March 3, 1977
Page 6053
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET, 1977 — CONFERENCE REPORT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of the conference report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 10.
The report will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the House to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 10) revising the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year 1977, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommended to their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the conferees.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will proceed to the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the RECORD of February 28, 1977.)
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time for debate on the conference report is limited to 2 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON).
Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the staff of the Committee on the Budget be granted privilege of the floor during consideration of the conference report on Senate Concurrent Resolution 10: John McEvoy, Sid Brown, Van Ooms, Jim Storey, Dan Twomey, Tom Dine, Karen Williams, Mary Joe Checchi, Ira Tannenbaum, George Merrill, and Don Campbell.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the joint explanatory statement of the committee on conference be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, 2 years ago this month the Congress moved to implement key provisions of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act.
Our decision in March 1975 to introduce the new budget making procedures a year ahead of schedule was based upon hard economic necessity. Unemployment was rising precipitously; the Nation was entering what threatened then to be a deepening recession.
The need to shape a coherent budgetary and fiscal strategy for dealing with the economic situation was imperative. Congress traditional, fragmented approach to tax and spending questions, unfortunately, offered no means of establishing such a policy. The only hope lay in comprehensive budget control procedures set forth in the Budget Act.
From today's perspective it is clear that Congress took the right course. Even as our present economic difficulties call for continued flexibility in the fiscal area, policies shaped in the spring of 1975 appear now to have been fully justified. Certainly our current position would be far less hopeful had we not chosen to move with determination at that time.
Incidentally, Mr. President, this Sunday's Washington Post contains an illustrative article on the role of the new budget process. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 1977]
CONGRESS UTILIZING ITS NEW TOOLS IN CREATING BUDGET
(By James L. Rowe, Jr.)
The administration's budget is no longer the only federal spending and taxing plan in town.
Although attention has tended to focus on the budget proposals made by the President — be it Carter, or Ford before him — the government today is operating under a spending and revenue plan devised by Congress. In fact, while a presidential budget is an important statement of the priorities and economic policy of the executive branch and therefore a prod of incalculable dimension to Congress, the president by himself never has been able to appropriate a dollar or tax a citizen.
That power has been reserved to Congress since the start of the Republic. But until now, Congress has been at a terrible disadvantage when trying to understand the overall impact of its spending and taxing decisions. The White House alone had the machinery to propose programs, monitor spending and decide how much of society's resources it wanted to devote to federal programs.
Congress never before has been equipped to measure one program against another in terms of some sort of overall goals set out as spending ceilings and revenue floors. Now it is, and those spending and revenue levels it set in the formal budget it adopted in the fall are binding on legislators.
As a result, the House and Senate must formally revise the spending and revenue totals they adopted last September to accommodate an economic stimulus package — their own or the one proposed by President Carter last month. The need for tax and spending changes to cut unemployment and boost economic growth has been accepted by the administration and a majority of Congress. But the House and Senate cannot take floor action on most of the stimulus proposals until Congress adopts a revised fiscal 1977 budget.
The congressional budget process is in its infancy. After a trial run in fiscal 1976, Congress put together its first "real" budget — in which it forced itself to deal with overall spending and taxing rather than with each tax or spending bill separately — for the current fiscal year.
Congress adopted the process both for self-discipline and to give it the tools to deal with the president on an equal basis in spending and policy matters.
Nearly all spending programs look good in isolation. But when they are totalled up, they may far exceed the overall level of federal spending desired by Congress. The legislature not only sets overall spending ceilings for itself (now a spending bill which would cause Congress to exceed the ceiling is out of order), but the budget committees do a continuous policing job, telling legislators what passage of a particular bill will do to other established priorities.
To give it the ability to deal on an equal footing with the administration — to devise its own budget rather than react in one way or another a set of spending and taxing priorities devised by the executive branch — Congress established two policy making committees (one in the House, the other in the Senate) with dozens of experts, as well as a joint Congressional Budget Office, headed by respected economist Alice Rivlin.
The Congressional Budget Office was conceived of as the congressional answer to the administration's Office of Management and Budget, which is directed by former Atlanta banker Bert Lance. The Congressional Budget Office is sort of a technical adviser to the policy committees — keeping track of the numbers and outlining budget alternatives without taking positions.
But a budget is more than a statement of spending and taxing. It is a major tool of economic policy. When the economy is lagging, as the administration and Congress judge it to be today, the budget can be used to substitute public demand for private demand by running a substantial deficit. When demand is heavy and inflation threatens, fiscal policy can tighten up and the budget can run a surplus.
The budget process gives Congress the mechanism to judge the overall fiscal policy effects of a program proposed by the White House and the ability to devise its own fiscal policy.
In the past, as one Hill staffer noted, a president would make his fiscal policy proposals — Carter's program to stimulate the economy calls for $13.8 billion in tax reductions as well as $2.2 billion in spending increases in the current fiscal year — and the tax writing committees would deal with the revenue portions and appropriations committees would work on the spending proposals. Until creation of the budget process, Congress was unequipped to deal with the package as a whole, however.
The Senate and House budget committees, headed by Sen. Edmund S. Muskie (D-Maine) and Rep. Robert N. Giaimo (D-Conn) judged the Carter package to be too small on the spending side.
While the President asked initially for $1.7 billion in spending programs and has revised his request up to $2.2 billion — the Senate has voted a spending package of $3.4 billion and the House wants to spend $3.7 billion. Members of the House and Senate budget committees will meet in conference Monday afternoon to iron out the differences in their budgets.
The new budget process can cause some confusion. At some times, such as now, there can be as many as four federal budgets on the table for the same fiscal year. For example, for fiscal 1977 alone, there is an amended budget proposed by Carter last month, a budget approved by Congress last fall which is still binding on the legislature, and two pending revisions to that budget, one approved Tuesday by the Senate and the other approved Wednesday by the House.
