short of covering all these possible additional requirements.
Mr. President, I have dwelt on this situation at some length so that all Senators will be able to understand fully the options they may be facing later in the fiscal year. If we vote in favor of the bill before us today, some other high priority items may be crowded out later unless we are willing to increase the second resolution ceiling on budget authority. Everyone needs to understand that point clearly.
Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that we are faced with this problem largely because of increases over which the Congress has little control. The bill before us today and the possible additional authorizations and appropriations I have mentioned were all assumed at the time of the second budget resolution and included in it. But the Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates that increases in budget authority have occurred in other budget areas where the administration had inadequately estimated the cost of existing programs.
So the situation we face, although very real, is not due to excessive spending on the part of Congress or spending beyond what we assumed in the second concurrent resolution.
Mr. President, as we approach the end of the fiscal year, as we get even further into it, I am sure I will be making similar statements repeatedly so that Members of the Senate may understand clearly the options which they ought to have before them.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The Senator from Maine mentioned the Inter-American Bank, and I did not catch the figure as to the budget authority in that case.
Mr. MUSKIE. The impact of the Inter-American Bank bill, of course, is further down the road beyond this fiscal year. In this fiscal year it would require $255 million in budget authority and $7 million in outlays.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. $7 million in outlays.
Mr. MUSKIE. $7 million in outlays.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I am not clear as to just what figure the chairman now estimates will be the ceiling for both the budget authority and the outlays for fiscal 1976.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, at the present time, if we pass this bill, we are under the second budget resolution ceiling in budget authority by $1.3 billion and under the ceiling in outlays by $1.5 billion.
The Senator was in the Chamber when I listed the additional programs coming along that may be crowded out by those two numbers.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. And those additional programs, assuming they are enacted, would add up to what figure?
Mr. MUSKIE. If they were all enacted, we would be over the second budget resolution ceiling on budget authority by $4.9 billion, of which $2.3 billion is the New York City assistance which we anticipated we might have to provide additionally, and $300 million in outlays.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. So we would have to reduce these additional programs by $300 million in outlays below the figures I have put in the Record, and on the budget authority side we would have to increase, we would have to have a third resolution to provide for the New York City budget authority, but we would still be $2.6 billion out of whack.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. You might say in round figures $5 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. Including New York City, $5 million.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, incidentally, I would like to at this point commend the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for the reforms reflected in the memo which he has distributed to Members of the Senate under date of March 22, 1976.
I would like to, if it is not already included in the RECORD, to ask unanimous consent to have that memorandum printed in the RECORD at this point, with a strong expression of my approval for this additional control which the distinguished Senator from Hawaii has provided in the bill.
There being no objection, the memorandum was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,
Washington, D.C.,
March 22, 1976.
DEAR COLLEAGUE: I want to call to your attention two important administrative or "housekeeping" amendments to the fiscal year 1976 Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Appropriation Bill, as reported by the Committee on Appropriations and scheduled for Floor action early this week.
(1) Reprogramming of Foreign Assistance. The Administration has historically contended that its annual presentation of foreign assistance to the Congress is only "illustrative" and therefore, once approved, can be altered at will between countries and projects. We saw this happen a few years ago with worldwide Public Law 480 programs being concentrated into Southeast Asia when appropriations for programs in that area were reduced. We saw it again last October when the Administration sought to push through a $22.7 million loan to Zaire as an addition to its fiscal year 1976 program. The bill before you includes an amendment which would require Appropriations Committee approval of new projects or increases in projects previously justified.
(2) Operating Expenses of the Agency for International Development. For the last five years we have been trying to sort out AID's operating expenses, or as I like to call them, AID's "cost of doing business." Certainly improvements have been made in AID's operations over the last several years but we still have a long way to go. In order to focus on these costs we need them segregated into a single line item, as the Committee recommends, and not scattered throughout program accounts as is AID's preference. If the Senate is to look to us for oversight and management of these funds I recommend that we identify them in a very specific way in a discrete appropriation account.
Any Member of the Senate who believes in Congressional control over spending can enthusiastically support these provisions in the bill recommended by the Committee. I personally urge you to do so.
Sincerely,
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished friend very much.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) proposes an amendment:
On page 2 line 19, strike $146,400,000 and substitute therefor $151,400,000.
On page 2 line 20, strike $100,000,000 and substitute therefor $115,000,000.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment would be to add $15 million to the population planning program — population planning and health program — which is in line 19, and then to up in line 20 so the specification that of that amount not less than $100 million be changed to not less than $115 million of such amount to be available only for population planning.
Mr. President, with the developments in the world which we see today, and the food crisis and the hunger crisis we see in the population burgeoning in many of the developing nations which can ill afford to take care of the additional people, I think it is incumbent upon us to take what has been a successful program over the years and to add to the level of expenditure proposed in the bill.
Without the additional $15 million I have suggested it would at best merely keep us going along at about the current level if, indeed, not calling actually for a cutback because of increased costs.
I would particularly like to call attention to the fact that population, of all of the items, and I am looking at the title I items here, in the percent of the Senate level below the President's request, of all the items covered population seems to have taken the worst beating. For instance, we have food and nutrition with a 10 percent cut, and here we are encouraging the growth of more food and the improvement of nutrition, but when we get to the area of population planning and health we find there is a 15 percent cut.
In education and human resources there is an 11 percent cut; in selected development activity only a 11 percent cut.
Then when we get over to the next page on the table and we take a look at the overall percentage of the cut below the Senate level, below the President's request, we find there is only an overall 8 percent cut. It sems to me we are getting our priorities out of line insofar as these items are concerned.
It may be that some other items ought to be cut back to get the money at this point for this particular expansion of the program I am suggesting, but I do not know exactly what items it ought to come from. It has been suggested that, perhaps, the operating expense figure at a later point in the bill might be considered. There is some $38.6 million that is allocated for that purpose. But I am advised that the agency has indicated this still seemed to be a solid budget from the point of view of operating expenses.
I do hope that regardless of the outcome of this amendment when the bill goes to conference that we will see the conference committee take a hard look at those operating expenses, and if there are additional funds in the operating expenses not needed for that purpose, to try to make some of those funds available for the actual program expense and, thereby, come within the — provide additional funds into the — operating end of the program.
I believe this change is a justified one, and I certainly do not want to be budget-busting at this point but, it seems to me, in the long run these programs are programs that have been proven, are doing a great deal of good around the world and, indeed, I think can do more effectively than perhaps any other dollars that we are spending on this particular program availability in the bill.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I listened with a good deal of sympathy to the case made by the distinguished Senator from Ohio. I am not concerned with the merits but with the procession of amendments we have had now which add to the cost of this bill.
I recognize, of course, that the bill represents a reduction from the President's request overall, that it is within the Second Concurrent Budget Resolution, so the Senator's amendment would not be subject to a point of order under the Budget Act but, nevertheless, I am concerned that we are using up the room left under the Second Concurrent Resolution to an extent that will leave us with some pretty tight options down the road.
So I hope the chairman of the committee might give consideration, as he considers this amendment, to the budget consequences, as I am sure the distinguished Senator from Ohio will.
Mr. TAFT. Will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. TAFT. I wish to thank the Senator from Maine for his comments.
I point out one thing that the agency advises me with regard to this, and that is the expenditures here involved, probably many of them would not occur, actually, after October of next year. So that the actual budgetary impact may not be as great as might otherwise be the case.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.