May 24, 1977
Page 16307
UP AMENDMENT NO. 298
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I call up an amendment which I sent to the desk earlier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) proposes unprinted amendment No. 298.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 108, line 25, delete "85 percentum of the cost of' and insert in lieu thereof "$2.25 per bushel."
On page 107 delete lines 1 to 4.
On page 108, line 3, delete $3.10" and insert in lieu thereof "$2.90".
On page 108, line 7, delete "$3.10" and insert in lieu thereof "$2.90".
On page 119, line 1, delete "(A)" and "crop, and".
On page 119 delete lines 2 and 3.
On page 119, line 4, delete "In the case of the 1979".
On page 120, line 10, delete "equal to the cost of production. The cost of" and insert in lieu thereof "$2.00 per bushel for each of the 1978 through 1982 crops of corn."
On page 120 delete lines 11 to 14.
On page 120, line 15, delete "1970."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that earlier this afternoon I offered an amendment which undertook to cut back the target price for wheat for fiscal 1978, which shows up as outlays in the 1978 budget. That provision in the bill busts the budget; but a majority of the Senate voted to support the bill. So we are now half a billion dollars over this year's budget target in the agriculture function.
The amendment I have just called up is a logical extension of the first amendment, in that it undertakes to cut back the target prices for wheat and feed grains for the 4 years following 1978.
The implication of the vote that the Senate has already cast is that the first step in that 5-year program is approved, and I think the Senate's position on the next 4 years ought not to be ambiguous. The Senate ought to vote up or down whether or not to put in motion the uncontrollable spending that is triggered by this bill.
This bill covers $24 billion of spending for price support programs for fiscal years 1978 through 1982. That is $8 billion more than was requested by the administration, or $2 billion more a year.
The Senate is quite aware of the growth of uncontrollable spending in our budgets. In the 1978 budget, 77 percent of the spending is uncontrollable. It takes the form of entitlements and other forms which make it impossible for the Senate or the Appropriations Committee to do anything about more than 23 percent of the total spending.
This bill adds to that uncontrollable spending for the 5 years beginning with fiscal year 1978, and I think the Budget Committee ought to have the guidance of the Senate as a whole on whether or not that trend should be continued, and should gain momentum, as a result of this bill.
The Budget Committees can only be the creatures of the Senate and the House of Representatives. If Members tell us that is the way it has to be, that is the way we will report it to the Senate.
(Mr. MOYNIHAN assumed the chair as Presiding Officer at this point.)
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, of course.
Mr. CURTIS. I am not trying to reargue the amendment we just voted on. The Senate has spoken; why fight about it? But had that amendment been agreed to, would the expenditures under the agriculture bill be in line with the budget resolution?
Mr. MUSKIE. As reported out of the committee, it still would have been — and I indicated the other pressures on the committee — above the resolution.
Mr. CURTIS. No, no. If the amendment we just voted on
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's amendment?
Mr. CURTIS. Restoring the purchase price; if that had carried, would the bill have been in line with the resolution?
Mr. MUSKIE. No, it would not. It would still have exceeded the resolution by roughly $230 million.
Mr. CURTIS. I cannot understand that, because the amendment we turned down had a price tag, a high one of $2 billion and a low one of $500 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not want to be confused as to what amendment the Senator is talking about.
Mr. CURTIS. I am talking about the amendment I just offered, which restored the purchase requirement for food stamps.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is what I thought. The answer to the Senator's question is this: The savings that would have been generated by the Senator's amendment just defeated would have been $270 million. The excess cost of this bill that I tried to eliminate with my amendment was close to $500 million. So the difference between the two is $230 million.
My amendment was defeated. If the Senator's amendment had been agreed to, it would have reduced the excess above the budget by $270 million.
Mr. CURTIS. Of course, my figures show it would save $2 billion, and the minimum I got is that it would save something over $500 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that every Senator has his own estimating machinery. It is very handy to have your own when you come to the floor, because you can challenge CBO, OMB, and USDA, and say, "These are the Muskie estimators, and they are more accurate than any official agencies or any other Senators." But I have the responsibility, may I say to the Senator, of using the CBO's estimate, because that is the institution created by the Senate. The figures I have given the Senator on my amendment as well as on his are CBO's estimates.
I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine.