Even before Congress completes action on its amended 1977 budget, it will have to begin work on the budget for fiscal 1978. In one of his final acts as president, Gerald Ford proposed a budget for federal spending year 1978 (which begins Oct. 1, 1977), and last Tuesday President Carter sent to Congress his amendments to the Ford budget, restoring many of the spending cuts Ford proposed and adding the second year of his two-year stimulus package.
By May 15, Congress must come up with a working budget (called the first concurrent resolution) and by Sept. 15, two weeks before the start of the fiscal year, must pass its second concurrent resolution which sets binding spending ceilings and revenue floors. The budget committees act in consultation with the various appropriations committees.
The budget resolutions set overall levels for spending, revenues, the public debt and the deficit, as well as the authority to commit the government to spend money either in the current fiscal year or beyond. They also contain detailed outlay and budget authority estimates for 17 different federal functions — such as defense and income security — but the only binding totals are the aggregate ones.
So a congressional budget formulated with the idea of, say, spending $100 billion on defense and $315 billion on other programs such as income maintenance, is not violated by actions which boost defense spending to $110 billion so long as other spending programs are reduced by $10 billion. But a spending bill which would raise outlays above $415 billion is out of order under the rules because it would violate the overall ceiling.
Many congressional observers have worried that the very discipline the budget process is designed to inject could spell the death of the process. Congress has tried to budget more rigorously before — most recently just after World War II — only to see the process founder when the body was forced to judge between two or more attractive spending programs.
Indeed, some observers see this year's decision to write a third budget resolution — which amends the "binding" ceilings adopted last fall — as a breakdown of discipline. House committee chairman Giaimo disagrees. In a recent interview, he said he is aware that Congress might be tempted each year to reopen previous decisions by writing a third resolution.
Giaimo argues, however, that the current economic picture is such that a third resolution is required.
But the New Haven Democrat maintains that revisions of final budgets must be rare if the budget process is to have any meaning. Muskie, his Senate counterpart, claims that if there were no provision to amend the budget this year, the budget process would have broken down because it is clear that Congress must take steps to stimulate the economy.
The congressional budget can differ sharply from the president's. A president can veto appropriations bills and, with very circumscribed authority, can choose not to spend appropriated money (although he can be forced to). For the most part, however, he must work within the budget range adopted by Congress.
Nevertheless, the presidential budget remains an important document. It provides masses of data, sets forth the spending and taxing priorities of an equal branch of the government and provides a benchmark to which congressional budget makers refer in constructing their own document.
And despite their seeming precision, budgets are very inexact documents. Differences ranging into the billions of dollars may be due to technical factors rather than policy divergence. If a congressional budget maker thinks a billion dollar defense payout will be due in fiscal 1977, he will put it in his outlay total for that year. A presidential budget maker might realistically believe the payout will happen on Oct. 2, and not make provision until fiscal 1978. Their respective budgets will differ by $1 billion in outlays.
Or fewer people may claim food stamps or unemployment insurance than originally was thought, which would lower outlays below projections.
Budgets, presidential or congressional, are high level, expert guesses. Even if they are off by 1 per cent, a trivial error as forecasts go, that is $4 to $5 billion at current spending levels, hardly a trivial sum.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today Congress faces a new test of its budgetary process: The need to reshape an existing fiscal plan to meet changed economic realities. So far the process appears to be working as it was meant to. On Monday evening, Senate and House conferees agreed to a third budget resolution for fiscal 1977. The resolution accommodates a substantial program of economic stimulus for the current fiscal year, designed to invigorate an economy in which joblessness remains at an unexpected and unacceptable rate.
Mr. President, the question before the Senate is the adoption of the conference report on the third concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1977.
The purpose of this third budget resolution, Mr. President, is to revise the congressional budget adopted on Sep tember 18, 1976. This revision is necessary if we are to maintain vigorous economic recovery in view of current economic conditions.
The third budget resolution incorporates the revised spending ceilings and revenue floor within which Congress and the Federal Government must operate until next September 30. No legislation which would cause the spending ceilings contained in this budget to be exceeded or the revenue floor to be breached will be in order in either House.
The resolution will permit Congress to adopt a combined program of job encouraging tax stimulus and payments to individuals amounting to $13.8 billion. It will allow additional spending $3.7 billion on programs for direct job creation. At the same time it leaves it to the various Senate and House committees to define the actual specifics of the stimulus program.
Mr. President, the adoption of this budget resolution is necessary to accommodate congressional action on measures needed to stimulate the economy and to adjust the second resolution revenue and spending estimates to reflect changed economic circumstances, new program developments and supplemental requests from the administration. At the time the second budget resolution was passed, the Congress recognized that a deterioration in economic conditions might require additional Federal action to stimulate the economy. Passage of this additional resolution reflects the flexibility of the budget process. But the Budget Committee wishes to emphasize that additional resolutions are the exception and not the rule. The Budget Act specifically limits the use of additional resolutions to meet changed conditions, not simply to take account of matters which might have been considered in the first and second resolutions.
Current indicators reveal that the growth rate dropped to 3.2 percent in the last quarter of 1976. With an already high level of unemployment, harsh winter weather dealt the weakened economy a staggering blow. In response to the slowdown in the economy and a mounting jobless rate, President Carter proposed special stimulus measures late in January. Within 4 weeks, both Houses of Congress have held hearings, passed budget resolutions, and agreed to a conference report. The expedited action on this resolution is evidence of its extraordinary importance.
The spending levels and revenue floor in this budget resolution could accommodate President's Carter's stimulus proposals or such other stimulus proposals of similar magnitude that the Congress may wish to consider. The budget resolution before the Congress represents an acceleration of certain Presidential programs to maximize the job creating effect in 1977.
