September 15, 1976
Page 30433
REVISED CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET, 1977 — CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on Senate Concurrent Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FANNIN) . The report will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the concurrent revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 1977, having met, after full and free conference, have been unable to agree, signed by all of the conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President. I yield to the distinguished majority whip, the Senator from west Virginia.
ORDER FOR BILL TO BE PLACED UNDER "SUBJECTS ON THE TABLE"
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Calendar Order No. 1125, Senate Resolution 512, a resolution waiving section 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to the consideration of, be transferred to the Calendar of Subjects on the Table.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
REVISED CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET, 1977 — CONFERENCE REPORT
The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report on the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 139) revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1977.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint explanatory statement of managers of the committee of conference on the budget resolution be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on Senate Concurrent Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. President, the matter before the Senate is the final adoption of the Federal budget for fiscal year 1977. Incorporated in this second concurrent resolution on the budget before us are the binding spending ceilings and revenue floor within which Congress and the Federal Government must operate for the next 12 months. No legislation which would cause the spending ceiling contained in this budget to be exceeded or the revenue floor to be breached will be in order in either House.
The priorities expressed in this budget resolution are the priorities established by Congress for the entire Federal budget for the coming fiscal year.
The adoption of this budget resolution marks the end of the first full budget cycle under full implementation of the new Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. Mr. President, with this budget Congress has confounded its critics. We have met the timetable of the Budget Act. We have stayed within the goals of the first concurrent resolution because there was no sound reason to change those goals and because we exercised the restraint necessary to stay within them.
In fact, due to the discipline Congress has imposed upon itself in the spending process this summer, this binding second resolution actually reduces the spending levels contemplated when the target budget resolution was adopted last May.
The only goal of the first budget resolution which has not been met or exceeded is that for tax expenditure reduction. And even in this case we have finally come remarkably close. The target resolution of last spring called for tax expenditure reduction in the amountof $2 billion. The actual amount agreed upon by the House and Senate conference on the revenue bill which will come before the Senate this week is a reduction of $1.6 billion. Even though we failed to meet the $2 billion target, however, it is fair to say, as most commentators have already noted, that it was the existence of the budget process and the pressure of the tax expenditure reduction target we set last spring which strongly influenced the unprecedented tax expenditure reduction which the revenue bill actually contains.
Taking into account the $1.6 billion in tax expenditure reductions contained in the revenue bill, which will increase tax collections by the same amount, and the recently reported $400 million increase in unemployment compensation taxes which is expected to be enacted shortly, we are able to set a revenue floor in this budget resolution identical to the revenue floor contained in last spring's target resolution.
The combination of congressionally achieved savings in the spending totals of the spring target resolution and the about to be enacted congressional increase in tax collections means that we are able in this binding budget resolution to reduce the deficit contemplated in the target resolution of last spring. Let me underscore that. The deficit proposed in this budget resolution is lower than the deficit contemplated in the target resolution of last spring. Through the congressional budget process and congressional adherence to it, we have cut the deficit this year.
And let there be no question about it. Had it not been for the congressional budget process, Federal spending and the Federal deficit for the 2 years during which we have been operating under the congressional budget would have been higher by a range of at least $15 to $30 billion.
Mr. President, Congress has designed a new budget system that works. It works well. It has exceeded our most hopeful expectations. It is a monumental and unprecedented achievement in which Congress and the entire Nation can justly take pride.
We have shown that in budgeting, as in other areas of our national life, we can be masters of our own fate. We can make and enforce the hard choices necessary to achieve fiscal discipline and a balanced budget in the foreseeable future. We have shown we can design and pursue a fiscal plan to restore vigor to our economy. A fiscal plan with the lowest possible deficit for the shortest period of time. Congress has done so in the face of the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression 40 years ago.
So let us be proud of our achievement. We have met our goal. We have made our system work. Let us rededicate ourselves to continuing the course we have set, painful as it sometimes may be. Let us continue that course because it works, because it is right, and because we owe no less to the American people and ourselves.
Now Mr. President, there is a technical matter I want to clarify before describing the contents of the conference report and the statement of managers under consideration today. Under the parliamentary rules originally designed to deal with appropriation and spending bills, we face an anomalous situation in the case of this budget resolution that because we have actually produced a lower deficit as a result of the conference than either House passed in their respective versions of the budget resolution, the conference report before the Senate on this budget resolution is a conference report in technical disagreement. The disagreement is not over substance. It is a parliamentary technicality. It occurs because the Parliamentarians of the two Houses have ruled that, even on technical matters, a conference report on a budget resolution must, in all its particulars, remain within the range established by the action of the two Houses. Thus, where numbers are even slightly below or above the range for a particular item in the budget resolution passed by either House, the conference must report in disagreement. That is what has happened here in the case of the deficit number. The House budget resolution projected a deficit for the coming fiscal year of $50.7 billion. The Senate resolution projected a deficit of $50.8 billion. The result of the conference is a reduction in spending which produces a deficit of $50.6 billion. The $50.6 billion figure produced by the conference is $200 million less than was contemplated by either House when they passed their budget resolutions. No other figure produced by the conference is outside the range established by the two Houses in their separate action on their respective budget resolutions.
Under these circumstances relating to the lowered deficit projection, the conference has reported in technical disagreement, and it is the intention of the conferees of both Houses to urge adoption of the substitute resolution described in the statement of managers accompanying this conference report in disagreement. That conference substitute describes the agreement reached in the conference which, but for this technicality regarding the lower deficit figure, would have been reported as a conference report in agreement.
So, when the Senate votes today, we will first be voting to confirm the conference report in disagreement. A second vote will then occur to recede to the original House amendment to the Senate budget resolution, with an amendment which is spelled out in the statement of managers accompanying the conference report and incorporates the actual, total agreement of the conferees.
