April 9, 1976
Page 10293
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me begin my response to the distinguished Senator from Ohio and my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island by putting in perspective what we are now talking about. We are now talking about function 300. All the resolution recommends is the overall figure for function 300.
There is no mandate with respect to its content. The content of that function moneywise will be decided by other committees. It will not be decided by the Senate here this afternoon. So what we are talking about is the overall functional totals.
Now, with respect to those, the committee's number for the function 300 total is $8 billion in budget authority over the President's budget. We are $7 billion in budget authority over current policy, $7 billion over present policy in this function.
Now, with respect to the energy portion of this function, if you were to take the Budget Committee's energy assumptions, which are not binding, those assumptions are $1.1 billion in budget authority over the President's requests for energy, and $800 million in outlays over the President's requests. And, may I point out to the Senate, that the President's requests for energy funds are up sharply over last year over his own requests of last year. So that these overall recommended targets, Mr. President, represent a significant and substantial escalation in funding for energy programs.
Now, having said that, let me address myself to the particular concern of the Senator from Ohio and several others of my colleagues, including Senator PASTORE, Senator BAKER, and Senator GLENN.
(At this point, Mr. BUMPERS assumed the chair.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Spending for uranium enrichment falls into function 300. The Budget Committee's target for the function overall is $18 billion in budget authority and $15.6 billion in outlays.
In reaching this target, the committee assumed a funding level for energy programs of $5.1 billion in budget authority and $4.2 billion in outlays.
May I remind the Senate that those numbers are not binding on the Senate in any way. The $5.1 billion and the $4.2 billion are assumptions as the committee put together the overall totals.
Mr. PASTORE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I can understand the argument. I can understand the rationale of my distinguished colleague from Maine in citing the overall figures and the fact that within those overall figures there can be certain changes or transferring of moneys from one side or the other within the $18 billion of which he speaks.
But the thing that bothers me is what was said in the committee report.
We see here the committee energy recommendation would permit competition of current improvements to uranium enrichment plants now operated by the Federal Government.
That is fine. But it goes on: but would not support additional enrichment capacity.
Now they are making a judgment of policy.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I explain that?
Mr. PASTORE. I hope we can have this explained so that would not be a preclusion from our authorizing the money and then bringing the matter up at some other time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have tried to make this explanation for three successive amendments. Perhaps I cannot do it any more effectively now than I did earlier.
We are not a line item committee.
Mr. PASTORE. I realize that.
Mr. MUSKIE. We do not put together budgets from zero base which accounts for every dollar in a function.
In the first place, that is not our responsibility. In the second place, the authorizing and appropriations committees are in a better position to make those policy judgments.
But we cannot very well form judgments in overall totals without taking some account of what goes into the functions.
We are not given with some divine insight that tells us without looking at the components that this is what we ought to spend overall.
Every member of the Budget Committee has a rationale for those numbers that he supports and those are discussed in debate. We have got to talk about something.
In the committee there was a feeling, so far as the Budget Committee is concerned, that we ought to indicate a clear support for expansion of existing uranium enrichment plants, but leave undecided, so far as the Budget Committee is concerned, the question of adding new ones.
That is our rationale. Why is it our rationale? Because with the President's proposal for off-budget funding of energy programs — and that would involve, I guess, some $8 billion — with his recommendation for off-budget funding and with this on-budget alternative of on-budget funding for a specific enrichment proposal we, as a budget committee, were not in a position to resolve that issue at this time without the background that the authorizing committees have.
So we did not try to resolve that issue. We understand that the authorizing committees will have to do that, in due course, we will get the benefit of their advice. When we do, we can evaluate the budgetary impact of whatever it is they propose to us.
But, in the meantime, so far as we were concerned, we could see the need clearly for continuing the expansion of the existing uranium enrichment plants, but as far as we were concerned, we would prefer to reserve our judgment on new plants until we have the subsequent advice of the authorizing committees.
The second point I would like to make is that the overall numbers we have approved make assumptions about other ways to spend energy dollars.