The stimulus provided by this conference report will make it possible for the economy to regain its momentum this year. We anticipate real GNP will grow at a rate of 51/2 to 6 percent during 1977 and bring unemployment to 7 percent or less by the end of the year. If responsible fiscal policies and practices are followed for fiscal 1978, the same rate should be sustained next year with a reduction in unemployment below projected estimates of 6 percent for 1979. This steady progress over the next 2 years would make a 5 percent rate feasible by 1980.
Mr. President, I now wish to detail the fiscal framework established by the conference.
The major decisions reached in the conference are as follows:
For revenues, the conferees agreed on a level of $347.7 billion. This is $1.1 billion below the House resolution and $900 million above the Senate resolution.
For budget authority, the conferees agreed on a level of $472.9 billion. This is $5 billion below the House and $5.9 billion above the Senate.
For outlays, the conferees agreed on a level of $417.45 billion. This is $1.7 billion below the House and $2.4 billion above the Senate.
For the deficit, the conferees agreed on a level of $69.75 billion. This is $600 million below the House and $1.6 billion above the Senate.
For the public debt, the conferees agreed on a level of $718.4 billion. This is $500 million below the House and $100 million above the Senate.
The levels agreed to in conference, Mr. President, are sufficient to accommodate a stimulus program of about $17.5 billion. Of this amount, some $13.8 billion represents tax stimulus and direct payments to individuals, and the remaining $3.7 billion represents additional spending for programs related to job creation, such as countercyclical assistance, local public works, public service employment, and programs aimed at the employment of youth. The stimulus level agreed to by the conferees is sufficient to permit consideration of stimulus programs of a magnitude proposed by President Carter, plus other initiatives proposed by the Congress such as emergency assistance to help low income families meet high fuel costs resulting from the harsh winter this year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the economic stimulus elements of the third budget resolution be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. I point out, Mr. President, that the Senate conferees prevailed in their position that the stimulus levels in the third budget resolution should be sufficient to permit the Senate to consider the stimulus proposals of the Carter administration plus the additional proposals that the Congress has under consideration. The House resolution assumed somewhat lower levels for stimulus programs which conformed to the proposed tax cuts and benefit payments for individuals that are contained in the stimulus bill recently reported by the House Ways and Means Committee. Had the Senate conferees receded to the House on this issue, the Senate would not have been able to consider the full request of the President in these areas. While not necessarily endorsing all of the specific proposals of the President, the Senate conferees deemed it essential that the Senate have the ability under the third budget resolution to consider fully the President's proposals. The conference agreement achieves that result.
Mr. President, the Senate conferees were also able to sustain the Senate position that earned income credit payments to low income families in excess of tax liability should continue to be treated as offsets to revenues. The House had proposed that these payments be treated as increases in spending — a position strongly opposed by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator LONG, in a letter to the Budget Committee and in a statement on the floor during Senate consideration of the third budget resolution. The conferees agreed to give this matter further study in connection with the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1978, in the hope that a common position can be developed between the Congress and the administration.
The Senate conferees did agree, in response to the position of the House conferees, to treat any one-time stimulus payments to taxpayers in excess of tax liability — as has been proposed by President Carter — as a spending item in the income security function.
Mr. President, let me highlight quickly some of the more important decisions reached in the conference.
The proposed revenue level of $347.7 billion is, as I have already mentioned, sufficient to cover tax cuts for stimulus purposes of a magnitude proposed by the President. This total consists of revenues under current law totaling $356 billion, tax cuts totaling $10.6 billion, and increased. revenues as a result of the total stimulus proposals totaling $2.3 billion..
Highlights of the spending decisions are as follows:
In Function 050, National Defense, the conference agreement of $108.8 billion in budget authority and $100.1 billion in outlays assumes enactment of shipbuilding rescissions along the lines proposed by the House.
In Function 300, Natural Resources, Environment, and Energy, the conference levels of $18.7 billion in budget authority and $17.2 billion in outlays are sufficient to cover a possible program of assistance to low income families in meeting high fuel bills, now under consideration in the Senate.
In Function 350, Agriculture, the level of budget authority agreed upon — $2.3 billion — is sufficient to cover possible reimbursement to the Commodity Credit Corporation for losses incurred in fiscal year 1975, as had been proposed by the House.
In function 450, community and regional development, the conference level of $14.8 billion in budget authority and $10.55 billion in outlays is sufficient to accommodate a program of countercyclical assistance along the lines proposed by the President, with a startup date of April 1, 1977.
In function 600, income security, the conference agreement of $170.9 billion in budget authority and $141.3 billion in outlays is sufficient to accommodate a housing assistance supplemental of $12.6. billion in budget authority, plus a possible stimulus rebate to taxpayers in excess of tax liability totaling about $1.4 billion in budget authority and outlays such as has been proposed by the President.
In function 950, undistributed offsetting receipts, the conferees assumed a level of $2.3 billion in Outer Continental Shelf leasing receipts, as proposed by President Carter in his budget revisions of February 22 1977.
In the case of other functions and programs, Mr. President, the House and Senate resolutions were generally in agreement and therefore not at issue in the conference.
Mr. President, I further point out that, pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the third budget resolution contains revised allocations of the budget totals among the committees of the Senate that have direct spending jurisdiction or jurisdiction over entitlement programs that require appropriation action. In addition to conforming the existing allocations to the third budget resolution totals, this revised allocation takes account of the changes in budgetary jurisdiction among Senate committees as a result of the adoption of Senate Resolution 4.
