June 17, 1977
Page 19672
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senate is now considering H.R. 7636, the fiscal year 1978 Interior and Related Agencies appropriation bill. I would like to comment on the relationship between the bill and the First Budget Resolution.
H.R. 7636 as reported provides $10.2 billion in budget authority, with estimated outlays of $8.7 billion, including outlays of $2.3 billion from prior year authority.
Under section 302(B) of the Budget Act, the Appropriations Committee divides among its subcommittees the total budget authority and outlays allocated to it under the budget resolution. The amount allocated to the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations by the full committee is $10.6 billion in budget authority and $9.5 billion in outlays. H.R. 7636 as reported would leave $0.4 billion in budget authority and $0.8 billion outlays remaining within the subcommittee's allocation. It appears that possible later requirements totaling $0.4 billion in budget authority and outlays for programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee may occur later in the year. If these occur, the Interior Subcommittee would have used up its budget authority allocation and have $0.4 billion remaining in its outlay allocation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con sent that a table showing the relationship of the pending bill to the section 302 (B) allocation be inserted at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows :
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I support H.R. 7636. The bill provides funds for many important programs. The distinguished majority leader deserves credit for bringing in a bill that fits within the subcommittee allocation. I am sure that the pressure for increases is great and I know that he exercised considerable restraint in reporting H.R. 7636 at these levels.
I would point out, however, that in the case of function 300, natural resources, environment, and energy, the amounts in this bill are likely to cause the first budget resolution budget authority target to be exceeded. Last month, in the first budget resolution, Congress adopted targets for function 300 of $20.7 billion in budget authority and $20 billion in outlays. Taking into account the programs within function 300 funded by this Interior appropriation, the demands on function 300 by other appropriation bills which also have an impact upon it, and possible later requirements in the form of supplemental bills, it appears that the enactment of this Interior appropriation will cause the functional targets to be exceeded by at least $1 billion in budget authority. I would prefer to have the Congress maintain the targets as adopted for function 300. I would insist on it if the Senate and Congress did not have a reasonable expectation that the total of all appropriation bills will be within the congressional budget. It is certainly a prerogative of the Appropriations Committee to divide the funds allocated to it under the budget resolution among its subcommittees as it sees fit. This is true even if that division among subcommittees is at some variance with the targets in the budget resolution. This is an accommodation provided in the Budget Act very consciously to allow the Appropriations Committee the flexibility to live within the targets adopted in the resolution, provided that the total of these bills does not exceed the funds allocated to the Appropriations Committee itself under the budget resolution.
I have discussed these questions with the distinguished floor manager of this bill and have communicated directly with the chairman of the committee upon them. On the basis of these and other preliminary indications, I am assured that the sum of the appropriations bills will be within the budget resolution. Even though some functional targets in the first budget resolution may be somewhat exceeded in the enactment of these bills, other targets will be sufficiently under-subscribed in the same process so that the sum of all the bills does not exceed the budget.
So I will vote in favor of this bill. I will do so for the following reasons.
The bill funds important programs.
The bill as reported, plus possible later requirements, will not cause the subcommittee to exceed its section 302(b) allocation.
The bill should be consistent with the first budget resolution outlay target after the outlay estimates are reviewed in July.
The conference agreement should reduce the budget authority levels in function 300 below the levels in the Senate-reported bill.
The major increase in function 300 Budget authority is for acceleration of the strategic petroleum reserve which is an agreed upon congressional priority, rather than for new programs.
I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee in a joint effort to maintain the policies established by the Congress in the first budget resolution.
Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished majority leader if he could, on behalf of the Appropriations Committee, inform the Senate as to whether it will be possible for the committee to remain within its first budget resolution allocation, taking account of likely action on the regular appropriations bills as well as supplemental requirements now anticipated?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. On behalf of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, let me say that the committee expects to be able to stay within the full allocation from the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1978.
If all of the possible later requirements materialize, it may be the case that an individual subcommittee would exceed its allocation. However, the supplemental requests we can anticipate at this time combined with the anticipated requirements of our regular appropriations bills will not place the committee over its full allocation.
The subcommittee ceilings are fixed by the full committee and can be adjusted by the full committee. We do not see an overall problem at this time, although we fully share the concern of the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) as able chairman of the Budget Committee and assure him we are as committed as he is to assuring an appropriation level within the limits fixed by the Congress.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator MUSKIE, has already described the budget impact of this bill, and I do not intend to restate the same material. However, Mr. President, I do have some concerns and uneasiness regarding this bill and its relation to the budget which I believe are worth discussing.