Other than this two step procedure, this consideration of the conference report can proceed as if it had been reported in agreement.
With this understanding of the parliamentary situation, Mr. President, let me describe some of the highlights of the conference report.
In May, with our first concurrent resolution, we adopted congressional budget targets which differed from the President's proposal, especially because of a greater emphasis on jobs and economic recovery.
Congress has met its targets almost to the dollar. Our economic recovery appears to be on track, although last week I did discuss some danger signs which could dictate a different fiscal policy if they persist. The budget resolution we adopt today sets a binding ceiling for spending and a binding floor for revenues. Based on Congress success to date with the new budget process, I have every expectation that we will live within the congressional budget.
This budget represents more than the success of a new process, however important that may be.
It represents 9 billion tax dollars saved from what would have been spent if last year's policies had simply been continued into fiscal 1977.
The budget deficit projected in this resolution is only $3.3 billion above the deficit estimated by the President in his "mid-session review" of the budget issued in July. And that difference is more than accounted for by spending for temporary job creating programs which the congressional budget includes and the President's budget denies.
It represents a commitment to 1.5 million new jobs — the majority in the private sector due to economic recovery and the rest in the form of public works and public service employment as America continues to struggle toward recovery.
The recommended conference substitute contains aggregate budget totals for fiscal year 1977 as follows:
For revenues, the conferees agreed on a level of $362.5 billion. This is the same as the House resolution and $500 million above the Senate resolution.
In order to reach this revenue floor, the concurrent resolution provides that legislation shall be enacted to decrease fiscal 1977 revenues on a net basis by $15.3 billion under the level of revenues that otherwise would be collected according to current law. This revenue floor assumes full year extension of the temporary tax reductions first enacted in 1975. It also assumes a net increase of $1.6 billion in revenues from elimination or modification of tax expenditures — the tax conference result — and an increase in unemployment compensation taxes of $400 million.
For budget authority, the conferees agreed on a level of $451.55 billion. This is $1.03 billion below the House and $4.05 billion above the Senate.
For outlays, the conferees agreed on a level of $413.1 billion. This is $140 million below the House and $300 million above the Senate.
For the deficit, the conferees agreed on a level of $50.6 billion. This is $140 million below the House and $200 million below the Senate.
For the public debt, the conferees agreed on a level of $700 billion. This is the same as the House and $1 billion below the Senate.
I am pleased to note that both the budget authority and outlay levels agreed to by the conferees are lower than the targets contained in the first budget resolution. I am also pleased to note that, given the conference agreement on the Tax Reform Act, we have been able to hold to a revenue floor of $362.5 billion — the same as the first budget resolution. This means that the deficit we now project, $50.6 billion, is $200 million lower than projected in the congressional budget last spring and, in fact, lower than the second concurrent resolution figure of either House. It is for this reason that the managers report in technical disagreement.
Mr. President, regarding the aggregate totals, the only significant difference between the House and Senate versions of the second budget resolution occurred in the budget authority category, where the Senate-passed level was slightly more than $5 billion below the level passed by the House — $447.5 billion compared to $452.6 billion. The conference compromise results in an increase of slightly more than $4 billion over the Senate-passed budget authority level, and a decrease of slightly more than $1 billion from the House-passed level. Two billion dollars of the increase from the Senate level has to do with timing, however, not substance. In function 450, community and regional development, both the House and Senate assumed full funding of the Public Works Employment Act which was recently passed over the President's veto. The Senate resolution assumed that $2 billion of the budget authority to fund this act would be appropriated in the transition quarter, whereas the House resolution assumed that all of these funds would be appropriated in fiscal 1977 which, of course, begins just a few weeks from now on October 1.
The conferees adopted the House approach, but stipulated that should this extra $2 billion be appropriated in time to be charged to the transition quarter, the corresponding reduction in fiscal 1977 should be treated as savings and not used for any other purpose. When this item — which is solely a timing question — is removed, the difference between the two bodies is only $3 billion in budget authority, on which the House came down $1 billion and the Senate went up $2 billion.
This $2 billion increase, which does not affect fiscal 1977 outlays, is due to the conferees' judgment that additional Government National Mortgage Association emergency mortgage purchase assistance funds may be needed to stimulate the housing industry. This possible requirement was strongly pressed by the House conferees, and the Senate conferees acceded to inclusion of a portion of the amount in the original House resolution.
Mr. President, let me take a moment to go over some of the other assumptions in the conference agreement.
Senator CRANSTON has asked me to explain how funding for the pending earthquake research and development program might fit into this budget resolution. This program falls into two budget functions and the total cost is estimated to be less than $50 million in fiscal 1977. As I have repeatedly stated, the Budget Committee is not a line-item committee, but we must make some assumptions leading to each functional total so we can set the functional ceilings rounded generally to the nearest tenth of a billion dollars: To answer Senator CRANSTON, and any other Senator who is concerned about a specific program, I can say, regardless of the Budget Committee's assumptions, no program will "bust the budget" merely because of the rounding in the budget resolution.
In function 300, natural resources, environment and energy, the total amounts provided in this conference report are little changed from those in the Senate resolution. The conferees did accept the Senate position that the total does assume the full $5 billion for EPA construction grants in fiscal year 1977 as contained in S. 2710 which is soon to be considered in conference. This $5 billion in budget authority will permit continuation of the pace of this major environmental program and will prevent any state from completely exhausting funds available for fiscal year 1977.
The conference agreement does not assume any budget authority for the project guarantees authorized in the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act. As indicated in the statement of the managers accompanying the report, it is very difficult at this time to assess the likelihood of any funding for these programs. As the report indicates, any subsequent appropriation action on programs in the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act will result in budget authority and, if enacted for fiscal year 1977, may require a third budget resolution
In function 550, health, the conference report provided ceilings for health of $40.5 billion in budget authority and $38.9 billion in outlays.