Mr. President, I believe the proposed third budget resolution provides the proper framework within which the Congress can consider the stimulus measures necessary to put us back on the road to a healthy economic recovery for our Nation. It provides a budgetary framework that is necessary but prudent. Let no one misunderstand; the third budget resolution proposes a tight budget that will continue to require effort on the part of each. and every Senator if we are to live within it. I believe we can live within it, and I urge my colleagues to support. it
EXHIBIT 1
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House and the Senate at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, on the amendment of the Houses to the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 10) revising the congressional budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year 1977, submit the following joint statement to the House and Senate in explanation of the action agreed upon by the managers and recommended in the accompanying conference report:
GENERAL
The conference report revises the Second Budget Resolution for FY 1977 (S. Con. Res. 139, adopted September 11,1976) in order to accommodate congressional action on measures needed to stimulate the economy. It also makes needed adjustments in the Second Resolution's revenue and spending estimates, adjustments resulting from changed economic circumstances and program developments and supplemental budget requests from the new Administration. The new budget aggregates and distributions by functional categories would be as follows:
REVENUES
The Senate resolution provided for revenues of $348.8 billion. The House resolution provided for revenues of $348.8 billion.
The conference substitute provides revenues of $347.7 billion, based upon the following assumptions:
(1) revenue reductions of $10.6 billion, including possible postponement of the sick pay provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1978, and
(2) budget authority and outlays in Function 600: Income Security of $3.2 billion.
The conference substitute includes as budget authority and outlays $3.2 billion which could accommodate the President's proposals for payments to certain low income individuals. Of this amount, $1.4 billion represents an accounting shift in the Senate resolution from revenues to the Income Security Function. In addition, payments in excess of tax liability amounting to $856 million under the earned income credit provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1975 are treated as losses of revenue. The managers recognize that a difference in budget treatment exists between the two Houses with respect to payments in excess of tax liability. The Committees intend to reconsider this question de novo during consideration of the First Budget Resolution for FY 1978 with the intent of developing a common position at that time between the two Houses and the Administration.
BUDGET AUTHORITY
The Senate resolution provided for a total new budget authority of $467.0 billion. The House resolution provided for budget authority of $477.921 billion. The conference substitute provides for budget authority of $472.9 billion.
OUTLAYS
The Senate resolution provided for outlays of $415.0 billion. The House resolution provided outlays of $419.130 billion. The conference substitute provides outlays of $417.45 billion.
DEFICIT
The Senate resolution provided for a deficit of $68.2 billion. The House resolution provided for a deficit of $70.330 billion. The conference substitute provides for a deficit of $69.75 billion.
PUBLIC DEBT
The Senate resolution provided for a public debt level of $718.3 billion. The House resolution provided a debt level of $718.915 billion. The conference substitute provides a debt level of $718.4 billion.
DISTRIBUTIONS BY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES
050: National defense
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $109.2 billion and outlays of $100.1 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $108.788 billion and outlays of $100.077 billion.
The conference substitute provides budget authority of $108.8 billion and outlays of $100.1 billion. It assumes the House's position with respect to shipbuilding rescissions.
150: International affairs
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $7.9 billion and outlays of $6.8 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $7.956 billion and outlays of $6.841 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $7.9 billion and outlays of $6.8 billion.250:
250: General science, space and technology
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $4.5 billion and outlays of $4.4 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $4.468 billion outlays of $4.406 billion.
The conference substitute provides budget budget authority of $4.468 billion and outlays of $4.406 billion.
300: Natural resources, environmental and energy
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $18.8 billion and outlays of $17.2 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $18.627 billion and outlays of $17.209 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $18.7 billion and outlays of $17.2 billion.
350: Agriculture
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $1.8 billion and outlays of $3.0 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $2.355 and outlays of $3.044. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $2.3 billion and outlays of $3.0 billion. The increase over the Senate budget authority level is provided for additional reimbursement to the Commodity Credit Corporation for net realized losses.
400: Commerce and transportation
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $17.3 billion and outlays of $16.0 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $17.313 billion and outlays of $15.961 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $17.3 billion and outlays of $16.0 billion.
450: Community and regional development
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $14.3 billion and outlays of $10.0 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $15.023 billion and outlays of $10.819 billion.
The conference substitute provides budget authority of $14.8 billion and outlays of $10.55 billion. The substitute would accommodate funding of countercyclical assistance implementing a revised formula effective April 1, 1977, as recommended by the President; and funding for disaster relief and Community Service Administration's home weatherization program.
500: Education, training; employment and social services
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $30.4 billion and outlays of $23.2 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $30.355 billion and outlays of $22.620 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $30.4 billion and outlays of $22.7 billion.
550: Health
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $40.6 billion and outlays of $39.5 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $40.651 billion and outlays of $39.283 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $40.6 billion and outlays of $39.3 billion.
600: Income security
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $166.3 billion and outlays of $139.3 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $174.993 billion and outlays of $142.050 billion.
The conference substitute provides budget authority of $170.9 billion and outlays of $141.3 billion. It allows $12.6 billion in budget authority for a housing assistance supplemental, $3.0 billion below the amount in the House resolution. In addition, it makes adjustments in budget authority and outlays discussed under Revenues above.
700: Veterans benefits and services
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $18.9 billion and outlays of $18.1 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $18.917 billion and outlays of $18.130 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $18.9 billion andoutlays of $18.1 billion.
750: Law enforcement and Justice
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $3.5 billion and outlays of $3.6 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $3.524 billion and outlays of $3.657 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $3.5 billion and outlays of $3.6 billion.
800: General government
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $3.5 billion and outlays of $3.5 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $3.560 billion and outlays of $3.554 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $3.5 billion and outlays of $3.5 billion.
850: Revenue sharing and general purpose fiscal assistance
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $7.6 billion and outlays of $7.7 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $7.578 billion and outlays of $7.696 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $7.6 billion and outlays of $7.7 billion.