Those assumptions are not binding upon the authorizing and appropriation committees. They are simply our notion of what would make up a commitment of the kind represented by the overall numbers.
So we do think about how much money, what we have for energy conservation, for example, or how much money should we provide for other programs. But we do not line item.
But as an order of magnitude, we think we have given sufficient attention to the detail so that the overall numbers are sensible and that they leave enough flexibility to the authorizing committees to make it possible for them to move.
The energy field is a very difficult area for anybody to define with precision. We have not been able to define it with much success in the Congress for 2 years and the Budget Committee does not hold itself out as being sufficiently expert to do that. But we think that within the parameters that we are in a position to discuss, we have given something that is workable.
If it is not, after they have worked on it, they can come back to the Senate and tell us.
Mr. PASTORE. All right. That is fine. But that is not what this says and that is the reason I have been a little apprehensive.
Had the report said the committee's energy recommendation would permit completion of current improvements to uranium enrichment plants now operated by the Federal Government, but would not include additional enrichment capacity, the door is left open. But when they say "would not support," not support something is a matter of policy. That is the thing.
Maybe I am playing on words, but I read support to constitute the predicate for policy, and if they are not going to support it, they are establishing policy.
If it said "not include" that would mean we have to shuffle around to see if we can find the money.
Do I make myself clear on that?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has made himself clearer than I have made myself.
Mr. PASTORE. I am glad to hear that.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right. What I say, and I hope the Senator will listen—
Mr. PASTORE. I have listened.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me put it another way.
I have made very clear on three amendments, and I suggest to the Senator that he read the RECORD — let me finish.
Mr. PASTORE. Yes, sure.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me finish.
That there is nothing in this report, the green document, that is mandatory in any way whatever, but rhetoric.
Mr. PASTORE. All right, I understand.
Mr. MUSKIE. Not mandatory in any way whatever, but rhetoric, including the language which the Senator just read.
Mr. PASTORE. All right, I understand that. There is nothing mandatory. But why does it say it? Why does it say that they will not support additional enrichment capacity? Why do they say it?
Mr. MUSKIE. We did not say
Mr. PASTORE. Yes. That is the word used; you said they would not "support."
Mr. MUSKIE. We could have given a book with 143 blank pages, if that would have suited the purpose more. What this book represents is the Budget Committee's rationale for these overall numbers.The overall numbers are binding. The rationale is not.
But if they want the benefit of the Budget Committee's thinking, we are trying to present it, but it is not binding.
I could not enforce a word in this green document except to the extent it repeats the overall numbers. There is no way I can do it. The law says that.
Mr. PASTORE. I realize that.
Mr. MUSKIE. The law says all we can enforce are the overall numbers.
Mr. PASTORE. I realize that. We are on all fours.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then I do not understand—
Mr. PASTORE. That is right.
I want an assurance on the fact here this afternoon that as a matter of policy it is not the recommendation of the Committee of the Budget to be against additional capacity.
That is all I want, that assurance. If I get that assurance, I will sit down.
Mr. MUSKIE. The individual membersof the Budget Committee will vote their own convictions on that kind of issue and I cannot speak for them.
Mr. PASTORE. But the Senator speaks for the committee now.
Mr. MUSKIE. This is function 300. Let me state how the process will work.
We adopt these overall numbers which are $18 billion in budget authority and $15.6 billion in outlays. So legislation will come to the floor to take up those dollars.
Let us assume that the very first bill has a line item in it for a uranium enrichment plant and it provides $237 million in budget authority. There has not been another penny spent in function 300. That bill comes to the floor, a line item, just this item, $237 million. Since it does not breach the overall target, the Budget Committee would say to the Senator and the Senate, this comes within the resolution.
Mr. PASTORE. I understand that, but I hope the Senator would understand our position, too. For 3 whole weeks I have sat in the Joint Committee listening to witness after witness after witness where they all agree that there should be an additional capacity. But it is a question of should it be public or should it be private. We have not made the determination yet. All I am begging on this floor this afternoon is that no other committee that has not heard even one witness stand up and say, as a matter of policy we cannot support additional capacity. That is all I want to clear up.