Implicit in the allocations to committees found on page 10 of the statement of managers are assumptions of budget authority for medicare at $23.1 billion, with $21.850 billion in outlays. For medicaid both budget authority and outlays are $10.1 billion. This assumes a reduction from the current law of $100 million based on anticipated initiatives to control fraud and abuse. It is our hope that those savings attributable to that cause can be tremendously enlarged in the years ahead. The assumptions for remaining controllable programs in the health function are $7.3 billion in budget authority and $6.950 billion in outlays.
In function 600, income security, the conference agreement assumes the enactment of two bills affecting unemployment compensation programs. One of these, H.R. 10210, already passed by the House, would add $400 million in revenues to the unemployment insurance trust funds in fiscal 1977. The other would extend the special unemployment assistance — SUA — program beyond its current expiration date of March 31, 1977. The Conference agreement also assumes the enactment of legislation passed by the House (H.R. 8911), amending the Supplemental Security Income — SSI — program; as well as legislation to repeal the so-called 1 percent kicker in Federal retirement programs, which the Senate passed on September 8.
Otherwise, the report of the managers is self explanatory.
Mr. President, there is still work to do on this budget. There are six appropriations yet to be enacted before the fiscal year begins on October 1. There are some important savings such as stockpile sales and elimination of the 1 percent kicker which are essential to this budget if some high priority items are not to be squeezed out. But most of our budget work is now done for fiscal 1977 — before the fiscal year begins and in the order contemplated under the Budget Act.
We have a proven instrument with which we can now begin to address the Nation's priorities for fiscal 1978 and beyond.
Mr. President, let me take a few moments to express my personal gratitude to the members of the Budget Committee whose efforts have meant everything to the success of this budget process during the past 2 years. I believe it is fair to say that never in my 18 years' experience in the Senate have I seen a spirit of bipartisan cooperation such as we have achieved in the Senate Budget Committee to make this system work. We have had our disagreements. They have been strong.. They have been argued with vehemence. They have sometimes split the committee on individual issues. But never have they split the committee support for the budget process and its nearly unanimous support for the budget resolutions, ultimately reported by the committee for the consideration of the Senate.
I have previously expressed my great gratitude and admiration for Senator HENRY BELLMON, ranking Republican member of the committee. His statesmanship has been unparalleled in my experience. And I wish as well to express my appreciation and admiration for the efforts of the other members of the committee and its truly excellent staff who have contributed so unselfishly of their time, energy, and imagination to make this process successful.
We have been working with a process which had been untried in order to achieve an objective which had never been met: control of the Federal budget and establishment of sound national priorities within it. We have not yet fully met all of the goals Congress intends this process should achieve, but we are soundly on our way. We have made some mistakes and we have learned some important lessons. But I believe Congress has learned as well, and the pending tax bill demonstrates it, that if sometimes our reach has exceeded our grasp, the budget process has so far proved a powerful instrument and influence in congressional spending and tax decisions.
My fellow members of the Budget Committee deserve a great share of the credit for that success.
So, too, do the chairmen and members of other standing committees, whose cooperation and adherence to the budget process have been indispensable. Particularly important has been the stunning success of the Appropriations Committee under the leadership of our friend and
colleague Senator JOHN MCCLELLAN in meeting a timetable for appropriations which many people believed could never be met. We also recognize the great efforts of the Senate authorizing committees whose almost universal adherence to the May 15 reporting deadline for new authorizations helped the Appropriations Committee meet its timetable and kept the budget process on track.
Mr. President, no one can know what the future will hold. Under the Budget Act, the terms of many members of the House Budget Committee will expire this coming January, including that of its Chairman, BROCK ADAMS. Likewise, most members of the Senate Budget Committee under the law must make a choice as to whether to continue membership on this new committee or keep their membership on other committees on which they have served for a much longer time. It is reasonable to anticipate that many members of the present Senate Budget Committee, all of whom are holding important positions on other Senate committees and subcommittees, will have to elect to stay with those previous assignments and turn the task of the budget process over to new hands. But I am confident, based on these 2 years of experience in both houses, that the budget process has taken hold. We have learned that the shoe of fiscal responsibility surely can pinch and hurt some of each Senator's own important projects and interests. But surely we have come to recognize as well that the anarchy of uncontrolled spending, runaway inflation, and bottomless deficits not only jeopardize those same programs even more, but rightly shook the confidence of the American people in their government and their economy. Through the budget process, we have begun to restore that confidence. We have substituted a sound fiscal plan for haphazard chaos.
The budget process is now too well established to be dependent on any single set of Senators or Members of the House. It is a part of our congressional institution. I am proud to have been selected by the Senate to help lead that effort. I am hopeful we can continue to merit your confidence and support as, with some new faces, the Senate Budget Committee continues its work next year.
Let me finally take this opportunity to speak of my extreme admiration for a Member of Congress who has been instrumental and indispensable in the work the budget process has achieved. Congressman BROCK ADAMS, chairman ofthe House Budget Committee, undertook a task more formidable than even that faced by the Senate Budget Committee 2 years ago.