The farm bill is a very complicated document for those who do not work with it. I call the attention of the chairman of the Budget Committee to the fact that in this bill we also have a provision for a set-aside. If the Secretary of Agriculture will use that provision in the out years, and succeed in getting supply and demand in somewhat of a reasonable balance, so that market prices come up somewhat closer to the costs of production as this bill anticipates them doing, then these outyear costs will be substantially less than would be the case if the set-aside is not used.
I want to be sure that the chairman of the Budget Committee realizes this. I am not sure the Senator has caught my point, but I am saying that because of the set-aside provisions of this bill, if the Secretary will use those, he can bring supply and demand into closer balance, which will strengthen the market, and in that way reduce the cost of the program to the Treasury.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I know that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, whose background and expertise in this field I respect greatly and value as a contribution to the Budget Committee's deliberations on agricultural problems, has made this argument in committee and has made it to me personally, and it is persuasive.
But I would like to say that in so far as our estimate of what the costs of these programs will be is concerned, USDA, which has the flexibility to which the Senator has referred, comes out with about the same estimate of the cost of this bill as does CBO.
Now, whether or not the Secretary has taken into account the flexibility which the Senator describes, I do not specifically know. I would be more than happy at some time, with the Senator from Oklahoma, to discuss that point with the Secretary of Agriculture, and it might be useful to us. But at this point I think we have to depend on the estimate that we have.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator from New Mexico will permit me to finish presenting the amendment, it will not take but 3 or 4 minutes, and then I will yield to him.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to do so. Then I shall have a few questions.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. What this amendment would do specifically is this: It would set the target price for the 1978 and later crops of wheat at $2.90 a bushel, as contrasted to the bill, which sets the target price at $3.10 a bushel. For years subsequent to that, the target price would be adjusted to reflect changes in production costs under S. 275.
Second, the amendment would set the target price for corn and other feed grains in relation to corn at $2 a bushel for 1978 and later years. The bill would set it at $2.28 a bushel, with subsequent changes which would reflect production cost changes.
With respect to minimum loan rates, the amendment would set minimum loan rates of $2.25 a bushel for wheat and $2 a bushel for corn in 1978 and subsequent years. The bill would set the loan rate at not less than 85 percent of the cost of production, adjusted annually to reflect changes in the cost of production.
The reasons for the amendment are these, and I think they are almost self-evident, from the argument I have made this afternoon:
First, it would reduce potential outlays for the years fiscal 1979 through fiscal 1982 by an average of roughly $2 billion annually.
Second, it would maintain flexibility and market orientation of loan rates to keep American farm products competitive in export markets instead of pricing them out of competition with escalating loan rates.
Third, it would cover farmer production costs without guaranteeing a profit and without further escalating land costs, as would be the case under the pending bill.
Finally, since this is entitlement legislation, once this bill is enacted into law at the higher rate, it would become virtually impossible to reduce spending that is generated by these new targets.
I have the responsibility to present this issue. I believe we have a responsibility, frankly, as an institution, to support the budget and to be concerned about the outyear consequences of what we do.
It is interesting that in the vote that was taken on my earlier amendment today, 18 of those who voted against my amendment — in other words, 18 of those who voted to increase spending, to bust the budget, to increase the deficit — voted against the first concurrent resolution in May.
If those 18, whose vote in May counseled budgetary restraint, had stayed with me on my first amendment, we would have carried it by an overwhelming margin.
What concerns me, and I say this in all candor, is this: The Budget Committee has now lost four successive votes on the Senate floor, three in connection with the first concurrent resolution and one this afternoon. Amendments supported by groups with a particular interest, which it is their privilege to advance, have found it possible to form coalitions to win votes for their point of view against the budget.
If this kind of practice develops, say Senators of various genius at detecting such trends, and if it develops real momentum, we can kiss the budget process goodbye.
That vote is behind us. We cannot take it up again. But now we are going to vote on the question of whether or not, for the fiscal year 1979 through 1982, to increase uncontrollable outlays in those fiscal years to the tune of $2 billion a year annually.
That is the issue in this amendment. Senators surely are capable of understanding it. They are capable of voting it. I am going to leave it up to them. At this point I yield to my good friend from New Mexico, if he wishes.
Mr. DOMENICI I do have a question for the Senator from Maine. I have not been able to find the answer to it.