I know it is not mandatory. I know the final decision will be that of the Senate. But I want to clear the record that the Budget Committee did not, as a matter of policy, preclude, at any time, adding capacity to our own facilities. That is all I want.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I add to what I said the fact that as far as I know, and my recollection is pretty good on these things, for the last year we have never, in advising the Senate on the impact of the budget resolutions or on pending legislation, tried to enforce anything in the rationale of the committee in the report. We never have because we do not regard it as binding. It is first come, first served, in a sense.
If we had already used up, say, $17.9 billion in budget authority in this function, and that uranium plant came along asking for $237 million, we would have to say this would go over the target. But we would not make the argument on the policy basis that the Senator suggests.
Mr. GLENN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. First let me finish what I was saying.
I appreciate the fact that the Senator has raised the issue in his typically direct fashion because maybe, finally, I have made the point more clearly that I seem to have failed to have made thus far.
Mr. GLENN. What concerns me is this: I fully agree with Senator MUSKIE in trying to hold the line on the budget which he has been doing all this past year. I have checked innumerable times to make certain we were not getting over the Budget Committee's figures. I have voted on some very difficult issues on that basis. However, we are up against a very vital problem here.
This past year I have conducted hearings on nuclear exports and proliferation in the Government Operations Committee, just as Senator PASTORE has run the JCAE. This is a very complex and vital area. What concerns me is the procedure in which we go along and say, "It is flexible within the limits which have been set so far." I agree on that statement, but it seems to me that if we do not include uranium enrichment in this total that it puts up one very big, major roadblock for ever getting it included in the future.
Once this procedure is set, once we have the concurrent resolution in place, then, as I am sure the Senator will agree, it becomes very difficult once it is locked in place. People just like myself and the Senator are usually locked in on the concurrent budget. We would not want to break those figures and I would hate to propose it at that time.
It seems to me if there is ever to be a time when this budget process is to be more malleable and adjustable to the realities of international policy and real requirements, now is the time to make that adjustment. That is what concerns me. If we do not do it now, later on it becomes increasingly difficult to make an adjustment to support this very vital nuclear decision the "hedge plan".
Where should we adjust this? We either adjust it now or else we can come back and make a much bigger debate later on, perhaps, after all the authorizations are in, to break a concurrent resolution. Is this later time an easier point, or is it here and now that for this very vital decision must be made? I seek the counsel of the Senator. What does he advise?
Mr. MUSKIE. I would advise what the Budget Committee has advised. Let me put it another way, if I may. If we wanted to add up the numbers that would account for what we know we are doing now and report a resolution on that basis, and then say, "If you want to do something new, you have to decide how much more," that would be easy. Then the sky would be the limit on new programs.
Obviously, that will not work. So the Budget Committee has to assert some kind of responsibility with respect to forming judgments about new programs.
If we were to take the comfortable way to do that we could just simply report $436.9 billion because that is what the authorizing committees recommended to us. Everybody would be comfortable with that, because that would fit every committee's notion of additional programs that ought to be approved. But that will not work, and I am not trying to imply that is what the Senator wants.
So we have to take some course in between, and we think we have. We think that in every function we have not tried to coopt the decisions that should be made by the authorizing or Appropriations Committees. What we have tried to put in place is a total level of fund that gives flexibility. If that is not enough flexibility — and it is conceivable, how is anyone to determine in advance what will be enough? If it is not enough, then the process itself is flexible enough to permit the Senate to change the numbers.
Mr. GLENN. That is my question. Where is the best spot to change it? I thought it was now, while the budget is still flexible.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have had how many votes today? Those votes will give the Senator some idea how easy or difficult to change it here.
Mr. GLENN. It is impossible at this point. My point is it will become more impossible later once people accept the concurrent resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not believe that. What that assumes is that it is easier to sell something in the blind than it is under the full exposure of knowledge. We discussed this energy function a long time because it is a big, big problem, and I do not think we have begun to lay down the policy lines that will need to be put in place before we are through. So what we said to ourselves, and that is not adequately reflected in this committee print, is let us try to put in place the things that we are reasonably sure about, but then let us leave it to the authorizingcommittees to evaluate the President's off budget proposal, evaluate alternatives to that, and come back to the Senate, including the Budget Committee.
