May 24, 1977
Page 16298
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the type of rationale in which my good friend from Kansas is indulging.
Let us not delude ourselves about this budget process. Either the first concurrent resolution is meaningless or it is not. If all it is is an open invitation to every committee to come in between May 15 and September 15 and ignore the targets that are set in the first concurrent resolution, we might as well junk the process; because, by September 15, when the second resolution is to be adopted, all of the appropriations bills are scheduled to have been passed and all of the spending bills such as this one are scheduled to have been passed. So if the first concurrent resolution is meaningless and if the targets are meaningless and are to be ignored at the invitation of every authorizing committee, then all that will happen is that the appropriations bills will set the targets and the spending of these appropriations bill will be responsive to every pressure group, the way they were prior to the budget process.
The first concurrent resolution sets targets that were intended to be abandoned or changed only if a solid case could be made.
Mr. President, with respect to this function, the first budget resolution was adopted by Congress 10 days ago. What is there in this bill that could not have been anticipated by March 15, when the Agriculture Committee had the duty to report any changes in law which it contemplated?
There was an exchange of correspondence between the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and me during markup on the first concurrent resolution, and that identified the issues which have arisen subsequently. What happened to the debate on the first budget resolution in this Chamber? Why did not members of the Agriculture Committee at that point sell this bill? They did not raise the issue. They allowed the Senate to act on the basis of the assumptions in the Budget Committee's first concurrent resolution. This issue was never raised in this Chamber. We were never asked, as a Senate, to consider raising the functional totals to accommodate this bill.
Now, the resolution having been written into law 10 days later, we are asked to change it.
There is another interesting argument offered by the Senator from South Dakota, that because of the uncertainties of the market, because of the uncertainties of weather, because of the uncertainties of exports, it is all guesswork anyway, so why should we not, by implication, just give the Agriculture Committee a blank check?
What else do we do in the first concurrent resolution, if we do not try, as we do with social security, with food stamps, and with other entitlement programs? Why should we not give them all a blank check?
One of the reasons why I oppose this bill on the grounds I have stated is that what we are putting in place is another uncontrollable entitlement program, which will make the guesswork of the future even more guesswork than this.
Where was the Appropriations Committee, I ask my good friend from North Dakota, with respect to this program? The Appropriations Committee, in its report to the Budget Committee, recommended $1.2 billion for farm stabilization programs, and that is all. That committee did not recommend as much as the Budget Committee for farm income stabilization programs. It fell short by almost $2 billion.
Now my good friends say to the Budget Committee, "What is all this guesswork you are indulging in? What kind of penalty are you trying to impose on the farmers of America? Why did you not provide in your budget resolution somehow for this program?"
Well, Senators can delude themselves all they wish. No one is more aware than I, because I get the pressures from all Senators, how uncomfortable these budget ceilings and these constraints are.
I was very much interested in the Senate debate on the first budget resolution. Thirty-one votes were cast against it. Of the 31 Senators who voted against it — because the deficit was too large — 18 voted for increases in that resolution that raised the deficit. Some Senators may think that is the way to handle a congressional budget resolution, but it is not my idea.
So I get to the floor, and immediately Senators who are interested in one program or another — food stamps for some, agriculture for others, something else for someone else, veterans programs for some — will indulge in the happy exercise of voting for increases in their programs, and then come to me crying because the chairman of the Budget Committee imposes the restraint of the budget process.
Well, it is too bad, gentlemen. It is just too bad. But I am not going to walk away from this floor and fail in my duty to the Senate. This bill busts the budget, and it is the kind of issue that could have been anticipated on March 15, could have been anticipated in May, could have been anticipated in the conference on the budget, or could have been anticipated when the conference report came to the Senate. But nobody raised the issue. And I am told now, 10 days later, that I am being unreasonable in suggesting the limitations of that very budget resolution.
Gentlemen, I do not buy it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN, Mr. President, will the Senator yield tome for a question or two? I would like to propound a couple of questions to him.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas has only two minutes. I promised one minute to the Senator from Montana. I could yield on the bill, but we have a vote scheduled for 2 o'clock.
I yield the Senators 1 minute each.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, do I have any time left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will be happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would like to propound a couple of questions, if I may.
Mr. President, I cannot understand the apparent absolute certainty of the Senator from Maine about the justice of his cause. I would like him to tell the Senate on what basis he arrives at the decision that the wheat provision is going to cost a half-billion dollars.
It is not a question of Senators speaking in time on this matter. We do not know what the weather cycle is going to be. We do not know what the marketplace will be. What we do know is roughly what the cost of production is.
Will the Senator from Maine tell us how he arrived at the conclusion that this provision of the bill will cost a half-billion dollars more than he thinks it should?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the question was discussed at great length in the last hour. I realize that the Senator from South Dakota was not here, but he has not left me much time to answer as fully as I could have answered earlier.
On the basis of the time left to us. I put in the RECORD earlier a letter describing the process
Mr. McGOVERN. I am familiar with that, but just to bring the matter to a head, is not what the Senator is doing is estimating that, assuming the best possible weather conditions
Mr. MUSKIE. That is not true, may I say to the Senator, and his letter will explain that it is not true.
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the Senator tell us in the nutshell?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will be happy to read it, if I have time:
The CBO projections of market prices, yields, and export levels are based on five-year historical trends. These projections do not reflect the impact of unusually good or bad weather, either in the United States or abroad, on yields or U.S. exports in any year. Under this methodology, both yields and U.S. exports increase at moderate rates during the forecast period, with yields somewhat below the USDA "favorable" projections and exports somewhat above. Thus, the CBO forecast reflects long term normal trends and roughly corresponds to USDA's "favorable" conditions. If weather conditions in the future are significantly worse on average than in the last five years, the costs of S. 275 would be substantially below the CBO estimate. On the other hand, if weather conditions are significantly better than in recent years. the costs of the bill
would be much greater than currently projected.
If that is an inadequate basis for making these projections, may I say to the Senator, we need to develop a better basis. But this is the one that has been used, examined, and justified.
Mr. McGOVERN. Does it include the 5-year price average, as well as the 5-year weather conditions?
Mr. MUSKIE. I take it that it does, because the first sentence in the paragraph implies as much.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am sorry we do not have more time.