April 9, 1976
Page 10276
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will please clear the aisle. Staff members will be seated. Conversations that take place will please take place in the cloakroom or in the lobby. We will not proceed until the aisles are clear.
The staff will please remove themselves to the cloakroom or out in the lobby.
The Senator may proceed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, at the request of Senator JAVITS, I ask unanimous consent that Chuck Warren of his staff be accorded privileges of the floor during consideration of the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Stern and Joseph Humphreys, of the staff of the Committee on Finance, be permitted on the floor during discussion and vote on amendments of the pending resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, this amendment is offered in recognition of what to me is a simple fact of life. We on the Committee on Finance told the Committee on the Budget that we thought we could save some money in some aspects of social security, public welfare, medicare, and medicaid, but they should not expect a net savings because while we would tighten up in some areas affecting programs for the sick or for the poor, in other areas Senators would have amendments that would cost us more money.
The Committee on the Budget considered what we presented to them, and they came up with the conclusion that we could pass a resolution to reduce social welfare expenditures by $2 billion.
For example, they assumed we could reduce social security spending by $300 million and we could reduce aid to families with dependent children by $300 million.
Mr. President, history has shown that when a courageous man, such as the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD) , worked to take people off the welfare rolls who did not belong there in the District of Columbia, the only way he could put that over was to pay more money to those deserving people who remained on the rolls.
He could not have done what he did if it had been just a net cut for the poor when he put it into effect, and neither can we.
This recommendation of the Committee on the Budget assumes that we can reduce medicare by $1.1 billion. We might find a way where we could save some money in medicare, but as soon as we do, if we hope to pass the legislation, we are going to need something in there to do something extra for beneficiaries. Otherwise, we cannot pass it.
Then the Budget Committee assumes that we can reduce medicaid, which is medical care for the poor, by $300 million.
Mr. President, I do not think there are a dozen Senators in the Senate who will vote for a resolution that will do that by itself.
If we are held to this, we will have to ask those on the Committee on the Budget who think it can be done to introduce legislation — I am not going to introduce it — and send it to us, and then we will report this measure without recommendation and see what they can do with it out here in the Chamber.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at this point?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know there has been a lot of discussion in the Senate for a year and a half concerning the effect that the Committee on the Budget is having upon the jurisdiction of other committees. The discussion has been that we should stick to our own business and let other committees do theirs.
And once again, the sum and substance of the Senator's argument is that we should not indicate overall targets with respect to Government spending unless we are prepared to come up with the details in the form of specific legislation. On the other hand, however, if we did offer specific recommendations that would be none of our business.
Mr. LONG. I am not saying that.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the thrust of what the Senator was saying. The Senator just said, as I understood him, that if we want to achieve savings in these areas it is up to the Budget Committee to introduce legislation, which the Senator knows is not our jurisdiction, and bring it to the Senate floor. That is what the Senator has just said. If we were to follow the Senator's advice, then we would be grabbing a piece of the jurisdiction of the Senator's committee and, if we were to try to do that, I can imagine what the Senator's attitude in the Senate Chamber would be.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, any Member in the Senate can introduce legislation to do this.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator suggested that the Committee on the Budget do it.
Mr.. LONG. All I am saying, Mr. President, to the Senator from Maine is that any one of 100 Senators can introduce an amendment to cut social security benefits, aid to the poor, aid to the sick, and aid to the disabled, and thus save $2 billion by so doing. Any Senator can do that.
I do not think anyone ought to ask me to do that because I could not conscientiously vote for it, support it, or ask anyone else to vote for it. If I cannot vote for it, I do not think I ought to be introducing it and asking someone else to vote for it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. In other words, the Senator would like to have the Committee on Finance exempted from those provisions of the Budget Act, which give the Committee on the Budget the responsibility for recommending to committees of the Senate proposals for cutting expenditures?
Mr. LONG. I do not see why there is any disagreement between us. This budget resolution should be something that the Senator thinks Congress will be able to accomplish. If he does not think they will, he should not be recommending it, no matter how he personally feels or how I personally feel about it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that?
Mr. LONG. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator tell me how any Senator, including such an experienced and able Senator as the Senator from Louisiana—
Mr. LONG. The Senator may leave that out, and get down to the issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. How can any Senator take upon himself to presume that he can guarantee one way or another what is going to happen legislatively in this Congress during this legislative session?
The Senator may have that kind of crystal ball, but I do not. It is not the responsibility of the Budget Committee to bring to the Senate a report in which we guarantee what will happen legislatively. Rather, it is our function to establish priorities, within the limits of the resolution available to us, in which we make recommendations to the Senate that we try to achieve and — I repeat — try. The Senator does not seem to want to try.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the Senator is not understanding me, and I think that, if we discuss it a little, he will understand me.
What we should be doing in the budget resolution is bringing in some realistic estimates of something that we think we can do, and we should not be voting for something we do not think we can do.