It is my understanding that we have had a target price on wheat for 3 years and we have not expended any money under that target price. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that is true. That is true, in part, of course, for unusual reasons that influenced the market price. We had overseas sales. Perhaps that was the biggest unanticipatable development in the years that made that a certainty. But the very fact that farmers want these target prices as protection indicates that there is a risk as to what the market price will be. If that risk exists, it exists for Uncle Sam as well, when Uncle Sam commits to a target price. We happen to have come through those 3 years without deficiency payments of any consequence, and I gather none at all.
Mr. DOMENICI. I just wonder, did we, in any of the 3 years, estimate that it would cost us anything?
Mr. MUSKIE. The staff tells me that we did not include any estimates for deficiency payments in the last 2 budget years.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is referring to target payments. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, that is the same thing. We estimated that no outlays would occur.
Mr. DOMENICI Why not?
Mr. MUSKIE I believe because of the unusual market conditions which promoted high agricultural prices. As the Senator knows, escalating food prices were very much a part of the inflation picture in 1974, 1975, and 1976. On the basis of recent historical experience, and relying upon the judgment of experts in this field, which we were not, we estimated that no deficiencies or no outlay effects would be generated by such a program. We relied upon the judgment of the Committee on Agriculture as well as the USDA, and other appropriate agencies.
Mr. DOMENICI. I asked the question. Certainly, I knew the answer, but I wanted the chairman of the Budget Committee to share with me that answer. The reason was that the market did not produce a situation in which this target came into play.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. But I remind the Senator that I believe he attended the seminar we had this year on the prospects for agricultural prices in agricultural programs in the years that lie ahead. We are carrying over, I understand, 1.2 billion bushels of wheat. That certainly suggests that the upward pressure on prices that came from unanticipated overseas sales is not likely to have the same impact on market prices in the future as we experienced in the last couple of years. The carryover problem is a very serious one in terms of these programs and the risks that they may develop.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am not going to argue with the Senator about whether or not we carried anything in 1975 or 1976 under agriculture for budget authority or outlays. I am going to check it myself. It is my opinion that we did, and then we did not spend any money, because the estimates did not materialize. I will return to that in a moment.
I just want to say to my good friend from Maine that I believe I am as concerned about the budgetary process as he is. I want to explain my reason for not supporting him the previous time and my reason for not supporting him now. I have no further questions, but I am going to discuss this.
I come from a State which does not have wheat in the same abundance as some of the other agricultural States, although it is an important commodity. I will say to my good friend from Maine
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield so I may ask for the yeas and nays?
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.
Mr. DOMENICI I say to my friend from Maine that I believe I am as concerned as he is about the budgetary process. I have on occasion, however, thought there were items of interest in America, substantively speaking, that were important enough for me to even consider voting so that the process might not work. I did that once in a conference, as the Senator knows. I was so concerned about a target figure in conference that I said, "Perhaps even the budget process ought to go down the drain on this one."
I do not say that today, because we are between the First Concurrent Resolution and the Second Concurrent Resolution.
I do say to the Senator from Maine that if he had gone into the wheat fields of my State in the last 7 or 8 months, he would have seen young men and old men who have been farming in the high plains of New Mexico and across the border in Kansas and Texas. They would come to the Senator and bring their books, I say to my friend from Maine, bring them to him in a public hearing.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me finish this thought.
The Senator does not need a subpoena or a committee of this Senate. They would bring their books in front of the Senator and say, "Let us show Senators what it costs to produce a bushel of wheat." They show it costs 80 cents, 90 cents, or $1.20, on one farm where I saw the books, to produce the bushel of wheat. Look at the price wheat is bringing today. They say, "We did that the year before last, and we will do it for 2 years. But we are going to go broke."
We sit here today quibbling about whether we are going to give them a realistic target which I think our agricultural experts say is needed to keep them from leaving the scene as small entrepreneurs and businessmen. I say I have to go with them.
For 4 or 5 years we told them, "Produce, produce." The policy of this country was that. We got rid of billions of dollars in subsidies while they were producing and while the open and free market took care of it.
I say to the Senator and to the Members of the Senate, when they need us now, after 3 years when they did not get a penny from us, when they produced almost all of our foreign trade that equalized against our money going for oil — almost the only export business that was worth anything to America — we are going to say to them, "We don't want to give you a target price that will let you produce wheat and make a living."