900: Interest
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $37.9 billion and outlays of $37.9 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $38.287 billion and outlays of $38.287 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $38.0 billion and outlays of $38.0 billion.
Allowances
The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $0.8 billion and outlays of $0.8 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $.794 billion and outlays of $.764 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $0.8 billion and outlays of $0.8 billion.
950: Undistributed offsetting receipts The Senate resolution provided budget authority of $16.1 billion and outlays of $16.1 billion and outlays of 416.1 billion. The House resolution provided budget authority of $15.268 billion and outlays of $15.268 billion. The conference substitute provides budget authority of $15.6 billion and outlays of $15.6 billion. The managers assume an increase in anticipated Outer Continental Shelf receipts of $300 million from the amount in the House resolution.
ALLOCATIONS OF BUDGET AUTHORITY OUTLAYS TO HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES
Pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment and Control Act of 1974, the conferees make the following estimated allocation of the appropriated levels of total new budget authority and total budget outlays for fiscal year 1977 among the committees of the respective Houses :
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 1 additional minute.
Mr. President, in order to put the issue now before the Senate, I move that the conference report be agreed to, and I yield the floor to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Oklahoma, the ranking Republican member of the committee.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. President, we are today considering the report of the House and Senate conferees on the third concurrent resolution for fiscal year 1977. In bringing this report before the Senate, the flexibility and continued viability of the budget process is clearly demonstrated, and for that reason, I voice my support for the conference report.
In reopening the second budget resolution for fiscal year 1977 in order to consider economic stimulus proposals, a very real possibility existed that a large number of other budget items, unrelated to economic policy, would be insisted upon in the third resolution. This raised the distinct possibility of substantial disagreement on these budget items and an inability to reach some agreement on a third resolution. Such an outcome would have blocked the consideration of economic stimulus proposals that now appear important to helping to continue a strong economic recovery.
The fact that these potential stumbling blocks were avoided and that agreement on a third resolution has been reached again indicated that Congress can continue to live with the discipline of a viable budget process. More issues were raised in the third resolution than many of my colleagues would have preferred. More room for spending possibilities has been included in this resolution than I would have desired. The deficit allowed for is larger than I would prefer; it may also be larger than will eventually emerge from our subsequent decisions on specific legislative details. Nevertheless, a budget resolution which allows considerable flexibility in the economic stimulus yet to be adopted by the Congress has been achieved. We are not thereby committed to a specific stimulus package, but only to the approximate size and mix of economic policies. I can only hope that the economy will benefit from the final decisions which fill out the details of this third budget resolution.
I would take this opportunity to make it clear to my colleagues that as we start the march toward the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1978, we are not faced with the same sense of urgency and inevitability with regard to accommodating the administration's proposals or other spending increases that will be urged by some in the Congress. In considering the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1978, the Budget Committee and the Congress will have ample opportunity to look at the full range of national priorities and economic policy alternatives. The committee will have to face the tough decisions to apply the fiscal restraint in many areas of the budget that is necessary if we hope to achieve a balanced Federal budget in future years. We will have the opportunity to more carefully define the fiscal policy dimensions for 1978 that will best sustain economic recovery of the private sector. We will once again focus our understanding and our full energies on making decisions on the broad range of budget issues that are essential to produce substantial and sustained progress toward a healthy economy with productive employment opportunities and to bring the Federal budget into balance.
Just as the third budget resolution agreed to here today provides considerable flexibility in the details of fiscal year 1977 economic policies yet to be resolved, it does not commit the Congress to a specific program of economic stimulus for fiscal year 1978. It is with a firm commitment to a vigorous review of the budget recommendations submitted by the Ford administration, by the Carter administration, and by the committees of the Senate for fiscal year 1978 that I support the conference report on the third concurrent resolution for fiscal year1977.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of the Budget Committee staff have the privilege of the floor during the consideration of the third budget resolution: Robert Boyd, William Stringer, and Gary Kuzina.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BELLMON. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I should like to express my appreciation for the remarks of the Senator from Oklahoma and, once again, for his cooperation and assistance in developing the third concurrent resolution.
I particularly join in the sentiment he has expressed with respect to the need to examine the 1978 fiscal budget issues and priorities as closely as it has become our tradition to do. I join him in that sentiment.
It is important that we reach independent judgments, and by that I mean independent of any other branch of the Government, in undertaking to move toward the kind of budgetary discipline that this whole process is designed to provide.
I thank the Senator for expressing those thoughts.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank the chairman for his comments.
Under the leadership of Senator MUSKIE, I am confident that the Budget Committee will meet this responsibility and that the resolution it brings forth for fiscal 1978 will give Congress all the guidance and opportunity we need in order to decide between the various priorities.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 10 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, before we vote on this resolution — and I am for it, and I wish to compliment Senator MUSKIE, Senator BELLMON, and their colleagues upon the job which they have done, and again to sustain the budget process in which I thoroughly believe, which came out of the Government Operations Committee of which I have the honor to be a member — before we do that, I think there is one misunderstanding which has percolated through the public press and media which needs very much to be dealt with if we are to understand what we are doing and why.
The budget resolution, as reported from the Senate Budget Committee, which is now the subject of this conference, was 72 to 20 on final passage, and it was widely advertised that this represented Senate approval of the elements of President Carter's stimulus package.
Now, that is not so as far as many of us are concerned, who voted for the resolution, and it will show up in subsequent authorization and appropriation bills and, therefore, should be laid down now.
The reason is as follows: I speak personally because I think it is characteristic of the votes of many of the Members. When I cast my vote in favor of the resolution and its aggregate revenue, budget authority, and deficit ceilings, it was upon my understanding that the various totals were not designed specifically to accommodate only one particular program of tax and expenditure changes.
