June 29, 1977
Page 21522
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, the Senator from Florida raises an important concern. Rolling forward unused budget authority from fiscal year 1977 to 1978 as is proposed here will create confusion about the levels of spending for AFDC, SSI, and medicaid This will depart from the established practice in these programs. The statement on page 115 in the committee report that there is "ample precedent" for this roll forward is misleading. My staff has talked with GAO and HEW about this. There has only been one case that even remotely resembles what the committee recommends. That involved use in fiscal year 1974 of $600 million in supplemental public assistance funds appropriated late in fiscal year 1973. HEW tells us that experience created confusion with the States and even between the executive branch and Congress, and that they went back as quickly as possible to the practice of canceling out unused budget authority at the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. President, there is plenty of budget authority available to the Appropriations Committee under the first budget resolution to cover these programs. There is no real reason for us to distort the fiscal year 1978 picture by carrying over unused budget authority from fiscal year 1977.
Admittedly; there are other programs in which budget authority has traditionally remained available until used, but the practice of canceling out unused budget authority at the end of each fiscal year and having each new year stand on its own is both established practice and eminently sensible for programs of the type we are dealing with here.
I would like to ask Senator CHILES a few questions to make sure we have a clear understanding of the problem he raises.
Would you say that the change the Appropriations Committee proposes will make it harder for Congress to have a clear picture of growth in medicaid and public assistance spending from year to year?
Mr. CHILES. Yes; funding entitlement programs on other than a 1-year basis will make it difficult to see the year-to-year changes. It will obscure them in two ways. This year, when we have a carryover, the bill underestimates the costs by $1.3 billion. Next year, if we have no excess to carry over, the cost increase will look $1.3 billion larger than it actually is.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Appropriations Committee's approach save the Federal Government any money?
Mr. CHILES. No; the actual cash outlays will be $1.3 billion higher than the new budget authority appropriated.
Mr. BELLMON. Assuming the position of the Appropriations Committee is ratified by both Houses after the conference on this appropriation bill, what do you think we should do about this when we come to the second budget resolution in September?
Mr. CHILES. I would hope we will follow the request of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and that the conference will keep to the normal practice and not adopt carryover funding.
Should the conference adopt carryover funding, I would hope that the second budget resolution would reduce budget authority accordingly. As I mentioned in my statement, the Appropriations Committee's March 15 report did not mention carryover funding, and the budget resolution totals were developed on the assumption that we would need 1978 budget authority for 1978 costs.
In the past we have always increased the second budget resolution to reflect uncontrollable cost increases in entitlements, so we should certainly do the same when we get a decrease.
Mr. BELLMON. I again commend Senator CHILES for raising this concern. If there is not some change on this matter as a result of the conference with the House, I believe the Senate must reduce the budget authority available to the Appropriations Committee by the $1.3 billion rolled forward from fiscal year 1977 when we act on the second fiscal year 1978 budget resolution in September. As ranking minority member of the Budget Committee, I shall certainly advocate such a reduction.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the confusion over the meaning of the funding levels for certain programs in appropriations bills is a problem we should try to resolve. I ask unanimous consent that a table listing the various possibilities for appropriating funds for entitlement programs be inserted in the RECORD.
This table shows that a number of entitlements, not just in the Labor-HEW bill, but in several other appropriations bills, can have budget authority from prior years or the current fiscal year used in the coming fiscal year. The difficulty this situation poses for us in trying to reconcile appropriations bills with congressional budget resolutions and the President's budget should be avoided. I hope the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee can consider the alternative means for funding entitlements and come up with a uniform approach we can all use in a consistent manner.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]