Limited in tenure to a maximum of 4 years out of each 10, the House Budget Committee members had to shape from the Budget Act a system which was workable in the House and strong and flexible enough to be passed on to a whole new committee in the next Congress. It is a tribute to the industry and ingeniousness of BROCK ADAMS that he has met that challenge. The House and Senate have pursued different courses on many procedural questions under the Budget Act, each course designed to meet the particular needs of that House. And yet, throughout it all, we have successfully met on every essential common area required by the BudgetAct. We have achieved a common set of views as to an appropriate and effective way to conduct our conferences and produce our conference reports and enforce the discipline of the budget process in our respective Houses. Throughout it all, BROCK ADAMS' stature and influence as an effective, innovative, dynamic leader of the budget process has not only earned the deserved admiration of his House, but also deserves the respect of our own as well. I commend my fellow chairman's efforts. I will keenly feel his absence next year. But I am confident that his achievement in the House in successfully implementing the budget process will not only be his monument as a Member of the House, but also will endure to the benefit of the entire Congress and the American people.
EXHIBIT 1
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 139) revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 1977, report that the conferees have been unable to agree. This is a technical disagreement, necessitated by the fact that the deficit figure in the substitute language agreed to by the conferees is less than either the House or the Senate provision.
It is the intention of the conferees that the managers on the part of the Senate will offer a motion in the Senate to recede and concur in the House amendment to the Senate-passed resolution with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute) consisting of the language agreed to in conference, and that upon the adoption of such amendment in the Senate the managers on the part of the House will offer a motion in the House to concur therein.
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate submit the following joint statement in explanation of the action agreed upon by the managers:
The substitute language which is to be offered as described above (and which should be considered the language of the concurrent resolution as recommended in the conference report for purposes of section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) — hereinafter in this statement referred to as the "conference substitute"— is as follows:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to section 310 (a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976—
(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is $362,500,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased is $15,300,000,000;
The appropriate level of total new budget authority is $451,550,000,000;
(3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is $413,100,000,000;
(4) the amount of the deficit in the budget which is appropriate in light of economic conditions. and all other relevant factors is $50,600,000,000; and
(5) the appropriate level of the public debt is $700,000,000,000.
Sec. 2. Based on allocations of the appropriate level of total new budget authority and of total budget outlays as set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the first section of this resolution, the Congress hereby determines and declares pursuant to section 310 (a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that, for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1978, the appropriate level of new buget authority and the estimated budget outlays for each major functional category is as follows:
(1) National Defense (050):
(A) New budget authority, $112,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,650,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
(A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
(A) New budget authority, $4,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,500,000,000.
(4) Natural Resources, Environment, and Energy (300):
(A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000
(B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
(5) Agriculture (850):
(A) New budget authority, $2,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.
(6) Commerce and Transportation (400):
(A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
(7) Community and Regional Development (450):
(A) New budget authority, $9,550,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,050,000,000.
(8) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500):
(A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
(B) outlays, $22,200,000,000.
(9) Health (550):
(A) New budget authority, $40,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,900,000,000.
(10) Income Security (600):
(A) New budget authority, $155,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,200,000,000.
(11) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
(A) New budget authority, $20,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,500,000,000.
(12) Law Enforcement and Justice (750):
(A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,600,000,000.
(13) General Government (800):
(A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $8,500,000,000.
(14) Revenue Sharing and General Purpose Fiscal Assistance (850):
(A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,700,000,000.
(15) Interest (900):
(A) New budget authority, $39,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
(16) Allowances:
(A) New budget authority, $700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
(17) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
(A) New budget authority, $16,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,800,000,000.
BUDGET AGGREGATES
Revenues.— The House resolution provided for Federal revenues in the amount of $362.500 billion; and to achieve that level it provided that revenues should be decreased by $15.300 billion. The Senate resolution provided for Federal revenues in the amount of $362.0 billion; and to achieve that level it provided that revenues should be decreased by $15.8 billion.
The conference substitute provides for Federal revenues in the amount of $362.5 billion; and to achieve that level it provides that revenues should be decreased by $15.3 billion. This revenue level assumes a full fiscal year extension of the temporary tax reductions, first enacted in 1975, at a cost of $17.3 billion, partially offset by a net increase of $1.8 billion in revenues from elimination or modification of tax expenditures, and an increase in unemployment compensation taxes of $400 million to reflect an increase in the taxable wage base effective January 1, 1977.
Budget authority.— The House resolution provided for total new budget authority in the amount of $452.583 billion. The Senate resolution provided for new budget authority in the amount of $447.5 billion. The conference substitute provides for total new budget authority in the amount of $451.55 billion.
Outlays.— The House resolution provided for total outlays in the amount of $413.240 billion. The Senate resolution provided for outlays in the amount of $412.8 billion. The conference substitute provides for total outlays in the amount of $413.1 billion.
Deficit .— The House resolution provided for a budget deficit in the amount of $50.740 billion. The Senate resolution provided for a deficit in the amount of: $50.8 billion. The conference substitute provides for a budget deficit in the amount of $50.6 billion.
Public Debt.— The House resolution provided for a public debt level of $700.000 billion. The Senate resolution "provided for a public debt level of $701.0 billion. The conference substitute provides for a public debt level of $700.0 billion.
ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES AND ASSUMPTIONS
The fiscal policy contained in the conference report reaffirms the budget priorities in the first budget resolution. Enactment of the legislation assumed in the totals, together with a supportive monetary policy, will move the nation closer to full economic recovery. The economic assumptions underlying the revenue and spending ceilings contained in the conference report are as follows:
[Dollars in billions; calendar years]
Item 1976 1977
Gross national product:
Constant (1972) dollars $1.265 692 $1,3338
Incomes:
Personal income 1,382 1, 542
Wages and salaries 893 995
Corporate profits. 153 177
Unemployment rate:
Calendar year average 7.5 6.5
End of year 7.2 6.2
Consumer Price Index 5.7 5.3
Interest rate, 3-mo Treasury bills 5.3 5.8
050: NATIONAL DEFENSE
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $112.1 billion and outlays of $100.7 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $112.088 billion and outlays of $100.606 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $112.1 billion and outlays of $100.65 billion.