For example, if the Senator brought in a resolution that said that, in order to have a balanced budget, we should eliminate all public welfare, I can tell him now that that cannot be done. He could not get 20 Senators to vote for that.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Budget Committee has not recommended that.
Mr. LONG. That is right. But the Budget Committee made some assumptions which are equally incapable of being accomplished.
The Finance Committee did anticipate, and we so communicated to the Budget Committee, that we could make some cuts in these social welfare programs ; but we also anticipated that there would be some increases.
I would be willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that we could cut $2 billion in these programs. But if we did, the cut would be accompanied by an equal amount of increased spending; so that it would work out to a cut and increase which balance one another. That is pretty much what we recommended, and that is about the best I could anticipate will happen.
However, instead of that, we see the Budget Committee telling us that we can cut social welfare and social security programs, programs for the sick and the poor, by $2 billion, without any corresponding increase to offset it. In effect, the Budget Committee assumes the Senate will be willing to swallow a bitter dose of epsom salts mixed with castor oil, without any sweetener to help the medicine down and get the bad taste out of the Senate's mouth. It cannot be done.
I do not have the kind of leadership — and I do not think anybody else here has — to pass a bill to cut $2 billion in social security, aid to families with dependent children, medicaid, and medicare. In my judgment, that cannot be done. I would be doing less than my duty if I did not stand here and tell the Senate that I think that is impractical, that it cannot be done.
If somebody wants to do it, I will cooperate to the extent that I am willing to vote, as a member of the Committee on Finance, to report the measure out, without recommendation; and anybody who wants to have it passed should see if he can have it passed. I do not think I could vote for it.
Since I could not vote it, I could not recommend it to anybody; and I do not think I should be asked to assume the burden, on the floor of the Senate, of trying to pass something that does not make sense to me, because I do not think it is fair. It would be a misplacement of priorities, and I could not vote for it.
That is why we are considering this resolution. Should these reductions be in it? I do not think so. The way I read this, in order to cushion this cut on the poor, the Budget Committee proposes to use this money to finance some other programs.
For example, here is an increase of $1 billion for an extension of unemployment insurance benefits beyond 39 weeks. Here is an estimate of another billion dollars for countercyclical revenue sharing. I would like to have countercyclical revenue sharing, but I do not want to have it at the expense of the sick, the poor, the disabled, the needy, the old people on social security. I would suggest, as I suggest in this amendment, to save $2 billion of the proposed decreases by not having the billion dollar increase for unemployment benefits and the billion dollars for countercyclical revenue sharing. By saving these amounts, we would not have to cut social welfare benefits by $2 billion.
By doing it the way my amendment suggests, we would have the same total outlays and deficit that the budget resolution recommends; and in doing so, we would wind up with something that I think everybody could live with and something that could be made to work
Mr. CURTIS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Don Moorehead, minority counsel of the Committee on Finance, be permitted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this measure and all amendments and votes thereon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, as far as I am concerned, I would be happy to have this additional unemployment compensation money. I would be happy to have countercyclical revenue sharing, if we could get together on a formula. But I do not think we could afford that $2 billion at the expense of taking it out of the social welfare programs. If we try to take $2 billion from the social welfare programs, in my judgment, there will be a compelling reaction on Senators that, having taken something away from the poor in one respect, they will want to give them something back equally as good in another respect.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I want the record to be clear that the budget reductions are not intended to hurt beneficiaries of welfare programs, but rather to recommend that program efficiencies could be realigned. As a matter of fact, if the Senator is interested, I voted against the $1.1 billion in connection with the medicare and medicaid savings that the committee has mandated, because I thought that the reduction might be too high. There certainly is no connection between the committee recommendation for health spending and their countercyclical recommendation.
The committee was concerned with the spiraling cost of these medical programs because they are the most highly inflationary costs in our entire economy The entire Congress, I believe is concerned with limiting spending in these presently uncontrollable programs. The difficulty is to find a way to do it.
When the chairman of the Committee on Finance says there is no way to control spending, it becomes a little frustrating.
There is no connection between the hoped-for reductions and the decreases any more than there is a connection between these proposed savings and what we voted for the defense function, or any more than there is a connection between these proposed savings and the fact that we have to pay $40.4 billion interest on the Federal debt, or that we proposed the dollars for any function.
We took each function on its merits. We did not say, "Let's cut here in order to get here."
I just want that to be clear. The Senator, of course, has the privilege and the prerogative of linking countercyclical revenue sharing to reductions in welfare and health spending. I do not challenge that. I just want it to be clear that the committee made its decisions based upon the evidence presented and the economic situation in the Nation today, and in fiscal year 1977.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, Senator TALMADGE, a member of our committee, has introduced a bill to improve the administration of medicare and medicaid. It will take about 2 years for that bill to realize any substantial savings. For the life of me, I do not know how we could begin to save anything like $2 billion in the upcoming fiscal year, if one just looks at the political aspects — quite apart from the desperate need of these poor and sick people.