We have left as open a door with respect to that in this function as we have in any function.
So once the authorizing committees, with all the background that they have, come to the Senate and say to us, "This is what we think we need to do and it is going to take this much more than you have put in place," that is a case that can be made. It can be made credibly and I think it will have Senate support. In some other fields they might have problems, but I do not think they will have problems in the energy field.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.
Let me say I compliment the Senators from Ohio (Mr. TAFT and Mr. GLENN) for raising the subject, and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) for the discussion.
I think we have a tendency sometimes to lose the significance of various ingredients that make up American policy. I am on the Budget Committee and I voted for the limits here. I certainly did not vote for them with any notion, as explained by our distinguished chairman, that we were in any way passing judgment as a committee on the concept as to whether or not the United States of America, No. 1, needed to substantially increase its uranium capacity.
We were not passing judgment that we do not support such a thing. Second, we were in no way indicating — and if this language meant that, I think it should be construed as exploratory language
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. The word "support" is an unfortunate word to use.
Mr. DOMENICI. I concur wholeheartedly that it is an unfortunate word. It carries the connotation that we mean money support rather than in concept, and perhaps that it is not included. It might have been better not to use it.
Perhaps parochially, but obviously, being from New Mexico, I am very much interested in this issue. We are the richest known source of uranium in the Nation. We are interested in making the supply go even further. So I would hope that no one construes by the words "do not support" that the committee means we would not do this. We in no way maintained that, and I think our distinguished ranking Republican member will support me on that proposition.
I thank the Senators for raising the issue, but I hope we will not have a vote on this concept as to whether we need to add it here as a $300 million item, because I think it does not fit in with the concept of this budget.
This does not mean we are going to turn down the kind of program on which the Senator from Rhode Island has spent so much time when he finally comes to grips with it and sends it to the floor of the Senate.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) .
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I think this colloquy has been useful and helpful to the Senate, and useful to all of us in understanding not only the import and intent of this part of the report language and the proposal made by the Senators from Ohio, but really, in a way, demonstrating the flexibility and value of the Budget Committee and the budgetary process. After all, we are still cutting and fitting; we are learning how this whole system operates. But I am assured by this colloquy, and I want to say again, so that the distinguished chairman from Maine and the ranking Republican member of the Budget Committee will understand, that I am reassured by this colloquy to the effect that nothing contained in the resolution or the report language in any way impedes the decision that can be made later by the committee, or by the Senate, about that "hedge plan" facility at Portsmouth, Ohio.
That is my understanding. If this is not correct, and I need to be straightened out if it is not, it remains my understanding that there is nothing in this concurrent resolution or the report that attempts to pass judgment on the "hedge plan" issue, and that both Houses of Congress and the administration still have full freedom in attempting to establish that policy.
Am I correct in that judgment?
Mr. MUSKIE. I had only one ear on what the Senator was saying.
Mr. BAKER. Let me rephrase it. Once again, I think the bare import of the colloquy would reassure me that it has not been the intent of the Budget Committee to say anything in the resolution or in the report language which in any way circumscribes the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy or the Congress on the desirability of building a hedge plant at Portsmouth, Ohio, or in any way going ahead with a new uranium enrichment facility, or a new Government policy on uranium enrichment.
Mr. MUSKIE. The simplest answer to that is "the Senator is correct." The report simply attempts to put forth the assumption, used by the committee in formulating its recommended targets.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the Senator. Does the Senator from Oklahoma have a similar view?
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma shares that view. We had no intent to foreclose the prerogatives of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
Mr. BAKER. I thank my friends. May I say I fully support the initiative and the effort of the Senators from Ohio (Mr. TAFT and Mr. GLENN). I join in the view that what they are attempting to accomplish is not necessarily precluded by this resolution or the report language.