These amounts assume achievement of nearly all the proposed sales of materials from the strategic stockpile and absorption in amounts for pay raises in line with past experience.
150: INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $9.1 billion and outlays of $6.9 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $8.770 billion and outlays of $8.763 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $8.9 billion and outlays of $8.9
250 GENERAL SCIENCE, SPACE AND TECHNOLOGY
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $4.6 billion and outlays of $4.5 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $4.595 billion: and outlays of $4.505 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $4.6 billion and outlays of $4.5 billion.
300: NATURAL RESOURCES, ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $18.2 billion and outlays of $16.0 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $17.928 billion and outlays of $16.227 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $18.2 billion and outlays of $16.2billion.
The conferees, without prejudice, have not assumed any budget authority in this function for the proposed Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act because the budgetary impact of this bill is impossible to determine at this time. Should the authorization and subsequent appropriation be adopted, they will result in budget authority and the Budget Committees would consider the possibility of a Third Budget Resolution to cover this requirement, taking account of the total budgetary situation at that time.
350: AGRICULTURE
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of. $1.6 billion and outlays of $2.0 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $2.317 billion and outlays of $2.239 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $2.1 billion and outlays of $2.2 billion.
The increase over the Senate level in budget authority in the conference substitute was provided for net realised losses of the Commodity Credit Corporation and the increase over the Senate level in outlays was provided for the shortterm export credits program.
400: COMMERCE AND TRANSPORTATION
The Senate Resolution provided budget authority of $15.2 billion and outlays of $17.4 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $17,699 billion and outlays of $16.984 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $17.2 billion and outlays of $17.4 billion. The managers assume that these totals include $2 billion in budget authority for the Emergency Mortgage Purchase Assistance program of the Government National Mortgage Association, and $0.5 billion in both budget authority and outlays for an additional payment to the Postal Service.
450: COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The Senate resolution provided $7.5 billion in budget authority and $9.0 billion in outlays. The House amendment provided $9.584 billion in budget authority and $9.078 billion in outlays.
The conference agreement provides $9.55 billion in budget authority and $9.06 billion in outlays.
It assumes that the Public Works Employment Act will be fully funded in Fiscal Year 1977. Should the pending Public Works Employment Appropriation bill be enacted during the Transition Quarter, $2.0 billion in budget authority assumed for fiscal1977 in this budget resolution would not be required since it would have been charged to the Transition Quarter. If this occurs, the conferees believe that the $2.0 billion in budget authority should not be used for any other purpose in Fiscal Year 1977.
500: EDUCATION, TRAINING, EMPLOYMENT, AND SOCIAL SERVICES
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $24.0 billion and outlays of $22.8 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $23.884 billion and outlays of $22.187 billion
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $24.0 billion and outlays of $22.2 billion
550: HEALTH
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $40.5 billion and outlays of $38.8 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $40.527 billion and outlays of $38.960 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $40.5 billion and outlays of 38.9 billion.
600:INCOME SECURITY
The Senate resolution provided $156.2 billion in budget authority and $137.3 billion outlays. The House amendment provided budget authority of $165.872 billion and outlays of $137.000 billion.
The conference agreement provides $155.9 billion in budget authority and $137.2 billion in outlays.
It provides $0.2 billion in outlays over the amounts in the House resolution due to a estimate of current policy costs for unemployment compensation. The estimates assume elimination of the one percent kicker. They also assume enactment of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) amendments (H.R. 8911) and the extension Special Unemployment Assistance (SUA).
700:VETERANS BENEFITS AND SERVICES
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $20.3 billion and outlays of 9.5 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $20.323 billion and outlays of $19.539 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $20.3 billion and outlays of $19.5 billion.
750:LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JUSTICE
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $3.5 billion and outlays of $3.6 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $3.490 billion and outlays of $3.571 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $3.5 billion and outlays of $3.6 billion.
800:GENERAL GOVERNMENT
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $3.6 billion and outlays of $3.5 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $3.556 billion and outlays of $3.534 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $3.6 billion and outlays of $3.5 billion.
850:REVENUE SHARING AND GENERAL PURPOSE FISCAL ASSISTANCE
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $7.6 billion and outlays of $7.7 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $7.617 billion and outlays of $7.657 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $7.6 billion and outlays of $7.7 billion.
900:INTEREST
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $39.6 billion and outlays of $39.6 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $40.400 billion and outlays of $40.400 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $39.6 billion and outlays of $39.6 billion.
ALLOWANCES
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $0.7 billion and outlays of $0.8 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $0.860 billion and outlays of $0.910 billion.
The agreement assumes absorption in amounts for pay raises in line with past experience.
950:UNDISPUTED OFFSETTING RECEIPTS
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $16.8 billion. and outlays of $16.8 billion. The House amendment provided budget authority of $18.920 billion and outlays of $16.920 billion.
The conference agreement provides budget authority of $16.8 billion and outlays of $18.8 billion.
BROCK ADAMS,
THOMAS P.O'NEILL, THOMAS L. ASHLEY, PARREN J.MITCHELL, JAMES G.O'HARA, OMAR BURLESON, ROBERT N. GIAIMO, NEAL SMITH, R. L. LEGGETT,
Managers on the Part of the House.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, WARREN G. MAGNUSON, FRANK E. MOSS, ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, ALAN CRANSTON, HENRY BELLMON, J. GLENN BEALL, Jr., PETE V. DOMENICI,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two members of my staff, Margaret Scheer and Elizabeth Weber, have the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the military construction authorization act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to my good friend and colleague on the committee, Senator BELLMON.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. President, I join Senator MUSKIE in the conclusions he has just presented to the Senate regarding the actions of the conference committee and the success of the budget process thus far. He has given a complete and thorough explanation, and I will not repeat what he has said.