I want to work with the Budget Committee in achieving that which can be done. I believe that forthrightness and honor require me to tell the distinguished chairman and the members of the Budget Committee, when they make these assumptions in their budget resolution, that in effect they are assigning us a chore that I do not think can be done. That being the case, if we want to retain the same overall outlay figure, the only thing I can see would be to cut back on some of the new spending recommended. Otherwise, we will have a budget resolution, and we will not be able to do what it says.
I would just like to know what Senator is going to vote for a $2 billion cut in social security, medical care for the poor, medical care for the disabled, medical care for the aged, and aid to families with dependent children?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. Is the Senator going to vote for it? I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I could pose that kind of challenge to every committee chairman in the Senate. I could pose that kind of challenge to every Senator who has an interest in a particular series of programs.
What the Senator is saying, very plainly, is that there is no way to save any money in these programs without hurting the beneficiaries rather than making the programs more efficient. I do not believe that. I simply do not believe it. I must say, if I had been chairman of the Senator's committee for as long as he has been, with the background and knowledge he has, I would not come to the floor at this point and say there is no way, none that is conceivable, of saving a penny in this function. I would not do it.
Only after I had tried, and had not succeeded, would I then come to the Senate and say, "Look, the Committee on the Budget set a target, Congress endorsed it. In good faith, the Finance Committee went to the drawing boards and did our best. We could not do it, and I am reporting that to the Senate."
These are tentative targets we are talking about. They are not final. Those final spending and revenue targets are not set until September. Our job as a budget committee is to give the Senate some goals, not only on what to spend, but on what to save.
The Senator states that he wants the Senate to give it up right now, there is not a thing we can do.
Well, if we were to do that with respect to every function, we might just as well abolish the budget process.
We are not as knowledgeable in specific areas as the Senator is. We do not pretend to be. He is a bright man, and I respect his judgment. I understand that what we have recommended to be done is going to be very difficult to do. However, it is always possible to come to us later and say, it is impossible.
Mr. LONG. Well, Mr. President, I have brought social security bills here to this floor. If it were not for the Senator from Louisiana, we would have at least twice as many people on public welfare now as we have there. Do Senators not recall that great bill H.R. 1 they sent to us a few years ago to double the number of people on welfare? This Senator fought against doubling the welfare rolls.We would have quadrupled the rolls by now if it had not been for the Senator from Louisiana fighting that proposal to put people on the rolls who do not belong there.
But I have also had to manage other bills. I have seen the House add about $3 billion on top of the President's recommendation, and watched the Finance Committee add another $3 billion on top of the President's recommendations and watched the Senate add another $3 billion on top of the President's recommendation. That is the kind of thing the budget process is supposed to prevent.
It is my opinion that in the area of medical care, we ought to be spending more rather than less. We ought to be spending about $1.5 billion more for catastrophic health protection for poor souls who are in that hospital for more than 60 days without any prospect of being out anytime soon.
This resolution, of course, precludes that for this year, and I am not complaining about that. But this big cutback in medicare, medicaid, social security, and welfare is something that the Senate will not vote for and I think it is not wise to go tell the people of this country that we are going to make that reduction when, in my judgment, the Senate will not vote for it. The only way we could carry something like that would be if we had an equal amount of additional benefits that we were going to provide to these same poor people, these same aged people, these same sick people that the Committee on the Budget assumes we can cut $2 billion from.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield again?
Mr. LONG. Yes, I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me make something very clear. We have not directed the Senator or anybody else to cut social security benefits. We suggested that there are reforms possible, on the basis of enough evidence to give credibility to that suggestion, that we would like explored. We have not dictated a reduction or cut in social security benefits.
Mr. LONG. Well, I hope that before this debate is over, the Senator can yield me back some time, because he has made some very worthwhile statements on my time. I might need some of his time back before the debate is over with.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is a lot of time on the bill. I shall be happy to yield some back.
Will the Senator yield to me for a unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will say that this has come out of the time of the Senator from Maine, 3 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I ask unanimous consent permission for Donald Nichols and Alvin From, members of my staff, to have the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Joy have the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TAFT. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. TAFT. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Steve Entin of my staff have privileges of the floor during debate and vote on this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LONG. Let me make it clear, Mr. President, that I am offering this amendment for a simple reason. The Senate can do what it wants to do about it, but I say that if we are going to limit ourselves to the figure the Budget Committee has recommended, we cannot add new programs if we are going to finance those new costs, even in part, by a $2 billion reduction in social welfare spending, because I do not think we can persuade the Senate to vote for that. It seems to me totally unrealistic to assume we can do so.
I do not know why we should argue about whether the Senator from Louisiana should try to do something he thinks is unrealistic because it is something he does not think the Senate is going to do. My thought about this budget procedure is that we are supposed to advise with one another and agree on spending ceilings that we think are realistic, that we think we can live with, that we think can be made to prevail.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield again, on my time?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I really think that sometimes the record is more useful if we have interruptions in the course of discussion.