And it will not. The target price that the Senator is cutting will not make them a living. It is a sort of minimal type of prevention from bankruptcy, if you have capital assets in your farm to borrow on again for 1 more year.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. One more minute.
To my way of thinking, I look at this about the way I look at disasters in the Budget Committee. We do not plan for disasters in that First Concurrent Resolution. If someone comes along and says, "The disaster target figure there under public works only has $100 million in it and we had some big floods in this country, so let's break the target between First and Second Concurrent Resolutions," there is not a Senator around that is unwilling to break it for a disaster.
I say to my friends in the Senate that the wheat farmers in America are in a disaster, just as surely as the disaster that came when the Teton burst. We found enough money in this budget down here to break the Second Concurrent Resolution for that one — not the first one — because people needed help.
I believe that as to the figure that has been offered as the basic target, we will not pay anything under that, I say to my friends in the Senate, unless the price of wheat goes below that which it will cost any reasonable American farmer to produce it.
I have more confidence than that in the marketplace. I do not believe we are going to pay this $2 billion a year that we are talking about. But I think it is a fair assurance to the farmers of America, especially the wheat farmers, that we expect them to continue to grow wheat for us and for the world and to be the strong backbone of our export market.
I know the Senator is concerned about farmers. He is concerned about ranchers. But he is also very concerned about the budget. So am I. I just choose, in this one, to gamble on the side of some people we owe, in my opinion, a guarantee that that is the barebones minimum. If that breaks the First Concurrent Resolution, I, as one of the Senator's committee members, who supports most everything he does, say that before we get through the Second Concurrent Resolution, with reestimates and other items that we will find, I am quite confident we will not be far off in the Second Concurrent Resolution when the Senate gets through with the rest of its work.
Having said that, I want to make one last point. I think this kind of entitlement program is very, very difficult for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to be extremely certain on, because there are big contingencies.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Who said that the chairman of the Budget Committee was certain about these matters?
Mr. DOMENICI. Well—
Mr. MUSKIE. I have listened to the Senator for several minutes here, putting thoughts in my mouth that I never entertained.
Mr. DOMENICI. If we are not certain, then, I am suggesting we ought to go with the wheat farmer on this one. I guess that is what I am saying to my good friend.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me respond to that.
I say to my good friend that his speech would be very moving to me, very moving, but for one thing: The Senator said that he could have taken me to his wheat fields 8 or 9 months ago and made the case for this bill. Why did not someone do so? The Senator knows, as well as I do, that the structure of this budget process is designed to surface ideas that respond to the real problems of our people. If Senators in this room who are close to the wheat farmers' problems knew, 8 months ago, that something like this was needed, they had a responsibility to develop it, to produce it, and report it to the Committee on the Budget by March 15. And they did not.
The Agriculture Committee did not. The Appropriations Committee did not. It did not surface until this bill came to the floor.
This bill was being considered in the Committee on Agriculture while we were marking up the budget resolution. Why, then, did not someone, in the Senate floor debate on the budget resolution, bring this bill to the floor and say, "Sorry, we did not quite finish this bill in time to submit it to the Budget Committee, but it ought to be considered by the Senate"?
It should have been brought to the floor at the time of the debate on the budget resolution.
Because it was not, the Senator from New Mexico says to me that I am trying to impose a $2.65 target price on the wheat farmers. By what right does the Senator from New Mexico make any such charge? I am enforcing the budget resolution. That is my responsibility.
If the budget resolution is not what it should have been with respect to these problems, who bears the responsibility? Who bears the responsibility? Those who are close to the problem, who did not move soon enough; those who are in a position to write new legislation and move it to the floor; those who are close enough to the problem to raise the issue when we are debating the budget resolution. And none of that was done.
We approved the budget resolution 10 days ago, just 10 days ago. Now, if the Senator thinks that the wheat farmers are the only people who have problems in this country that ought to be reflected in the budget, he is mistaken. The Senator knows that, in the very first budget resolution the Budget Committee ever considered, I advocated in committee $10 billion of programs to deal with the problems of the unemployed, to deal with the problems in cities and communities whose revenues were shrinking, to stimulate the economy. And the Senator was one of those in committee who voted against my proposal.
Mr. DOMENICI. Which one?
