July 25, 1977
Page 24644
BUDGET ACT WAIVER
The Senate continued with the consideration of Senate Resolution 206.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ed Hall, of my staff, be permitted floor privileges during the consideration of this budget resolution and the following Campaign Financing bill, S. 926.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CANNON. Also, Carol Darr from the committee staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senate Resolution 206.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, Senate Resolution 206 was reported from the Committee on Rules, June 24. It, in effect, is a waiver, of 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to the consideration of S. 926, which is the public financing bill.
The Federal Election Commission testified, Mr. President, before the Committee on Rules that they would need the sum of $900,000 in fiscal year 1978 for the purposes of administering S. 926 in the event that bill should be passed. The authorization is in the bill.
There is also a provision to assist the States in carrying out the provisions of the bill, and that would require up to $250,000 of fiscal year 1978 funds to reimburse the States for maintaining Federal Election Campaign Act reports pursuant to section 439 of title 2 United States Code:
Therefore, Mr. President, the Rules Committee urges the Senate to approve this resolution waiving the Congressional Budget Act with respect to the consideration of S. 926.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Budget — and I note that the current Presiding Officer of the Senate (Mr. HOLLINGS) is also a member of that committee — I rise in support of Senate Resolution 206, which the Budget Committee has recommended be adopted.
Senate Resolution 206, as the distinguished floor manager has pointed out, waiving section 402 of the Budget Act with respect to S. 926, is necessary because S. 926 provides authorization for new budget authority for fiscal year 1978. Because the Congressional Budget Act prescribes a very definite timetable for completion of all authorization and appropriation legislation, section 402 requires that authorizations contemplating new budget authority for a fiscal year must be reported before May 15 preceding the beginning of that fiscal year.
This section was included to provide the Appropriations Committee with reasonable notice of appropriations anticipated for the corning fiscal year so that the Appropriations Committee can complete its work within the timetable set forth in the Budget Act. Legislation authorizing the enactment of new budget authority which is reported after May 15 could delay the enactment of appropriations bills past the Budget Act deadline of 7 days after Labor Day and could thereby jeopardize the budget and appropriations process.
However, the Budget Act also recognizes that there may exist certain unusual circumstances in which an authorizing committee could not meet the May 15 deadline and where enforcement of that deadline is not necessary to implement the policies of the act. Hence, the act permits the Senate to grant waivers under section 402(c). In carrying out its responsibilities under that section, the Budget Committee has made the following procedural inquiries:
First. What is the effect of defeating consideration of the authorization.
Second. Did the reporting committee make a good faith effort to meet the May 15 reporting deadline for the bulk of its legislation?
Third. What is the effect of the authorization on the appropriations process; that is, will it delay the Appropriations Committee?
Fourth. What is the effect of the authorization on the budget resolution; that is, was the amount involved considered in the first budget resolution?
Fifth. What is the size of the authorization and likelihood of its appropriation.
It is evident that in recommending the adoption of a waiver resolution, the Budget Committee is not prejudging the merits of the legislation, but simply permitting full consideration of the bill by the Senate. Our concern and that of the Budget Act is aimed at preserving the integrity of the budget and appropriations process and does not constitute a vote on the underlying bill.
Therefore, in considering Senate Resolution 206, we should not dwell on substantive features of the bill. That will come when we get to the bill itself. That debate will follow disposition of the
waiver. Our only concern now should be whether the authorization contained in this bill will delay or unravel the budget resolution and appropriations action.
The Budget Committee carefully considered the facts surrounding the late report of S. 926. We concluded that the Committee on Rules and Administration had a large number of matters to consider and report on, including Senate Resolution 4 to reorganize the committee system of the Senate, Senate Resolution 5 to amend the standing rules of the Senate, S. 703 to extend Overseas Citizens Voting Rights Act of 1975, S. 1435 to extend the authorization of the Federal Election Commission, S. 1072 to establish a universal voter registration program, 18 resolutions to fund the committees of the Senate, and many other measures since its organization meeting on March 2, 1977. All of the foregoing bills which were subject to the May 15 reporting deadline were reported in a timely fashion. Coordination of hearings on S. 926 and amendments to the Federal Election Act necessitated some delay in reporting this bill. The Rules Committee made a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of the Budget Act in timely reporting other authorizing legislation within its jurisdiction and reporting out S. 926 as soon as practicable.