Other Senate committees are required by the Budget Act to report to us by March 15, as the Senator knows. The total of their recommendations for outlays was $439.9 billion. We have recommended outlays of $412.6 billion. That is a difference of $27 million. If we were to exercise no judgment of our own as to where savings or cuts ought to be made, if we relied wholly upon the authorizing committees, the recommended deficit, instead of being $50 billion, would be $77 billion. But we take it that we have a responsibility to make some judgment about where reductions can be made within the broad range of budget priorities.
We are not as knowledgeable, obviously, as the authorizing committees, or as the Senator from Louisiana in his particular jurisdiction, but, nevertheless, we have to make decisions on economic priorities. So that a cut of $27 million represents our best judgment as to what can reasonably be done and still keep the economy moving on the road to recovery and it does not coincide with what the authorizing committees recommended to us. The Senator's is not the only committee that is faced with that problem of trying to live with what we recommend.
Mr. LONG. Well, Mr. President, this amendment that I am recommending relates to programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance. It seems to me that countercyclical revenue sharing ought to be a Finance Committee measure. The extension of unemployment insurance benefits is a Finance Committee measure. From my point of view, if we have to live with the Budget Committee's total outlay figure — and I am assuming that we ought to try to so do that, and the amendment proposes to live with the total outlay figure of the Committee on the Budget — then it would seem to me that we ought to say that, as between these two, it is more desirable to hold the social security and social welfare programs to the existing law spending level than it is to add these two new programs for the extension of unemployment insurance beyond 39 weeks and countercyclical revenue sharing. If the Senator can find some other way to work those new expenditures in, by cutting somewhere else, I would be happy to see him do it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield on that?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Why is countercyclical in here? Is it in here because it is in the second concurrent resolution for this year, so it is a positive congressional mandate.
Second, it was in the jobs bill which the President vetoed and which the House overwhelmingly overrode and where we failed by only 3 votes to override.
Third, the Senator and I and other Senators have been working on a revival of that bill, including countercyclical, so we regarded that as a very clearly stated congressional mandate, and included it in this one because if you eliminate it from the 1977 budget there is no point in continuing further with the effort to put together a jobs bill that Congress can approve.
The next point I would make is there is one other area, a very real growth in this budget above current levels, and that is the defense appropriations. That represents real growth of over $9 billion in budget authority, $2.9 billion in outlays.
Now, that would more than offset what the Senator proposes to save. So there are many other places. Everybody has got his favorite functional area, and we just have not found it possible in the Budget Committee to make recommendations made in such a manner. I mean, if you were to do that, you would be tied up in those markup sessions. I mean everybody would be fighting for his own priority, and you would be there for the next 2 years, as the Senator knows.
So what we have done is to take each function on its merits, debate it thoroughly, come up with our own best judgment as to where savings can be realized and what the real needs are, and come up with a total. However, the majority shifts from time to time, as the Senator knows.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, let me make it clear that so far as this Senator is concerned, I have no pride of authorship in this matter. I am offering this amendment only because I deem it my duty to inform the Senate that this cut of $2 billion in the social welfare programs, in my judgment, cannot be done.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again?
Mr. LONG. I predict that if you succeed in saving the $2 billion, there will be amendments which cost $2 billion, maybe more than that. I tried many times to try to persuade the Senate not to be so ambitious in its desires to expand social welfare programs.
There are many Senators around here who have been here very long who can search their own conscience about the situations where I have begged them not to vote for free eyeglasses and begged them not to vote for free dentures and things of that sort because I thought the budget could not take it — and then watched them all proceed to vote for the benefits notwithstanding my entreaties. I was not against the old people having these benefits, but the budget would not take it and, being on the Finance Committee, I knew something about that problem.
The Senator has that same kind of problem as chairman of the Budget Committee, and I do not envy him that, I commiserate with him. I have been through all that, and I understand the problem. But I deem it my duty to inform the Senate that I do not think this is something we can do. I do not think we can make it work. I do not think we can prevail in this $2 billion cut in medicare, medicaid, aid to families with dependent children, and social security. If we save that much I think it will be spent in some other benefits for the same category of people. I feel it my duty to offer this amendment and to make clear that this part of this resolution I feel will be unsuccessful, and I do not think I ought to be saying it could be done if I do not think it can.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield again?
Mr. LONG. Yes, I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think a point needs to be made that was made with respect to the earlier amendment and it needs to be made on the Senator's amendment.
Now, the programs the Senator is addressing with his amendment fall into two functions: Income security and health. Each of those functions covers a number of programs other than those that the Senator's amendment touches.
The budget resolution does not zero in on particular programs. All it does is set overall numbers, and although the legislative history may indicate the areas where the committee thinks that ought to be productively explored, we do not mandate even the $1.4 billion in reductions in the medicare-medicaid programs. We just say in these functions what the totals are for budget authority and outlays. How it is to be divided depends on more than one committee. The health function is the Senator's committee. There is also the Labor, Public Welfare Committee.
Mr. LONG. And the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, Appropriations, and a number of other committees. But in terms of functions, let me give the Senator some numbers. In the income security number this budget resolution is $3.6 billion over the President; it is $900 million over the House.