Mr. MUSKIE. The $10 billion stimulus package. The Senator voted against the proposal. I came to the floor and defended, not my $10 billion stimulus package, but defended what you of the majority decided in the budget resolution was in the national interest.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much was that?
Mr. MUSKIE. If I come to the floor every time my heart is stirred by problems back home, I am going to offer amendments like this one. Why should I not? I have voted against positions I have taken in the Budget Committee over and over again, positions I believed in. But the Senator tells me there is a different standard that ought to hold; that if a member of the Budget Committee is sufficiently moved by people problems, he responds to his own instinctive generosity and forgets the process.
Six members of the Budget Committee voted against my earlier amendment. That is their prerogative. But is the day going to arrive when only the chairman of the Budget Committee votes to support the congressional budget? Who else has a responsibility to do that?
Does the Senator think I take gratification out of coming here and stimulating the kind of criticism the Senator has indulged in, that I am trying to impose a substandard of living on the wheat farmers of his State and other States? I surely do not. What I am fighting for is a process which, if it works, will make it possible for us to do a better job — not only for the wheat farmers, but also for all whose problems will not be adequately served by an over-strained budget, by wasted resources, or by an inadequate sense of priorities. And if that process will not do then there is no way of doing it.
So, once in a while I have to say "No" to worthy causes, and I will have to vote for them when I can. But I cannot have it both ways as, apparently, some Senators would.
I repeat that 18 Senators who voted against my amendment earlier this afternoon voted against the budget resolution in May when it had too high a deficit.
Now, what kind of budget process is that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has expired.
The Senator from Georgia has 30 minutes.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator want?
Mr. MELCHER. Three minutes.
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Montana.
Mr. MELCHER. I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, we in this country are really blessed with a great agriculture. We fulfilled, I believe, Jefferson's dreams of developing agricultural capability that is greater than that of any other country on Earth.
Jefferson foresaw that if we developed that kind of agricultural economy in the United States, the crops of America would find their way all around the world.
Wheat is one of those crops. American wheat is known, sought for, and used in more than 30 other countries, either in cash purchases or through food for peace.
The argument was made earlier this afternoon that there was not enough time concerning the 1977 crop for such a figure as $2.90 per bushel target price on wheat. We settled that — I hope we settled it — by a vote rejecting the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Maine.
But here we are, back on the same argument, not talking about what necessary time there is for the congressional budget process, but we are talking about what is the target price for the 1978 crop and the three succeeding crops.
The price in the bill for 1977, for the 1978 crop and for the succeeding crops, is already too low. It is not satisfactory. It is not enough. Farmers have escalating costs.
As has been stated earlier today and stated yesterday, Congress in its wisdom passed a bill setting the target price for 1975 wheat at $3.10 and the cost escalated from then.
That particular bill was vetoed. But Congress found it right on the 1975 crop at $3.10.
Costs have gone up for wheat farmers since that time.
The Senator from Maine argues that we have a serious problem with a mounting surplus of wheat. That is not a problem.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes, I am delighted to yield to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think I said anything like that. I referred to the carryover we have.
Mr. MELCHER. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. But what is unreasonable is that is not a judgment I suggested.
Mr. MELCHER. The Senator referred to it, the carryover, as a serious problem.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, I did not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
Mr. MELCHER. One additional minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Might I state what I intended to say?
Mr. MELCHER. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. What I said was that the carryover, 1.2 billion bushels of wheat, reduces the possibility that overseas sales might generate upward pressures on prices in a way that they did when we had a coincident high overseas sales and a smaller carryover.
The Senator knows more about this problem than I do. But that was what I intended to say.
Mr. MELCHER. I appreciate the clarifying remarks of the Senator from Maine, and I think he puts it in a much better perspective.
Having an abundance of wheat is a blessing. It is in the national interest to have it. We should not be worrying here over whether we are adding a little to the price to allow these wheat farmers to survive until the day the wheat demand is such that the marketplace is aware the price of wheat is not $2.90 a bushel, $3.10 a bushel, but where the marketplace is a fair price — about $4 or $4.25 for a bushel of wheat.
That is what we are about here now in this bill, trying to give the wheat farmers a survival price — not an adequate price, but a survival price — until a better day, until the market itself provides an adequate price structure, to give them not only their cost of production, but some slight margin of profit, also.
