August 24, 1976
Page 27403
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate has before it H.R. 8603, the Postal Reorganization Act Amendments of 1976.This is an authorization bill that if enacted will most likely lead to increased Federal spending in a supplemental appropriation, and so it particularly requires scrutiny in terms of its relationship to the first budget resolution for fiscal 1977. While there are also important organizational issues surrounding our consideration of this legislation, my comments are addressed only to the budget implications of the pending proposals.
To begin with, Senators will recall that the Senate version of the first budget resolution assumed inclusion of an additional $1 billion payment in fiscal year 1977 to assist the Postal Service in financing its projected deficit. The House version of the budget resolution did not assume inclusion of. these funds, and they were subsequently removed in conference. However, in an exchange of correspondence, Senator MOSS, speaking as chairman of the Senate conferees, wrote to Senator McGEE , chairman of the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, that it was the intention of the conferees that the Senate's consideration of H.R. 8603 was not to be prejudiced by this exclusion.
Now the authorizing committee has concluded its deliberations and reported its bill, which would authorize an additional $500 million to be applied in fiscal 1977 to the Postal Service's debt.
Senator HOLLINGS is sponsoring a substitute amendment that would authorize $1 billion. Since passage of the first budget resolution, the staff of the Budget Committee has further studied the financial problems of the Postal Service, and they agree that additional amounts up to $1 billion are needed by the Postal Service to finance its projected deficit. They also agree with the analysis offered by the authorizing committee that if additional funds are not provided, the Postal Service could experience an impairment of its operating capability, which in turn would intensify the pressure for postal rate increases and service reductions.
Let me explain as precisely as I can what it would mean in fiscal 1977 budget terms to enact and fund H.R. 8603 either as reported by the authorizing committee or as provided by Senator HOLLINGS' substitute amendment. I refer you to page 13 of the August 23 Senate budget scorekeeping report. Here it shows that the Budget Committee staff's current estimate is that funding of additional budget requirements could produce fiscal 1977 budget totals of $447.7 billion in budget authority and $414.3 billion in outlays.
This would be $6.5 billion in budget authority under, and $1 billion in outlays over the first budget resolution targets. These totals include the estimated effect of possible later requirements which have not yet been considered by the Senate, and therefore are tentative at this time. But the general budget picture is clear — we have a little room left in budget authority, but budget outlays are very tight.
Relating this to the legislation before us, my current estimate is that enactment and funding of either the committee bill or the Hollings substitute would not cause us to breach the first resolution budget authority target. However, enactment and funding of either would create serious pressures that could cause us to exceed the outlay target.
The Budget Committee is about to go into markup on the second budget resolution, and I believe I speak for all the members of the committee when I say we will try our best to keep the second budget resolution ceilings from exceeding the first resolution targets. Clearly this will be easier to accomplish if the Senate approves additional Postal Service assistance of $500 million instead of $1 billion, but I will not tell you that it is impossible at the higher level. There are just too many uncertainties. We will be considering these uncertainties in more detail when we actually get into markup next week.
Mr. President, let me say again that the first budget resolution adopted in May contemplated that the second budget resolution might need to be adjusted upward to accommodate some or all of the cost of this legislation. The conferees gave explicit recognition to this possibility when they agreed to accept the House position and eliminate the additional Postal Service funds as provided in the Senate's version of the first budget resolution. They agreed to wait for the decision of the Congress on the legislation now before us. The conferees felt that the most important consideration was that legislation representing the most responsible approach to financing the Postal Service's deficit be enacted. The Budget Committees would then do the best they could to have the budget resolution accommodate that approach.
Each Senator must make up his own mind as to the most responsible approach. Speaking as an individual Senator, and not as Budget Committee chairman, I can say that I am prepared to support an additional fiscal 1977 Postal Service authorization up to a maximum of $1 billion. This is the amount the Postal Service is projected to lose next year, and I believe we would be kidding ourselves if we assumed that the Postal Service could get by without additional funds. Finally, I believe the Postal Service organizational issues should be considered on their merits, separate from the funding level question.