With respect to health, this budget is $2.1 billion over the President and $1.2 billion over the House in budget authority, and about $700 million under the House in outlays. What we are mandating is that the appropriate committees try to live under these ceilings. We do not say with respect to particular programs what the amount should be, and I think that ought to be kept in mind as we debate the amendment.
Mr. LONG. In the statement I made yesterday, I pointed out that if these cuts are to be made, they would probably be made along the line of the President's recommendations. I said :
The President's proposals involve such things as cutting off social security benefits for orphans completing their education, requiring aged and disabled persons to pay more for medical expenses under medicare, or limiting how much doctors or hospitals can be reimbursed for their medicare costs. Now, it may be that the Finance Committee can find ways to improve these programs and to eliminate unnecessary costs over the long run, but I do not believe it is possible to cut out $2 billion in program costs in the coming fiscal year without enacting measures which primarily take benefits away from needy people or which indiscriminately cut payments to doctors or hospitals, and I do not think that Congress wants to or will enact such measures.
Mr. MUSKIE. All I am saying to the Senator is that we do not mandate how the savings should be made. Our functionis to take the 17 functions of the budget and establish overall ceilings and to ask committees which are involved in those functions to try to live under them, using their judgment and their discretion as to how that might be done or to report back if it cannot be done.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I want to congratulate the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Oklahoma in making this budget process work. If it is going to work, we are going to have to exercise some judgment and some discretion, and that is a little bit of what is causing the frustration of the other committees. They have a feeling of usurpation, that somehow the Budget Committee is mandating, telling them what to do.
Is what you are saying to Chairman LONG now that we do not necessarily have to make these $2 billion savings in the particular areas that he has indicated? If we take $2 billion out of social security instead of partly out of medicare and medicaid, that is fine?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is fine.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Would this also be true, because it is slightly related, on page 6 of the committee report where you make reference to the $2 billion in the tax expenditures that you hope the Finance Committee will pick up this fiscal year — do I take that to mean it is not necessarily a mandate that we close $2 billion worth of loopholes, but that we could just as well raise the income tax or the corporate income tax $2 billion? You are just talking about $2 billion additional revenue, and the reference to tax expenditures does not necessarily mean so-called loopholes.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. The only mandatory number with respect to revenues is the revenue total that we have included.
We have, however, indicated in the report, as we are required, our view as to whether any revenue should be generated by tax reform. We have done that, so our view is in the report, but it is not mandated.
Mr. PACKWOOD. If the Finance Committee's judgment at the end of 2 weeks of hearings and markups, they found it impossible to close $2 billion of loopholes, and they chose to fit within the mandate of the Budget Committee by simply reducing the tax reductions from $17 billion to $15 billion and pick up $2 billion that way?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
What we ask is a recommended level of Federal revenues of $362.4 billion in revenues, and we arrived at that number by assuming $2 billion possible additional revenues on tax expenditures. By the time the committee acts, the revenue picture changes. We may come up with $362.4 billion in some other fashion.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I think the point Senator LONG makes is valid to this extent: If where we had to save $2 billion was in cutting social security benefits, I am not convinced that has to be done, but if that is what has to be done, I do not think the Senate will do it, and I believe it would be illusory to assume that we can get the $2 billion that way.
But so long as the Finance Committee is left with the total discretion of where to pick up this money or reduce the tax reduction by $2 billion or whatever is necessary to get the $362.4 billion total the process is working the way it should work.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is another thing in what the Senator said, and the Senator from Louisiana also said: He said, "I do not think the Senate will do it." If we make a prejudgment on that assumption again we are never going to get anywhere.
Before the vote this morning what would have been the judgment of most Members of the Senate as to what the vote in the Senate would be on a program involving veterans' benefits?
Mr. PACKWOOD. Normally it would pass.
Mr. MUSKIE. It would normally pass.
Now, this morning, they did not. I hope that that action is properly interpreted by everybody concerned, including veterans.
But the fact is that as we begin to look at these decisions in the context of the overall past patterns of voting, it is not inevitable as to what the new pattern will be.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Because this process is so new I think it is working so well so far, but I want to lay the groundwork so we all understand as we get to September and pass the final resolution what it is we are committing ourselves to.
We are not, in the adoption of this resolution today, committing ourselves necessarily to a $2 billion cut in medicaid, medicare, social security. Not necessarily.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. PACKWOOD. We are not necessarily committing ourselves to a $2 billion closing of tax loopholes — necessarily.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. PACKWOOD. What we are initially committing ourselves to are revenues of $362.4 billion and maybe next September that figure will be $360 billion, maybe$365 billion. Who knows?
Then we are saying to the Finance Committee, "The collective judgment of the Senate is $362 billion. It is up to you, gentlemen, to determine how we go to that figure."
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. We, of course, would like to have the Finance Committee look at the Budget Committee report to get whatever insight it chooses to take from the Budget Committee's recommendations and the basis for the Budget Committee's judgment.