Mr. President, I hope the amendment of the Senator from Maine is defeated.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
Mr. TALMADGE.I yield 4 minutes tothe distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Georgia.
Mr. President, I say to my good friend from Maine that if I said something that was a personal affront to him, I apologize. I did not intend it. I never intended it, and I am sorry if I left any implication that he personally was doing anything to anyone with his amendment.
I understand the responsibility the Senator bears.
Having said that, let me say I do not believe we can take targets like the one we have before us in the first concurrent resolution that have a number of items within it when we report them.
I do not see how we can come to this floor with such specificity about one program within it.
What I am saying is that one of us could come here and say that food stamps were $3 million, $4 million, $5 million too high, and if we cut that we would be within the budget.
Somebody could come here and say the agricultural research is $150 or $200 million too high and propose we cut it.
The programs within this target are looked at en bloc by the Budget Committee. The good Senator is perfectly within his rights to predict that if this particular one moves as recommended by the committee, the target may be busted.
But I suggest that there are many programs within that target, and we have the prerogative of looking at all of them.
Having said that, I am going to say that the price of wheat has even been — since the Budget Committee considered its first concurrent resolution. Maybe that is justification to reconsider a target level that will cause American farmers to go broke and to add a bit to the target as protection to keep a few of them in business who have had to sacrifice for all these years.
Another thing, many people have talked about the inflationary impact during the big crisis we had 3 years ago when wheat went up.
I say, in behalf of the wheat farmer, that wheat was as high as $5.10 and $5.25 a bushel. We heard people across this land talking about what it was going to do to the price of bread. Well, I say to my fellow Senators, the price of wheat is $1.85 a bushel.
If that kind of logic held, a loaf of bread ought to be worth about 30 or 40 percent less today than it was at $4.25 and $5.25. It is higher. So those who are worried about the inflationary impact when wheat will once again get to the price where our farmer can make a living ought to study those statistics.
How come bread is higher today, when wheat is $1.85 a bushel, than it was when it was $5.25 a bushel? That is what the Senator ought to be thinking about if he is worried about that.
Having said that, I repeat that I am staunchly in support of the budget process. I admire and respect the chairman of the Budget Committee. But if ever there was a cause for us to put in a contingency, this is it. I look at this as a contingency. We may never need it, yet we have to add it up in this budget process. If ever there was a cause to put in the target figures, that are recommended by the committee, it is for the wheat farmers of the United States.
If we want to stand here today and talk about the worst possible case, if everything goes down the drain, and we have to pay out under this particular target, and that is what it is going to cost, perhaps what the Senator from Maine said — I hope we do not have to; I hope things get better — but the bare minimum that we owe them is a realistic target price.
I say to my good friends in the Senate, that even with it, the wheat farmer will not make a living. I submit that this is a contingency for which we ought to provide. Let it be accommodated in the second concurrent resolution, and no one need be embarrassed if we cannot stay within the target on this one. We will reconcile it in the next 3 or 4 months. It is probably the best use of contingency dollars that any of us could make for the future of our country.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I yield such time as the distinguished Senator from Kansas may desire.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just take a moment. I think the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has said it much better than the Senator from Kansas can, but I will remind those who may have been here for the last vote that we were then talking about the 1977 target price for wheat.
That issue has been settled. We are not just talking about the wheat producers and the wheat program. The issue now includes corn, grain sorghums, barley, rye, and oats, so it has expanded now, and again I do not fault my distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. In fact, I voted for the first concurrent resolution and voted for the conference report, and I am a member of that committee.
But I understood, when that committee was formed, that we were not bound by the first concurrent resolution, and that we were to look at the total budget. We did not try to "line item" and pick out selective programs.
I think the distinguished Senator from Mexico, the distinguished Senator from Montana, and others have made the point about the plight of the American wheat producer or farmer in general.
If we want to get back to specifics, the administration recommended a $7.20 target price for rice. We did not accept that administration recommendation. We raised it to $8.40 for rice.
I remind my rice producer friends that the committee spent a lot of time looking at all the testimony and all the experts of the bill, and after 17, 18, or 20 some sessions, we came to the floor with a good program, fair to all commodity producers.