Mr. TAFT. I thank the Senator. While he is still here, I think one point that has not been covered that ought to be covered relates to what the overall cost of this program is, and what the benefit might be from a budgetary point of view.
As I understand it, there is a very sizable profit projected from the current three existing plants plus the add-on plant, if the add-on plant is fully authorized, in the eighties and nineties.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I should have mentioned that this is not what I call a dead drain expenditure. If the plant is built, and if we go ahead with the current complex of three authorized plants, it is estimated that in the 1980's these plants will start returning a profit to the Federal Treasury. My figures are that in the 1980 to 1990 decade, the Government will realize a profit of about $16 billion.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. TAFT. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. The price per swu now is $53 a unit. Legislation is pending to make it $76 per swu, which is a very modest increase, but if it is raised to $76 a swu, in 10 years they will have accumulated enough money to build the additional plant at a cost of $2.5 billion several times over.
If they go to private industry, it will cost $3.5 billion, almost a billion dollars more. That is what we have to wrestle with in the committee. The difficulty with the present and previous administrations has been the reluctance to put money in the project. We make money on it, but the point is, they hate to see that money in the budget, so they evolved the principle of saying "Let us give them a big Government guarantee, because that way we do not have to show the money in the budget."
That is what this is all about. That is why we do not want anyone who has not heard the witnesses and heard the problem from its very roots to come along and say, "This is out, we will not support it."
I am glad we have clarified the matter this afternoon. I congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee, the two Senators from Ohio, my friend from Tennessee, my friend from New Mexico, and every Member of the U.S. Senate; I congratulate them all for understanding the problem today.
I hope the amendment will be withdrawn.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President; I feel that we have at this point pretty much arrived at a consensus either to avoid the necessity of discussing this amendment or of putting the matter to a vote on the Senate floor. It is my understanding, as stated by the Senator from Tennessee, that the committee has an open mind on the subject, and if this matter is pushed forward it will be given attention by the Budget Committee. I am a little disturbed that the present situation would seem to leave us in competition with funds for water treatment plants, and I hope we will not get into a donnybrook in a competitive way when the joint committee acts and brings forth its legislation.
But I do believe, for the present time, at least, we have clarified the situation. I appreciate the contributions of all Senators who have spoken on the matter, and if no Senators wish time at this point, I am ready to withdraw
Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. TAFT. I am happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. GLENN. It is my understanding, from what the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) has said that this clarification language would not rule out consideration of this matter, as the original language in the report might indicate.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct, and I apologize for the inaccuracy of the language in the report.
Mr. GLENN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Amendment is withdrawn. The concurrent resolution is open to further amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues an aspect of this first budget resolution for fiscal year 1977 which deserves careful evaluation. My concern is addressed to functional category "300" for natural resources, environment, and energy. The objective in this category is to provide, and I quote from the committee's report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 109, to "provide for Federal energy funds to programs of research, development, and demonstration . . ."
The Budget Committee, however, in marking up the budget resolution apparently did not assume funding for the synthetic fuels commercialization program proposed by the Congress and the administration. The Budget Committee chose not to do so although it had received a request from the Interior Committee for the inclusion of funds to support a $6 billion synthetic fuels loan guarantee program.
In deciding not to assume funds for this program, the Budget Committee specifically noted in its report that, because of certain off budget issues, it did not wish to prejudice future consideration of this and other energy proposals that have off budget considerations. The committee report states:
The Committee also received from the Interior Committee a recommendation for a $6.0 billion synthetic fuels program which the President apparently would carry off budget except for a $1.5 billion implementing fund if EIA is not enacted.
By not including any funds in the First Concurrent Resolution for the President's off budget proposals, the Committee does not preclude any action on the specific proposals if they are brought to the Senate floor. Both the off budget issue and the specific program proposals themselves could then be reviewed in light of the First Concurrent Resolution and any available additional information. If significant on budget expenditures were deemed appropriate by the Congress, an adjustment could be made by the Second Concurrent Resolution.