But in the last analysis, it is the Finance Committee's judgment, and I think the Senators and the Senate subsequently.
Mr. LONG. Let me make this clear. The President in his budget recommends a cutback in medical care for the aged and the poor of $900 million through limitations on reimbursement rates, and a $1.9 billion increase in the amount these old people are going to have to pay for the medical care they are now getting. With the $500 million of increased expenditures related to the catastrophic feature of the President's proposal, he proposed a net savings of $2.3 billion.
I have been on TV telling my people: "Don't worry about these proposals; we are not going to make you pay an extra $1.9 billion. Don't worry about it, Congress is not going to make you pay that to get what you are getting now. Congress would not do something like that."
The Budget Committee seems to believe we can go half way. They do not assume that we achieve medicare savings of $2.3 billion. They assume we can save $1.1 billion.
I do not believe we can persuade a majority of the Senate to vote for a $1.1 billion cut. In that respect, I think it is impractical.
The same thing is true about the $300 million savings in medicaid. I do not think it can be done.
That is why it would seem to me it is my duty to tell the Senate that I do not think it can be done.
If we want to live within that budget figure the Budget Committee has recommended, I think we better take out some of these new spending programs. Otherwise I do not see how these cuts can be achieved.
That is why I make this suggestion in my amendment. The Senate can do what it wants to do. I have done my duty when I informed the Senate that I do not think the Budget Committee's assumptions can be worked out that way.
That being the case, I think they ought to be less ambitious in their new spending programs. Counter cyclical revenue sharing is a great program, it sounds good, but I do not see how we can afford it if we are going to have to finance it by cutting the social welfare programs.
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LONG. Yes.
Mr. STONE. Would the Senator feel when the crunch comes later on in upholding the chairman of the Budget Committee when he calls his points of order on trying to keep the lid on the budget, would the Senator feel that the Senate, as an institution, would be more likely to support the Senator from Maine if the individual Senators have some feeling of participation on the floor and in participating with the making of the budget resolution, apart from simply voting up or down on the committee recommendations?
Mr. LONG. I hope so. But we know there is enough confusion about what this budget process means. It is all new to us.
There is enough confusion about that Senators may find themselves trapped in a situation where they are deemed to have participated in something and committed themselves to something and then find out it is something they do not want to do.
If that is the case, I know Senators will find a way of getting out of that trap. How, I do not know. But I have been there before and we always did find some way of getting back out of them.
But when we see a trap that we are going to have difficulty getting out of, the wisest thing is not get in there to begin with.
Mr. STONE. Does the Senator not also feel that although the Budget Committee may have adopted the very best way for them to proceed in terms of making budget ceilings on functions without regard to comparing them to other functions, that may have been the proper and best and most expeditious way for them to proceed as a committee, but, nevertheless, is it not just as logical and is it not just as feasible and is it not just as fair for Members of the Senate on the floor to analyze the priorities and the total and absolute amount set as between these functions and to decide that perhaps they want a little more defense funds here, perhaps they want a little less, compared to something else, and not simply as to itself; is that not just as logical?
Mr. LONG. That is the way I look at it.
We on the Finance Committee do have jurisdiction to report out a resolution that would cut social security, cut welfare, cut medical care, and increase unemployment benefits and increase revenue sharing.
If we did, I know what would happen. Somebody would offer an amendment to take out this cut on the health care, this cut in social security, or somebody would offer somebody to give the old people back something in return for what is being taken away, and by the time we got through we would not succeed in saving $2 billion.
Mr. STONE. Would the Senator relate his earlier statement about tax reform to the same feeling about spending cuts? Do not take that money from me, take it from the fellow behind the tree.
Mr. LONG. That is about how it tends to work out.
I will do all I can to cooperate with the Budget Committee. I am trying to do so right now. I feel it would be less than good faith cooperation if I sat and watched this budget resolution pass and then proceed to vote against cuts in social security, medical care and welfare, without having made it clear that it did not seem to me that is something that could or should be done. I would not be acting in good faith with the chairman of the Budget Committee and his Members to go along with this resolution and then at a later date come in and say that I could not vote to take that care away from the sick and disabled.
That is why I think it is my duty and the duty of the Senate to look at this.
Senators may feel that they have voted for a budget resolution and are committed to voting for the cuts later. But they may not vote for the cuts later. I think we ought to try to look at what we are doing and try to stay out of what, in my judgment, would be a very unfortunate situation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall yield in just a moment. I want to make two brief comments and then I shall yield to my good friend from New Mexico.
First, with respect to the Senator from Florida and the questions he addressed to the Senator from Louisiana.
Of course, I have been around the Senate long enough to accept long since the majority leader's philosophy that every Senator is free to do what his conscience tells him he has to do, and I do not quarrel with that.
But I will make an observation that if we do that without any regard whatsoever for the consequences in terms of what we are trying to do overall as an institution, then we will get back to the situation we had before the budget process.
If the Senator will examine the rollcall votes that we took in the Budget Committee, he will find a lot of votes that I cast that I will not try to implement in this Chamber.