I believed, and do so still, and this is why I am raising this matter now, that the Senate has agreed to an aggregate revenue floor and a total spending ceiling for fiscal year 1977, and these totals can accommodate alternative tax and spending programs, including that proposed by Senate Republicans, which was composed in a package and essentially differed in that it did not have this $50 per taxpayer rebate which is contained in the Democatic Party's presentation as developed by President Carter.
The revenue floor is $347.7 billion. That is an outside limit, and it precludes the legislation which would reduce Federal revenues below that figure. But this in no way requires that taxes be cut to that level, nor does it imply, specify, endorse, nor recommend what form those tax cuts should take, should they be temporary or should they be permanent. We Republicans recommend that they be permanent tax rate reductions.
Moreover — and this is a very essential point — the $347.7 billion revenue floor incorporated in the resolution clearly permits and accommodates consideration of alternative tax and revenue programs which would result in that or even higher revenues, and under our Republican program there would be some $3 billion in higher revenues.
In short, what we are agreeing to here in this conference report establishes a revenue floor below which we cannot permit revenues to fall without an amendment to this resolution. It carries no recommendation respecting the composition of the program which is necessary to achieve these aggregates. The aggregates assume wide latitude for the taxwriting and appropriation committees of the Senate, and Senate action accordingly.
I think it is important to set straight the public record on this point. Some have suggested that because we agreed to a revenue floor that accommodates the tax rebate plan proposed by the President, the Senate has already set its feet in concrete on the one-shot tax rebate approach to fiscal stimulus.
This argument goes on to say that since Congress has locked itself into a rebate approach, the work of the Finance Committee is bound to be perfunctory and pro forma in writing the implementing legislation.
This thinking, in my judgment, betrays a complete misunderstanding both of the congressional budgetary process and of the function of the authorizing and appropriating committees in the legislative process.
Congressional consideration of the budget resolution is not a forum — I emphasize that, is not a forum — for dealing specifically with the issue of tax rate cuts versus tax rebates.
Let us see that in the other body, where this issue was raised on the theory that the budget resolution was the proper vehicle to determine this question, the motion failed, as indeed it should have failed, because there was no opportunity to debate, after consideration in committee and the practical factual showing of the merits or demerits of given elements of the tax plan as contained in the president's program and as contained in the program put out by the Senate Republicans.
The proper time and forum to deal with these issues are when the individual pieces of implementing legislation come before us, and that is the way in which the Senate Republicans decided they would like to present that issue to the Senate, and that is the way, as I have the honor to be the chairman of the subcommittee that drafted this program, with the enormous help of Senator DOMENICI, Senator McCLURE, Senator CURTIS, and other Senators, and Senator BELLMON, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, that we have decided we wish to and will place this issue before the Senate.
It is for that reason, Mr. President, in connection with my affirmative vote on this conference report that I wish to make this statement to the Senate. I hope very much this will be absorbed and considered by those who educate the country on this subject, and also by those who report the facts on the subject.
The fact is the Republican side has given up nothing in terms of presenting, working for, and pushing every element of its program respecting fiscal stimulus, with special reference to permanent tax cuts instead of pep pill, quickie rebates, which we reject.
There is one other point regarding these deliberations that warrants particular attention. The congressional budget process, established under the provisions of Public Law 93-344, is in its early stages, but is rapidly moving toward full development. The legislation under consideration today, the third budget resolution for fiscal year 1977, sets a significant precedent. It reflects the capacity of the budget process to respond to major adjustments in the assumptions and anticipated economic developments underlying resolutions formulated earlier in the year.
Moreover, the third resolution, as formulated, does indeed provide a broad fiscal framework in which more specific decisions will be made by other committees with relevant jurisdictions, as well as the full Senate and House.
In this respect, the fiscal year 1977 third budget resolution, I believe, appropriately represents the purposes of the budget process, and reflects very well the efforts of the committee. I commend Senator MUSKIE, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator BELLMON, ranking minority member, along with all committee members as well as the committee's staff for their dedicated efforts in developing this fiscal year 1977 third budget resolution.
Mr. President, if I may, I now yield to Senator BELLMON.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I would like to assure the distinguished Senator from New York that I share the understanding of the third budget resolution he has detailed. I would add that, during the Budget Committee’s deliberations, there was considerable discussion of the probable effectiveness of various tax reduction programs and other means of stimulating the economy.
Strong and persuasive arguments were made by Members who favor the tax rate reduction approach in which the Senator from New York has indicated a strong interest. It was the committee's decision that these could not be resolved under the circumstances peculiar to this third resolution. As the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has indicated this afternoon, even though the Ways and Means Committee has already acted on a specific tax legislation proposal with a revenue impact different than allowed in the Senate resolution, the Senate position was sustained in conference in order to allow the flexibility on this matter originally recommended by the Senate Budget Committee and also understood by the Senate.
I congratulate the Senator from New York for laying this matter clearly before the Senate, as he has just done. I fully agree with his position. There is room in this resolution for discussion of the various possibilities for economic stimulus, and it will be up to the full Senate to decide which way we wish to go.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may I ask if Senator MUSKIE will be kind enough to yield a little time to my colleague, as I have to rush to another meeting.
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course. I yield the Senator whatever time he wishes. Five minutes?
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico.
Does the Senator from Idaho, Mr. President, want 5 minutes? I then yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I join with our ranking Republican, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON), in commending the senior Senator from New York for clearly stating the issue with reference to whether or not stimulus packages different from those proposed or that proposed by the President will fit in this third concurrent resolution. In fact, I would add my word to the good Senator from New York and put it precisely in terms of votes.