Mr. President, the record indicates that this synthetic fuels program was endorsed in February 1975, by the Congressional Program on Economic Recovery and Energy Sufficiency. Legislation providing for Federal loan guarantees was approved by the Senate on July 31, 1975, by a vote of 42 to 2. Subsequently, on December 17, 1975, the Senate again approved this program by a vote of 80 to 10 on the conference report on H.R. 3474.
This provision was not approved by the House of Representatives, but the Committee on Science and Technology has subsequently been considering comparable legislation. It is expected that the Congress will act favorably on legislation to authorize this important energy program.
Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), who is managing this measure, whether the exclusion of this program from this resolution can be considered to reflect a decision by the Senate Budget Committee not to authorize funds in fiscal year 1977 for a synthetic fuels loan guarantee program. We anticipate that a synthetic fuels loan guarantee program will come before the Senate in a matter of weeks. This is a critical program in our national effort to foster greater energy self-sufficiency. Funds for the proposed synthetic fuels commercial demonstration program have been requested in the supplemental budget request of the administration for fiscal year 1976. There has been a request by the Interior Committee for fiscal year 1977. Should we fail to include funds in this budget resolution and the second budget resolution for fiscal year 1977, the effect on this omission will be to delay for 2 years this program, compared to the administration's estimate schedule of need.
Would the Senator comment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me respond to the distinguished Senator by first pointing out that the Budget Committee does not authorize funds for any program. Our responsibility is to recommend to the Senate a total level of expenditures, both budget authority and outlays, and to allocate that total level among 17 functional categories. This is what we have done in Senate Concurrent Resolution 109.
In reaching these functional categories the Budget Committee necessarily made assumptions as to what programs the categories contained, although individual members of the committee may have made different assumptions.
As constructed by the Budget Committee during the markup, the natural resources, environment, and energy target of $18 billion in budget authority and $15.6 billion in outlays would be hard-pressed to accommodate funding for synthetic fuels as an on budget program, if the programs assumed by the committee are to receive funds as well. A $6 billion loan guarantee program for synthetic fuels could require $1.5 billion in budget authority — although there would be no outlays in fiscal year 1977 or in future years unless there were loan defaults. This $1.5 billion would be difficult to allocate in its entirety in fiscal year 1977 under the assumptions made by the Budget Committee. This is particularly true because the committee, in response to an interest in synthetic fuels, rejected a motion to assume an additional $1.5 billion for fiscal year 1977 in budget authority for synthetic fuels in function 300. The committee did so, I believe, not because of any feeling against the need for a synthetic fuels program, but because of a deep concern in holding down the budget target in a function where our recommendation is $8.3 billion above the President's budget request.
But, I want to emphasize that the Budget Committee is not responsible for the actual authorizing or funding of programs within a functional category. We have only assumed program levels in order to reach the functional target. Establishing actual spending levels within these targets is the job of the authorizing and appropriations committees. They are the vehicle for the specific allocation of funds once the Senate has adopted the budget resolution.
It is my understanding that the synthetic fuels program, if enacted, would be established within the Energy Research and Development Administration and would be transferred to the off budget Energy Independence Authority if the legislation establishing this authority itself passes the Congress.
The resolution itself does not assume funds for the Energy Independence Authority or other off budget proposals such as the Nuclear Fuel Assurance Act. But in not assuming such funds, the committee does not preclude any action on the specific proposals if they are brought to the Senate floor. Both the off and on budget issue and the substance of the proposals could be reviewed at that time. If significant on budget amounts such as those required to support synthetic fuels were deemed appropriate by the Congress, an adjustment could be made in the second budget resolution for fiscal year 1977 in the fall.
The Budget Reform Act specifically directs the Budget Committees to review the status of off budget agencies such as the Energy Independence Authority. Our study has begun and we will be reporting to the Senate when the analysis is completed.
Let me add, however, my own personal belief that off budget status, which may well have a legitimate role, ought not to be utilized merely to circumvent the congressional budgetary control intended by passage of the Budget Reform Act. I would be alarmed by any trend that appeared to me contrary to the intent of this act.