Mr. STONE. If the Senator will yield, is this not one of them?
Mr. MUSKIE. This is one of them.
I am conscious of the fact that down the road there is flexibility in this process, but that we have to make a start. The starting point ought to be as solid as we can make it.
That is not to say that we do not recognize that there may be some amendments adopted at this time. The Budget Act makes room for that. What I am saying is that it is our job as a committee to make the strongest case we can in the budget resolution and to try to stimulate the Senate to adopt the same sense of self-discipline that we have found ourselves forced to assume.
I did not find it any easier than anybody else to vote as I did on the last amendment. I am certainly not going to find it easy to oppose the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. STONE. Will the Senator yield for a very brief observation?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. STONE. Is the Senator from Louisiana doing in the Chamber what the Senator from Maine did initially in the committee? There is a moment in which each Senator tries to condition himself to the ultimate result, but then, with the discipline to the budgetmaking process, having made his attempt, then he supports the final product.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I ask the Senator—
Mr. MUSKIE. I will yield to the Senator from New Mexico first.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from Oregon take much time?
Mr. PACKWOOD. I have a unanimous consent request for an aide to be granted the privilege of the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bob Jerome, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the pending measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Might I ask the Senator from New Mexico, who can answer this question as well as anybody, without in any way compromising the budget process, does not the amendment of the Senator from Louisiana pose to the Senate the substantive question that we prefer to not make cuts or even think about cuts in the areas of AFDC and in the area of medicaid and medicare? If, in our minds, that occupies the higher priority than the possibilities of countercyclical revenue sharing or unemployment, then this would be an appropriate time and we should vote for his amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. I might say to my good friend from Oregon that is one way to put it. On the other hand, I would hope that the Senator would listen to an explanation of what we had in mind in terms of this particular function, the health function, by setting the targets that we did.
We had a much broader concern in mind than that which has been addressed this morning. I might say to my distinguished friend from Oregon, and my good friend from Florida who has been talking about this issue, that I do not believe the Budget Committee had in mind anything like the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is talking about. He leaves the impression that we want to take away health care from those who need it in our country — the poor and the old who are presently covered by major plans.
I believe our concern is this: We feel there is much more delivery of medical care needed in this country than in those two areas. We can predict for the Senator that we must begin to cut back the percentage increase — and I will tell the Senator some percentages in a moment — in growth of cost of these two programs.There are those who think there is at the end of this tunnel some other health care programs for those not covered, be it major or catastrophic, be it Senator LONG'S national health insurance program, President Ford's or perhaps the Senator's. If the Senator is looking at that and fails to recognize the percentage cost increases in these two programs and does not recognize that we must attemptto put some new order into those, it would not be proper.
We are not saying take away from the poor and the old some medical attention,but we are saying that a 20.2 percent increase in that cost in 1 year is intolerable.
We are not saying to cut people out from under it. We are giving them a little urge on the Finance Committee and the Subcommittee on Health to understand that they are not going to increase the scope of coverage for anyone in this country when this budget increase is 4, 5, or 6 percent a year.
I keep stressing costs because I do not think we should equate costs to beneficiaries. And I also refer to medical costs going up 15, 18, 19, and 20 percent per year.
What we did, and I will give the percentages which answer the question can we do it or not, is this, and these are the facts :
The growth in expenditure outlays in medicare would be 22 percent under current policy. It would be a 22 percent increase.
For those who think that the Budget Committee is recommending cutting something, they must understand that we are coming in at about a 15.8 percent increase in that one single program.
We are suggesting to those who have control over medical delivery programs in this country that it is high time we find a way to give the kind of coverage we had in our goals without the costs going up 22 percent in 1 year.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Now we are getting down to the point, and I am sure that is exactly what the Senator from Maine said.
The Senator is saying the Budget Committee took a positive look at these programs and made the decision they are increasing too fast, they are costing to much, there ought to be a slowdown.
Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed. But I am not saying that we are trying to hamstring the Senator within this function as to where to effect some constraints on the excessive cost spiral. We are not putting any finger on that.
Mr. PACKWOOD. I understand that. The Senator is not saying we have to make these exact cuts of $300 million or $1.1 billion, but it is a substantive judgment that this function is growing too fast. The Senator from Louisiana, whether he thinks it is growing too fast or not, is saying that in his judgment, as far as the next fiscal year is concerned, he would rather cut back on the unemployment, if that is where we are going to cut, and not have the countercyclical programs rather than having these health functions cut.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say to the Senator, if he will look at countercyclical and the unemployment compensation that he is going to put a lid on, they are both triggered programs.
By triggered, I mean that they are tied to unemployment indicators in the economy.
That means that if things go as well as projected, both will disappear. So we need not be looking to 1980 and ask what will they be, for they will not be. They are gone. They are part of our antirecessionary effort on the part of this Senate, passed once in a bill, sent to the President, and vetoed.