I say to my good friend from New York that if Senators are disposed to vote for the third concurrent resolution or this conference report they clearly could vote against a stimulus package that was predominantly rebates. They have not in any way indicated that they favor rebates.
Second, they could support this conference and the third concurrent resolution and, in fact, could in committee or on the floor support by affirmative votes a stimulus package that contained no rebates at all and contained other options, such as significant permanent tax cuts for working men and women in America, for small business, and any other kind of tax stimuli so long as they fit within the broad parameters and, I say to the good Senator from New York, they will, indeed, accommodate the so-called Republican stimulus package with ease.
So I want him to know, as a member of the Budget Committee and as one who is on the conference, that I personally always had in mind accommodating options, recognizing only one significant proposition, and that is that this conference and third concurrent resolution does in fact contemplate a stimulus package; beyond that there is no proposition that says who, how it is made up, and what thrust it takes. There is as much flexibility within the revenue function and within two or three of the targeted areas. And I want the Senator to know that because he worked hard with many of us on that package and I would not want anyone to think that we do not leave the latitude for a good honest approach by Senators in committee and in the Chamber prior to its adoption.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield briefly, first, I thoroughly adopt those words as my own and, second, point out probably what will result, knowing this place as we do, is the degree of negativism. There will be some choice from our package, some choice from President Carter's package, and this leaves us perfectly free on the subject.
Mr. DOMENICI. I finish my few minutes on the floor by saying if we were to have a roll call vote on this I would vote no for the same reason, basically that I voted no and stated in the Chamber previous to the third concurrent resolution. I start with a proposition that a stimulus package is needed. I do not indicate my negative support or my failure to support this, because of the President's package at all, because it contains options that would permit one that I think I could support but, rather, I think that when you take the revenue picture and the various targets we have an excess of somewhere between $2 and $3 billion that we really do not need under present economic conditions in this country as part of a stimulus package. I personally do not want to leave that much latitude any more than I think the economic times really dictate and the experts, who I believe are correct, have indicated is appropriate.
So with that, Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for having raised this issue on what is intended to be contained within the parameters of the budget resolution.
I was not present when the third concurrent resolution passed the Senate last time, because the senior Senator from Idaho and myself were conducting hearings in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on the Teton Dam disaster. It was necessary that we be there, and the schedule would not permit that we be back in time to vote on that matter at that time.
I do not mean at this time to belabor the points that have been made already in regard to what can or cannot be included within the third concurrent resolution in subsequent action by Congress except for this point. First of all, I am not at all certain that people really understand what the function of the Budget Committee is and how the Budget Committee tries to limit itself to broad economic guidelines, leaving to the various committees the opportunity to make their own decisions as to what shall be done within those guidelines.
That has been criticized in the Chamber from time to time, and there are others, not in the Senate, who seem to misunderstand what we can and cannot do in the budget resolution.
The Senator from Maine has tried on a number of occasions to assure other members of other committees that the Budget Committee does not intend to preempt their authority or their responsibility about what we do in the budget resolution.
I think we should clearly understand that the tax writing committees in the House of Representatives and in the Senate have the primary responsibility to determine the composition of taxing measures, and that is not the responsibility of the Budget Committee. We have accommodated in this resolution either the rebate or the tax reduction of any other kind, whatever its nature may be. The figures allow that.
I do not understand, in my own mind, how we can call a transfer payment a revenue reduction but, nevertheless, we do for budgetary purposes. If we take money away from people who pay taxes and give it to people who do not pay taxes that does not seem to me to be a revenue reduction any more than any other expenditure is a revenue reduction. But, nevertheless, that is the way a transfer payment is carried within this budget resolution, so far as the rebate is concerned.
I think, too, that we ought to underscore at this time the necessity or the feeling of necessity for a stimulus package. I for one am not convinced that a massive stimulus is necessary. Had I been here when this measure was before the Senate on its last passage I would have voted against the resolution. If a roll call is called on this matter today I will vote against passage of the conference report for the same reasons.
I think if you look at the composition of unemployment you will see very clearly that the unemployment that will be stimulated or assisted by economic stimulus is a very small part of the 8 percent of the total unemployment. Only about 11/2 percentage points out of that 8 percent will be helped at all by a more vibrantly growing economy. That leaves 61/2 percent of unemployment at best if this stimulus package works and without terribly damaging inflationary pressures. So I think that we must go beyond simply looking at an 8 percent unemployment figure and saying we have to stimulate the economy. We also have to find out why the unemployment rates are as high as 8 percent, what portion of that will be helped by a stimulus package, and how we focus on the remainder of unemployment in this country.
The startling fact is that the 16 to 19 year old age group is only 10 percent of our work force, but it constitutes 25 percent of our unemployment. If you broaden that age group through age 24 those 16 to 24 in our labor force are only 25 percent of our labor force, but they are fully 50 percent of unemployment. And those people will not be helped significantly by simply stimulating the economy. It has to have a more measured, precise, and directed response to that problem. We cannot pour enough money into the top of this system, hoping it will trickle down to the young in our society and somehow help them without creating such massive inflation. In order to accomplish that we would have destroyed what we were trying to protect and enhance.
So I think we have to look at the unemployment statistics. We have to look at whether or not a stimulus is necessary. We have to look at the kind of nature of that stimulus. And I would underscore what the Senator from New Jersey said earlier that this is an accommodating package, that this allows things to be done. It does not direct what things should be done except within general areas of the budget, and that is what a budget resolution is supposed to do. Congress will still have to make the decisions that have to be made later on.