I wish to take a little different approach, but before I do that, I express the complete respect and admiration I feel for Senator MUSKIE after working with him in this effort for the last 2 years. He has been entirely fair and extremely visionary in his approach to the conduct of the Budget Committee's work, and he has given fully of his great talents and his abilities in making this process work.
I feel that the success we have enjoyed so far in our new efforts to establish a meaningful way and a successful way of bringing on fiscal responsibility in Congress is due to the leadership and dedication that Senator MUSKIE has given to this process, and I again express the satisfaction I have had in working with him in this effort.
Mr. President, as a former Governor of Oklahoma, a State whose constitution mandates a balanced budget, I would like to see, as much as any other Member, Federal spending held in line with our income.
In checking the vote on the second concurrent resolution, I find that 21 Members of the Senate who are generally identified as fiscal conservatives voted against the resolution. I feel that it is logical to assume that many of those Members desire a balanced budget, and I certainly join them in this feeling. I believe that many Members of the Senate other than those 21 also desire to see a balanced budget, and I have asked the staff of the Budget Committee, particularly the minority members, to determine what steps could have been taken to bring the Federal budget for fiscal year 1977 into balance. I have asked them to do this on three bases:
First. If we were to balance the budget by raising revenues, which taxes could be raised and by what amounts to produce the $50.6 billion in net revenues needed, in order to get revenues in line with our expenditures.
Second. If we were to balance the budget by cutting spending, which areas of spending could be cut, excluding the "entitlement" programs mandated by law and not including defense. The reason I left out defense is that many of the Members who voted against the second concurrent resolution are those who favor a strong national defense posture.
Third. Which areas of spending would need to be cut if the defense budget bore its proportion of the cuts.
The results of the Budget Committee staff's work are set out in the following three tables.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the tables printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Tables omitted]
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, table I shows how we might try to balance the budget by raising revenues to match the expected level of fiscal year 1977 spending. Assume for a moment that $50.6 billion is the needed additional revenue. Assuming that this additional revenue would be raised in the same proportion as existing revenue sources, individual income taxes would be increased by $33.7 billion, $10.5 billion would come from additional corporate tax collections, and $6.4 billion would be raised through other miscellaneous indirect business taxes. Note the impact on individual taxpayers. Using a broad assumption regarding pro rata burden on income categories, the average taxpayer in the $5,000 to $10,000 adjusted gross income category would see his taxes go up by $320. Similarly, a taxpayer in the $10,000 to $15,000 bracket would see his taxes go up $520 and those in the $15,000 to $20,000 adjusted gross income bracket would be hit by an additional $900 tax burden. Higher income taxpayers would be affected similarly.
All we are saying here is that, in order to balance the budget, we would need an additional $50.6 billion of revenue. In order to get that revenue, the lowest income taxpayers would see their taxes go up by $320 per year, and those in the $15,000 to $20,000 bracket, which includes a very large number of American taxpayers, would have to pay almost a thousand dollars more in taxes.
Finally, after adding the pain of this tax burden on all taxpayers, we find that we really have not balanced the budget after all.
This analysis severely understates the cost that attempting to achieve a balanced budget quickly through increased taxes would impose on our Nation's economy. We have not included in this analysis the increased product prices or reduced output from corporate or other business enterprise that the corporate and business taxes would cause.
In other words, as taxes go up and our citizens have less to buy with, our producers have less to produce with. Therefore, costs rise, there is less money to spend, and the total tax system produces less revenue. The direct tax cost and price impact would be a heavy burden for all consumers to bear. Further, increased taxes reduce the income available for consumers to spend or the corporations to invest. Thus, the policy would foster unemployment and lead to the increased expenditures and reduction of tax revenue which unemployment entails. President Hoover in 1931 thought the key to economic recovery was a balanced budget Roosevelt initially promised the same. But history has demonstrated that the economy is too complex and interrelated to jump at such a simple solution. Let us take a look at what happens if we try to cut spending, since we are clearly in trouble by trying to balance the budget by raising taxes.
Table II shows how we might cut all the programs equally, except the entitlement programs, which are mandated by law.
The Budget Committee cannot cut the entitlement programs. This requires an actual direction by Congress. We simply have to provide the funds to pay the costs. These programs are mandated by law and the assumption I have made here assumes that they will be funded.
Table II also assumes that national defense programs are funded at congressionally approved levels.
Forty-one percent is the average amount that we would have to cut the non-mandated so-called entitlement programs. In other words, every program where cuts are possible would need to be cut by almost 50 percent.
I wonder where we should start. Shall we cut education 41 percent or health research 41 percent? Shall we cut transportation or highways 41 percent? I urge my colleagues to look over the list attached to table II.
Table III is the same as table II except national defense bears its pro rata share of the cut which amounts to a cut of $22.7 billion if we try to balance the budget in this way. Where would that money come from in defense? Military procurement? Operations and maintenance? Defense R. & D.? Certainly such a cut would be totally unacceptable to most Senators who voted against the second concurrent resolution.
Mr. President, last week when the Senate considered the second concurrent budget resolution, 23 Members of the Senate voted against that resolution. In conversation, I find that many of those votes were cast by Members who objected to the $50.6 billion deficit. While I realize they have not had the advantage of careful study of the budget process which Members of the Budget Committee are able to make, I believe the above information will be helpful to them as they decide how to vote on this conference committee report.
The plain implication is that unless Congress changes the laws so that spending reductions could be spread across the total spectrum of Government, cuts that would need to be made in order to balance the budget would be so precipitous as to work intolerable hardships upon millions of American citizens. If the cut in spending were spread across the defense function, this Nation's ability to provide for its security would be reduced below levels which reason dictates.