I do not fault the chairman for raising the budget implications, but I do suggest that we are not bound by the first concurrent resolution. We still have a conference to go to. We may have to make some decisions in the conference that may vary the figures. So I hope the Muskie amendment is defeated. Again I suggest that this does not touch just the wheat program. Now we are talking about a great many more commodity programs.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, does the distinguished Senator from Maine desire me to yield to him?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do.
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield 2 minutes tothe Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend, the floor manager, who has been so considerate in this whole debate.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a letter from the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture dated April 4, 1977.
The interesting thing is that subfunction 351, farm income stabilization programs, is listed in this letter with budget authority of $1.5 or $1.6 billion, with outlays of $1.2 billion — that is the base — and no change recommended. Let me repeat, no change recommended. This is April 4 of this year. The number that is included is less than the number we included in the resolution. No change is recommended.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
UNITED STATES SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY,
Washington, D.C.,
April 4, 1977.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Senate Budget Committee,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that there was some confusion about the budget recommendations of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, when you took up function 350 today. I think the following information will set the record straight.
The Committee's recommended changes to the President's budget in millions include:
[Table omitted]
Since that time the base has been changed. However, our net increases should be maintained. In addition, there is $800 million of increase outlays in subfuunction 351 that the Committee fully anticipates for fiscal 1978. This should be added to the 351 and 350 funding for fiscal 1978.
I trust this information will be of benefit to your Committee.
With every good wish, I am,
Sincerely,
HERMAN E. TALMADGE.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the suggestion of the Senator from New Mexico that I am posing the worst possible case, I have had to answer that argument at least three times this afternoon. These estimates are not based on the worst possible case. I put in the RECORD a letter from Alice Rivlin, Director of CBO, explaining the basis on which the estimates are made. They are not the worst possible case; they are an effort to project normal expectations based upon the last 5 years of historical trends. It is not the worst possible case. Some basis has to be used, and if the Senator from New Mexico or anybody else has a better base to suggest that we can adopt as a uniform basing policy, I would be glad to consider it. But I have to use the estimates prepared for us, and they are not the worst possible case.
Mr. President, I have talked too much today, and I do not find that this kind of talk rests comfortably with my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article that appeared in the Washington Post on Sunday on the congressional budget process.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, May 22, 1977]
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET PROCESS
(By James L. Rowe, Jr.)
The going has been tough for the congressional budget process in recent weeks. So tough, in fact, that observers might conclude Congress had clamped down severely on its spending and, as a result, was having troubles with self-discipline.
Congress did have difficulties with self-discipline, but it is not apparent that they stemmed from a real tightening of the purse. Overall spending for fiscal 1978 will be about12.6 per cent higher than in 1977 — outlays of $460.95 billion in 1978 compared with $409.2 billion in the current fiscal year.
When the House Budget Committee had a chance to initiate savings by cutting back on impact aid to school districts, the committee dropped the idea although every President since Eisenhower has opposed the aid.
The process came close to breaking down in the House, where conservatives, claiming too little was being offered for defense, succeeded in boosting spending in that sector. But these same conservatives did not like the overall deficit, so they joined with liberals irked by the high defense spending to defeat the overall budget resolution.
Rep. Robert N. Giaimo (D–Conn.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, hammered out a compromise acceptable to enough Democrats to report out a budget a week later.
But it contained several billion dollars less for defense than did the Senate version. House conferees headed by Giaimo, and Senate conferees led by their budget committee chairman, Edmund S. Muskie (D– Maine), squabbled for three days until they agreed on a defense figure about midway between the House and Senate proposal, but a little closer to the House's.
To hear the defense proponents such as Rep. Richard Ichord (D– Mo.), Rep. Omar Burleson (D– Tex.) or Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D– S.C.) talk, an adequate national defense was being endangered by liberal spending programs.
"Are we going to beef up NATO?" demanded Rep. Delbert L. Latta (ROhio), ranking minority member on the House committee during the conference. "With food stamps?"
As it turned out the committees voted for both guns and butter.
Military spending, which took a substantial real increase in the 1977 budget, rose 12.2 per cent, from $98.9 billion to $111 billion.
Non-defense spending such as housing and other social programs did not take it on the chin, however, as the debate on the House floor might have led some to believe. After the interest on the public debt is removed from nondefense programs, outlays will rise 12.7 per cent this year.