The third resolution for fiscal year 1977 made many of the easy decisions. We made room for tax cuts and to increase the spending. The tough decisions are ahead, not only in specific action of this Congress, but I think perhaps even more so in the first resolution in fiscal year 1978 if we are to demonstrate fiscal responsibility. I know that the Senator from Maine, the Senator from Oklahoma, the Senator from New Mexico, and others will be working in that just as the Senator from New York did in trying to present something to the Republican conference that will illustrate what we believe are the right answers.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SPARKMAN) . The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I expect there will be a vote very shortly, but I gather there will be no requirement or no request for a roll call vote. The issues that the Senate is considering in this conference report are so close to the decisions that we faced when the resolution was before us out in the committee, so there seems no need to ask for a roll call vote on it at this point.
I say in response to my good friend from Idaho and the distinguished Senator from New Mexico as well as my good friend, the ranking Republican member of the committee, Senator BELLMON, it is terribly important that this budget process continue to have broad support in both Houses of Congress; that it not become an instrument for the majority party or the target of the minority party; finally, that it provide flexibility with respect to the consideration and determination of specific issues and specific priorities within a broad framework so that the creative and innovative capabilities of all our colleagues may be brought into play as we write the public policies which will govern us for the budget year in question.
I think we have done that here. There will be times when there will be a more specific consensus within the committee about the terms of a budget resolution, but even then, that consensus will commend itself only as a recommendation to the body as a whole. I wish there were more of that in this resolution, but the fact is that there are differences of view, and I think healthy differences of view with respect to the specific tax changes that we ought to consider to stimulate the economy and the specific programs that we should have to target on structural unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment.
There will be ample opportunity under this conference report for Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to develop their own ideas in these and other less critical respects. Having said that, Mr. President, I am happy to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today, one important point in consideration of the budget resolution is retaining budget authority for a change in the taxation of sick pay. Thirty-one Members have joined as cosponsors to my legislation — S. 4 — which delays the effective date of the sick pay provisions. These include:
Senators ALLEN, BAYH, BROOKE, BURDICK, CHILES, DOMENICI, DURKIN, EAGLETON, HANSEN, HASKELL, HATFIELD, HATHAWAY, HELMS, HOLLINGS, HUDDLESTON, HUMPHREY, JOHNSTON, LAXALT, MCCLURE, MCGOVERN, MORGAN, NUNN, PELL, RANDOLPH, RIBICOFF, ROTH, SARBANES, SCHMITT, SCOTT, THURMOND, and WILLIAMS.
Before October 4, 1976, when the Tax Reform Act became law, an employee who retired on disability or was off the job for an extended period due to ill health could exclude from Federal taxation up to $100 per week or $5,200 per year in sick pay benefits. Sick pay is the designation for the money that a worker who has been the victim of illness or serious personal injury receives under a wage continuation plan. The tax reform bill repealed this exclusion retroactively to January 1, 1976, except for persons who are permanently and totally disabled.
As a result of the retroactivity, many taxpayers who received excludable sick pay during 1976 are now faced with greatly increased tax liability on April 15. Most of our Nation's retired and disabled workers — who live on fixed incomes which are constantly being eroded by inflation — simply do not have the resources to pay the Government hundreds of dollars on such short notice. And I do not think they should have to.
But unless corrective legislation is passed, tens of thousands of retirees will be forced to make a large lump sum tax payment on April 15. For example, a retired couple with a taxable income of
$8,000, including the $5,200 in sick pay could have their tax bill increased by over $550.
S. 4 simply delays the change in the taxation of sick pay until January 1, 1977. No substantive alteration is made in the Tax Reform Act. The only change is the elimination of the unfair retroactive provision.
I agree with the hundreds of affected persons who have contacted my office since I introduced this legislation that it is unfair to completely alter a longstanding tax policy without any warning. I believe that Congress will agree that whatever the merits of the repeal of the sick pay exclusion, the injured, disabled, and retired workers of America deserve better treatment from their Government than they have received under the Tax Reform Act. I sincerely hope that every Member of this body will assist me in gaining rapid consideration and passage of this bill. If thousands of retired Americans are to be relieved of the unfair imposition of this retroactive tax, we must act soon. I am certain the 31 Members who have cosponsored S. 4 agree with me.
It is necessary that we retain sufficient flexibility in the budget resolution to cover the cost of this bill. Both the Senate Budget Committee and the full House have agreed that funds are available for this purpose.
While the House Ways and Means Committee has scheduled hearings on this matter for March 21, it is not clear — in view of the rapidly approaching date for filing of tax returns — that this bill will be the most expeditious course. It may be more desirable to include S. 4 as part of some measure further along in the legislative process. However, the vehicle for passage is not of concern at this time. The major point which I wish to emphasize today is that we affirm the position of the Senate Budget Committee and have the funds available for use in alleviating the unfair and unexpected tax burden on thousands of disabled retirees.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All remaining time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the conference report was agreed to.
Mr. BELLMON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON) on having done the usual splendid, dedicated, effective job that they have demonstrated time and time again that they are able to do with the support of their fine committee on this most complex matter.
I feel that such tribute as I have spoken falls short of the eloquence that I would like to bring to bear on this matter, but I feel that it is justified that they be recognized for the fine piece of work they have done.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank my good friend the majority leader. I thank him especially for the steadfast support that he has given this process over the 2 years that we have been working on it. Especially this year, now that he has become the majority leader, I am most grateful for his support, and hope we can look forward to the continuation of that healthy relationship.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I wish to join in those comments. The budget process, if it is to survive, will certainly require the support of the full Senate, and especially the leadership, and the support of the majority leader is most welcome.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, the budget process would not have succeeded thus far, and I seriously doubt that it would have survived, had it not been for the exemplary leadership shown by the committee chairman, the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), and the ranking minority member the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON). If it is to continue to survive, it will have to continue to have such outstanding leadership as these two gentlemen, one on each side of the aisle, have shown in such a fine bipartisan spirit. I commend them for it.