The desire for a balanced budget is an objective which Members of the Senate should strive to obtain. However, reaching this objective can come only after the economy is restored to a high level of health. The objective of the Budget Committee is to foster economic recovery so that the Treasury receipts will rise and so that outlays for recession related programs will diminish.
Following this path should give the country a healthy and sustained economic recovery, making possible a balanced budget before the end of this decade or early in the 1980's.
To change Government policy abruptly in order to achieve a balanced budget in fiscal year 1977 would likely set back the economy's recovery so that the danger of a more prolonged deficit plus incalculable suffering would be the net result.
Mr. President, the desire for a balanced budget remains strong throughout the country. The resolution before us anticipates no new spending initiatives and if this policy is adhered to, we will have set a course which will bring expenditures and outlays into balance at an early time.
Mr. President, again, I express my support for the report of the conference committee which is before us. I feel this represents the very best conclusions they could have reached under the circumstances. I know that this result would not have been possible without the leadership both of Senator MUSKIE and of Chairman BROCK ADAMS on the House side. I feel that the entire Senate owes these chairmen, as well as the members of the committee, a debt of gratitude for the dedicated service they have rendered to the Senate by bringing us so close to the figures that we started out with when the budget process began, and the tremendous amount of work they have done to remind the Senate, from time to time, of the actions we need to take to stay within the spending ceilings thatwere established within our first concurrent resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Oklahoma. I particularly appreciate the tables and explanation that he has put into the RECORD. Although based on certain assumptions which others might seek to change, I think that they portray the difficulties involved in undertaking to bring the budget into balance.
I noted his emphasis on the point that even if revenues were to be raised by the amounts indicated or spending cut by the amounts indicated, the economic consequences might put us in almost as difficult a situation after we had raised the revenues or cut the spending as we would be before we started. I think the debates of the last 2 weeks demonstrate that point pretty well.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement by the Senator from Utah (Mr. MOSS)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
STATEMENT BY MR. MOSS
I am pleased to support the Conference Report on the Second Concurrent Budget Resolution.
I want to pay tribute to our Chairman, the ranking Republican member and the other members of the Budget Committee who have worked so diligently to make the budget process function effectively. The leadership exhibited by our Chairman, Senator Muskie and Senator Bellmon, the ranking Republican member has been outstanding. And we have been supported by an excellent staff whose dedication and performance has been superb.
Adoption of this Resolution will mark another key step in affirming Congressional control over the Federal budget. As my colleagues know, the Resolution will establish binding ceilings on spending and a floor on revenues which become applicable to all subsequent legislation affecting the fiscal year. This year the process has been fully implemented for the first time. Thus, the resolution covers expenditures in total and by major budget function such as defense, agriculture, general government, etc. And the resolution includes breakout of total expenditures — a crosswalk among the Congressional Committees with jurisdiction over new budget authority. The net effect of the crosswalk is to provide Congress with a way of judging the consistency of the appropriations and other spending legislation.
My statement of September 8 discussed in detail the Second Resolution so I will not repeat it this time. Instead, I want to highlight some of the more important aspects of this resolution.
The primary goal of this budget is to maintain the economic recovery, at reduced rates of inflation, that began in the spring of 1975. To do this the resolution:
Provides a budget designed to bring unemployment down close to 6% by the end of 1977. Achievement of this objective will add 1.5 million jobs to the U.S. economy in fiscal 1977, 700,000 of which are expected to be in the private sector.
Rejects any increase in social security taxes not already mandated by existing law. Such a tax increase as proposed by the Administration would lead to an increase in prices and bring additional and unnecessary inflation in 1977 thus posing new problems to an economy which is not fully recovered.
Accords energy a high priority. The amounts included in the energy function include funds for major Congressional initiatives in solar energy research, fossil fuel development, synthetic fuels, energy conservation, and energy research related to automobiles.
Provides for extension of the 1975 tax reduction.
Provides for enactment of tax reform legislation which would result in a net increase of $1.6 billion fiscal year 1977 revenues.
Includes cost-of-living increases in veterans benefits and rejects the President's proposal for cutbacks in veterans programs.
Assumes budget economies — savings in a number of functional areas. For example, savings of $200 million in the Medicaid program in fiscal 1977 are anticipated through initiatives to control fraud and abuse.
Provides increased support for State and local governments primarily through revenue sharing and grants. It also provides for increased payments to States and local governments derived from mineral and timbering receipts.
Avoids actions that would unnecessarily increase inflation. For example, it defers implementing any major new spending programs and as already mentioned it rejects thePresident's proposal for increasing social security taxes which would add to prices and to inflation.
Provides for a reduction of nearly one fourth of the deficit in fiscal 1977 compared to 1976. The deficit is the direct result of revenue losses and unemployment costs of an economy that is operating far below its potential. After all each 1% increase in the unemployment rate will cost the Federal treasury $19.5 billion in fiscal 1977. And if we had full employment — an average unemployment rate of 4% in 1977 — we would have a budget surplus instead of a deficit.
This resolution builds on the success of the budget process which was implemented last year.
That action, as my colleagues know, enabled the Congress to set a spending ceiling and to remain well within it. Moreover, through the process, Congress has been able to turn the economy around. While the economy has turned around as indicated by the fact that the nation's jobless rate has fallen from a high of 8.9 percent in May 1975 to 7.9 percent last month, there has been a big increase in employment in the same period. Nonetheless, there are still too many people out of work and unemployment remains a significant national problem. Unemployment not only entails great human costs for the jobless and their families but it also means major budget costs too.