It is true that this bill, by itself, is inside the allocation of funds provided to the Interior Subcommittee by the Appropriations Committee. It is also true that this bill is within the subcommittee allocation even after considering known possible later requirements, but there are two problems here. One is that this bill has more funds in the energy function of the budget — function 300 — than was expected in the first concurrent budget resolution. If the Appropriations Committee intends to stay within its part of the budget, then the committee must have in mind a reduction somewhere else in the budget to compensate for this overage. I applaud Senator MUSKIE's efforts to seek assurance both from the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and from the floor leader of this bill, the distinguished majority leader, that the committee will in fact stay within its total allocation.
I should also say that even staying within its allocation could be a problem for the Senate if the priorities established by Congress in its budget resolution have been significantly modified by changes in the funding of appropriation bills. However, that does not appear to be a problem in this instance.
The second problem posed by this bill which ought to be recognized now is that we have used up virtually all of the flexibility intended for energy program funding in the budget resolution and we have not set aside funds for major new programs. We have instead set aside incremental amounts of funds for add-ons to existing programs. So I trust, Mr. President, that all my colleagues are satisfied with the funding for energy in this bill and that we are not going to be surprised later on by some new energy expenditure idea which has not been taken into account either in this bill or in the category of "possible later requirements." Given the fact that we have used. up much of our flexibility, any such later energy expenditure proposal will likely create severe budget pressures.
Finally, Mr. President, I hope that the conference with the House on this bill will result in a lowering of budget authority, thereby restoring some flexibility. It seems to me that a funding level for the strategic petroleum reserve which is lower than the Senate version would be appropriate. I have had some reservation that the speedup in this program envisioned in the Senate version is really necessary or useful, particularly if the extra funds cannot be spent effectively. Any such reduction in conference gives the budget some breathing room which may prove necessary later on.
I intend to vote for H.R. 7636, but I do so with uneasiness and with the strong hope that the conference result will solve the reservations which I have expressed here.
Mr. MUSKIE. On another subject in the bill, Mr. President, the Subcommittee on Interior has included in the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies appropriation bill $870,000 for Federal services for the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy Indian Tribes for fiscal year 1978. The funds were added to the bill in response to a recent supplemental budget request from the administration for $916,000. I understand that the appropriation was reduced from $916,000 to $870,000 because of the subcommittee's concern that excessive funds had been requested for administering services to the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Tribes. I am concerned that the level of funding was reduced even by this small amount but I share the concern of the subcommittee and of the tribes that the funds appropriated be used for services to the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot tribes and not for administering a new extension of the BIA bureaucracy in Maine. I would hope and I believe that subcommittee shares my view that all of these funds would be used for the direct benefit of the recipients in Maine.
This is the first time that the funds have been appropriated for the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes. BIA and OMB were moved to request funding as a result of court rulings in Passamaquoddy against Morton but I want to make it clear and hope that the chairman will join with me in making clear that nothing in this bill should be taken to indicate a congressional determination or statement involving the rights of any parties in pending or future litigation regarding the aboriginal rights of Maine Indians.
I would note further that these funds for the Maine tribe are appropriated without particular direction to BIA as to how they should be used for the tribes in Maine. It is the tribes' desire and, I hope BIA will respect this desire, that the funds be used for self-determination act grants. Such a use would be consistent with the appropriation and I trust will be considered by BIA.
I want to thank the chairman and the committee for their willingness to deal with this matter in response to a late request from the administration. I know that the unique situation of the Maine tribes makes the provision of Federal services a complex matter.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, let me respond to the concerns expressed by the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE).
The reduction in the budget request for the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot tribes was indeed directed at what the committee believes to be the excessive administrative costs involved in BIA budget proposals. It is not the committee's intent to reduce services to the tribes.
Further, I strongly endorse the Senator's view that, wherever possible, the BIA should contract with the tribes under the authority and intent of the Indian Self-Determination Act, to provide these services.
Finally, I can assure the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) that this appropriation and the services to the tribes that it will finance are in no way connected or related to any litigation involving the rights of any parties in connection with aboriginal rights of Maine Indians.