Furthermore, action on S. 926 was anticipated in the Rules Committee's March 15 report to the Budget Committee. Full funding of this legislation is consistent with the first budget resolution.
The provisions contained in S. 926 will not delay the appropriations process and the small amount — $1.15 million — required to fund the authorization can be included in a supplemental appropriation.
For these reasons, the Budget Committee concluded that a favorable report on Senate Resolution 206 was both necessary and appropriate. Our committee specifically refrained from commenting on the merits of this bill which we think should be considered only after this resolution is adopted.
So, Mr. President, I urge my colleaguesto adopt this resolution so that the Senate may proceed to consideration of the merits of this important legislation.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I have no intention of suggesting to the Senate that this budget waiver be declined. Rather I want to point out some of the background and raise some questions as to the waiver proceeding under the waivers, in light of what the intentions of the Budget Act are.
I would like to first point out this waiver barely passed the Committee on the Budget. It, was passed by a vote of 9 to 7. As one of those who voted against it, I think the votes were cast generally not on the merits of the waiver, on the merits of the legislation, but rather because already in calendar year 1977 we have had 33 waivers, and that since May 15 of this year we have had 16 waivers and bills that, in most cases, were not emergencies, and bills that could very well have been acted upon in advance of the May 15 cutoff date.
So I think that here is a case where some members of the committee, and I am one of them, feel that we should begin to point out the fact that the waiver provisions of the Budget Act are being abused and that the Budget Committee should not be expected to rubberstamp every waiver that comes to us.
I am very concerned that we have become so free with these waivers that the waivers are in danger of becoming meaningless, that there really are not these many emergencies and these many extenuating circumstances, and that the Senate should not expect the Budget Committee to go ahead automatically providing waivers on so many bills into the future.
I think many of us voted against the waiver to run up a warning to the Senate that we are going to start looking more closely at the waivers as they come to us and that we may very well be turning down waivers unless there is a demonstrable need for the waivers, unless there is a good case made that there is an emergency that could not have been foreseen.
I wish to point out, again, that this makes 33 bills that have required waivers in 1977, and 16 of those waivers have come since May 15. I hope that we will not see a continuation of this process, and I simply wish to warn the Senate that from here on waivers are going to be a little harder to come by.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BELLMON. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Oklahoma?
Mr. BELLMON. I am glad to yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is yielding on whose time?
Mr. BELLMON. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On whose time? I am trying to find out.
Mr. BELLMON. On my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a unanimous consent agreement, I think, that time was to be controlled by the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, then I yield myself time to make this comment.
First of all I rise at this point to applaud the point that the Senator from Oklahoma is making.
We are concerned in the Budget Committee with a tendency — I am not sure that I would describe it as out of control at this point — but a tendency to take waivers as a routine sort of procedure. It is not routine. It should not be regarded as routine.
Just this past week, the Senator from Oklahoma and I found ourselves as a minority of two in opposing a waiver in the case of a committee which has had more waivers than any other committee. I think we should put that committee and other committees on notice now after we have had 2 years of experience that we are going to make it clear that waivers not be regarded as routine, there must be a good faith effort by committees to meet the deadlines, and it is only when that good faith effort can be demonstrated that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and I will be acquiescing in that respect.
It has nothing to do with this particular resolution, as to which the Senator from Oklahoma and I find ourselves on opposite sides. He and I, I think, are in complete agreement that the waiver discipline must now begin to take hold and be enforced if it is not to lose its meaning, and I rise to applaud my good friend from Oklahoma for making this point.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine said it much better than I. We are in agreement, and I believe the Senate should be on notice that the Budget Committee is going to look very closely at waivers of this kind.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.