While spending plans for 1978 were rising sharply despite rhetoric to the contrary, Congress did hold back a bit on boosting budget authority — which permits agencies to commit themselves to spend money either in the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, or later.
In defense procurement programs, for example, budget authority might be much more important than outlays. A five-year, billion-dollar weapons program might have only $10 million in outlays the first year.
But again, defense budget authority rose by 8.9 per cent; nondefense budget authority, by 5.7 per cent.
Also, while the budget process permitted large increases in defense and non-defense spending, it did trim back by many billions some of the plans submitted by authorizing committees in mid-March.
The real, if temporary, breakdown in the congressional budget process — set up to give
Congress the same ability to judge overall spending as the executive branch possesses — did not come because of any substantive belt tightening this year, despite what was said during the congressional debate.
Interviews with staffs of the committees as well as legislators themselves indicate that the several impasses can be attributed instead to the convergence of several factors:
A substantial minority of congressmen on both sides of the aisle felt that their pet programs — social or defense — could do better without a budget process, without measuring them against other priorities. Even Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R.– N. Mex), a strong supporter of the budget process, admitted at the House-Senate conference that he could not support a budget which he felt cut too much from defense.
The AFL-CIO has opposed the budget process from its inception, fearing that it would force Congress to cut spending on those programs organized labor supports.
There was a lapse on the part of the House leadership during the first debate on the budget resolution when defense spending was boosted substantially with the help of some administration lobbying. Then other spending was boosted, resulting in a budget that satisfied no one.
The loss of some automatic votes in order to preserve a fledgling process that is now two or three years old.
The House always had more problems thanthe Senate in writing a budget. That is due partially to the bipartisan approach the committee has taken under Muskie, with Sen. Henry L. Bellmon (R.– Okla.) more of a partner than ranking opposition. But it also comes about because Muskie, wisely or otherwise, has challenged the Senate appropriations committees less than the House committee has — first under Brock Adams of Washington state, who is now Transportation Secretary, and then under Giaimo
Mr. MUSKIE. I will read the first two paragraphs. I know we are accused of being "Scrooge" here, in effect, this afternoon.
The going has been tough for the congressional budget process in recent weeks. So tough, in fact, that observers might conclude that Congress had clamped down severely on its spending and, as a result, was having troubles with self-discipline.
Congress did have difficulties with self-discipline, but it is not apparent that they stemmed from a real tightening of the purse. Overall spending for fiscal 1978 will be about 12.6 percent higher than in 1977 — outlays of $460.95 billion in 1973 compared with $409.2 billion in the current fiscal year.
The spending was at those levels because we responded to Senate committees as well as the administration and groups with particular problems. We responded to the Committee on Agriculture. We went farther than the Committee on Agriculture asked us to go.
We responded to the higher numbers that the House Committee on Agriculture put in for outlays in this function because we wanted to give as much room as possible.
Now I am accused of being a Scrooge: "Don't be too tight, don't be too restrictive," and "This budget is too tight and too restrictive."
I do not know what we have to do. The Senator from Virginia (Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) berated us in May for proposing spending $50 billion more in fiscal 1978 than in fiscal 1977. He said, "Why is this necessary?"
Well, I hope Senator BYRD is getting a lesson from the debate on the Senate floor this afternoon.
It is necessary because the Budget Committee has tried to respond to the judgment of other committees on real needs, and now we are told that the response has been inadequate insofar as the Committee on Agriculture is concerned — that it is inadequate.
Well, how many more times are we going to hear that argument from other committees reading this record, reading the vote of steady defeats by the Budget Committee? We are going to get other evidence because the response of the Budget Committee was inadequate.
I am willing to lay odds that that is what is going to happen. So the first resolution targets are going to prove meaningless. The real targets are going to be set in the appropriations bills and the spending bills, and then in the second concurrent resolution all we are going to do is to add up the totals of what we have spent in the appropriations bills and in spending bills such as this, and come back to the Senate and say, "There is your budget discipline. You told us what to do. Targets meant nothing. The Senate has maximum flexibility."
So we add them up, add up the bills as they come through, these appropriations and entitlement bills, and whatever the total is, that is going to be our second concurrent budget resolution.
The budget resolution will survive forever after because that is the way we always did it for most of the last 200 years, and we are going to start doing it all over again, and maybe that is the way the Senate likes it.