I support the resolution not because it precisely squares with my own views in every detail. In fact I would have preferred a lower spending level and a smaller deficit but despite my personal preferences, I support this Conference Report as the best result attainable. I believe that it offers a means to meet the nation's current needs and to continue the economic recovery. These actions together with increasing fiscal responsibility will enable us to continue moving toward a balanced budget. As a member of the Committee on the Budget that is a personal goal of mine.
The economy stands at a critical juncture on the recovery path toward full employment and economic prosperity. Congress should continue to monitor the recovery with great care and stand ready to take additional actions if experience proves them necessary. For example, we must continue to be concerned about inflation. Inflation has improved, having dropped from an annual rate of over 12% at the end of 1974 to less than 5% in July of this year. But it continues to be a matter of concern so we must continue to focus our efforts toward achieving a full and complete economic recovery in a way which does not rekindle inflation.
The activities of the Congress this year show continued progress on many fronts and I think it important that we continue the spending discipline that the Congress has shown thus far under the new Congressional budget process. The success of the first full year of the process — fiscal 1976 where we set a spending ceiling and remained well below it — shows that at long last we have an effective system for controlling the nation's budget. Budget control is not automatic. No process will ever do for us what we are unwilling to do for ourselves. Success in the management of the nation's affairs will come only if we continue to exercise the same kindof restraint and discipline in the future. It will be difficult but it is necessary.
It is important to continue the emphasis on budget discipline. However, recent experience serves to remind us that economic conditions have at least as much influence on the deficit as decisions on spending or taxes. Both budget discipline and high employment are needed to balance the budget. The goal of this resolution "to maintain economic recovery" is consistent with both needs and I urge adoption of the Conference Report.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, much has been said.in recent weeks regarding the success of the new congressional budget process. While 2 years is probably not an adequate length of time for the process to fully prove itself or to become so firmly implanted in Senate procedures as to assure its survival, clearly Congress has come a long way in the right direction.
A major element in the success of the budget process thus far has been the effective work of the Senate Budget Committee staff. This staff, which even today has not reached its full complement, has proved to be one of the ablest and most dedicated on Capitol Hill. The minority and majority have worked together in close harmony to the mutual benefit of all concerned.
As the ranking minority member, I would particularly like to pay tribute to Mr. Robert S. Boyd, the minority staff director. Coming as he did from the private sector less than 2 years ago, Mr. Boyd has demonstrated an amazing ability to apply his considerable talents to governmental budget problems. He has quickly grasped the intricacies of the Federal budget. His counsel and guidance has proven invaluable to minority members of the committee. In addition, his ability to assemble a highly effective minority staff has made it possible for a broad range of facts to be considered as committee decisions are made.
Mr. President, it would be wrong for me to call attention to Mr. Boyd's contributions without giving full credit to the majority staff director, Mr. Doug Bennet. As a member of other Senate committees, I fully appreciate the equanimity with which Mr. Bennet has approached his great responsibilities and the fair treatment he has given the minority on all matters that have come before us. The services of both Mr. Bennet and Mr. Boyd and their associates have provided the invaluable support which Budget Committee members have needed to successfully meet the responsibilities which are placed upon this committee by the passage of the Budget Control Act.
Undoubtedly, many changes in the makeup of the Senate Budget Committee will occur between now and the beginning of the work on the first concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1978. The maintenance of the contributions from both the minority and the majority staff of the Budget Committee will be of immense importance in assuring the continued success of the new Senate budget process.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in order to bring this matter to a head, I move that the conference report be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall put another motion, then I shall call for a quorum, in the hope that we can get sufficient attendance to get the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I move that the Senate recede from its disagreement to the House amendment and concur therein, with an amendment which I send to the desk.
The amendment is as follows:
UP AMENDMENT No. 460
In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted by the House, insert the following:
That the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to section 310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976
(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is $362,500,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased is $15,300,000,000;
The appropriate level of total new budget authority is $451,550,000,000;
(3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is $413,100,000,000;
(4) the amount of the deficit in the budget which is appropriate in light of economic conditions and all other relevant factors is $50,600,000,000; and
(5) the appropriate level of the public debt is $700,000,000,000.
Sec. 2. Based on allocations of the appropriate level of total new budget authority and of total budget outlays as set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the first section of this resolution, the Congress hereby determines and declares pursuant to section 310 (a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that, for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1976, the appropriate level of new budget authority and the estimated budget outlays for each major functional category is as follows:
(1) National Defense (050):
(A) New budget authority, $112,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $100,650,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
(A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,900,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
(A) New budget authority, $4,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,500,000,000.
(4) Natural Resources, Environment, and Energy (300):
(A) New budget authority, $18,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,200,000,000.
(5) Agriculture (350):
(A) New budget authority, $2,100,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,200,000,000.
(6) Commerce and Transportation (400):
(A) New budget authority, $17,200,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,400,000,000.
(7) Community and Regional Development (450):
(A) New budget authority, $9,550,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $9,050,000,000.
(8) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500):
(A) New budget authority, $24,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,200,000,000.
(9) Health (550):
(A) New budget authority, $40,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,900,000,000.
(10) Income Security (600):
(A) New budget authority, $155,900,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $137,200,000,000.
(11) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
(A) New budget authority, $20,300,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,500,000,000.
(12) Law Enforcement and Justice (750):
(A) New budget authority, $3,500,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,600,000,000.
(13) General Government (800):
(A) New budget authority, $3,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,500,000,000.
(14) Revenue Sharing and General Purpose Fiscal Assistance (850):
(A) New budget authority, $7,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $7,700,000,000.
(15) Interest (900):
(A) New budget authority, $39,600,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $39,600,000,000.
(16) Allowances:
(A) New budget authority, $700,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $800,000,000.
(17) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
(A) New budget authority, — $16,800,000,000.
(B) Outlays, — $16,800,000,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 66, nays 20, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]