But if the Senator does not listen to the Budget Committee's concern about the growth in medicare and medicaid costs, I say again to my distinguished friend that he must, as all Senators, look at the 1980 costs of those programs, which is our responsibility.
If we do not look at costs and tell the Senators what those two will be under current services extended, then we are not doing the job we should for the Senator and for the American people.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield on another point related to the question of the Senator from Oregon?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I said earlier that all we do is set functional totals. The effect of Senator LONG's amendment looked at from another perspective is this: He would eliminate the $600 million in cost savings that we would like to achieve in income security. That is the income security Function 600. So he would add $600 million. But then his amendment would subtract $1 billion from that function in order to eliminate an extension of unemployment compensation.
If the Senator is willing to assume that it is going to be easier or any easier for the Senate to turn down an extension of unemployment compensation than it is to achieve what Senator LONG described, I think he is unrealistic. If the Senate does not go along with the recommendation to drop an extension of unemployment compensation, then Function 600 is going to be squeezed $400 million more than the Budget Committee recommendation squeezes it.
Then you are really going to be back trying to find the cost savings that the Budget Committee is talking about.
Mr. PACKWOOD. The Senator from Maine says, "Do you think it is going to be any easier to vote against unemployment compensation if we are still in the recession than to vote against medicare?"
Mr. MUSKIE. I remind the Senator that I did not set the standard. The Senator from Louisiana set the standard.
Mr. PACKWOOD. Yes. I do not know which one is easier to vote against. Neither prospect is easy. But as a matter of fact, right now, this is not the time to decide which is the one to vote against, if we are going to vote against one or the other. The point the Senator from New Mexico raises is a valid point; we are not looking at just this year. He is saying that in five years this category will be up 38 percent, 48 percent, or 50 percent, if we do not start now to limit the increases.
.
Mr. DOMENICI. And I might say to my good friend, we do not have any new beneficiaries in this total, either.
Mr. PACKWOOD. No; the Senator is talking about current policy. But I think that is the difference which the Senator from Louisiana is raising. I think the point is valid; but if the Senate wants to say this year we would rather not have any countercyclical funds, and therefore not face the problem of having to have any economy in — what is the number of these functions?
Mr. MUSKIE. 600, and 550.
Mr. PACKWOOD. If we would rather think about not making the economies in this program, that is a decision the Senate can make without doing violence to the budget process.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not argue that. I think as long as the Senator says it as he is, without facing the issue of this ever-growing force, that is a decision we are making. If we do not want to face that issue, but put out countercyclical revenue sharing and put out the extra money the budget would provide, I think that is exactly the issue, as I see it.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for one moment about that?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. LONG. The Senator is talking about his concern about these increases. I do not know anyone with any suggestions for immediate savings other than the President. The President recommended that the old people be required to pay a coinsurance in addition what they are already paying for medicare, a coinsurance charge above their deduction of 10 percent.
They are complaining about the cost of medicare now. The President also recommended raising the deduction from $60 to $77, and then fixing the law so that the deductible would be raised automatically thereafter.
I do not think these are things Senators want to vote for. I think it is irresponsible to talk about holding the cost down if we are talking about raising the prices people have to pay. The President wants to save $900 million by putting a limitation on the reimbursement rate. These hospitals are complaining to high heaven they are not being adequately reimbursed now.
We might be able to do some of what the President recommends. But all I am saying is, as sure as we make these old people pay all this extra money, we are going to find it expedient, and I think statesmanlike, to do something to make it up to these old people for some of that which we are taking away from them.
It has been my experience in 28 years in this body that Congress is not going to do that to these old people without giving them something back, and I think it is impractical to think of it in any other terms. And much as I would like to see us have a countercyclical revenue sharing program, I think we had better not get into that new program for the time being, rather than make these old people pay for these health benefits to which they would otherwise be entitled.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from California.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Martin Jensen, Franklin Zweig, and Mark Schneider be granted the privilege of the floor during the consideration of this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bert Carp and George Merrill of the Budget Committee staff be accorded the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just want, for the record, to discuss a few more facts, and then I shall yield to my distinguished committee chairman.
Under the President's budget, so there will be no misunderstanding with reference to what we did, the President's budget in this category would have been at $35.5 billion. The Senate Budget Committee figure is $2.1 billion more than that; it is $37.6 billion. If we had been following current policy, we would have been at $38.8 billion.
That means if everything that was in place at present were to be carried out as it is, with no changes or reductions, we would have been at $38.8 billion. We are at $37.6 billion.
I just want to conclude by making this remark: If we do not find a way, as Congress, to do something about the spiraling costs of medical care, which I think was the intention of the Budget Committee that we encourage some national and even new and innovative effort in that regard, and if we equate the proposed reform there with a dollar-for-dollar saving by getting rid of a triggered program like countercyclical revenue sharing or unemployment compensation, then it seems to me we have just put a serious kink in any future constraints under this budget, and in the future we will be confronted with utterly billions of dollars that we do not now plan on in the years hence, and that we are not going to be able to get anywhere close to the balanced budget that we all want so much in the next few years.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.