September 9, 1977
Page 28458
Mr. CURTIS. May I have some time off the bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator, there is not much time left on the bill, because time on these amendments comes out of the time on the bill. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator out of my time on this amendment.
Mr. CURTIS. I appreciate that, but I do not want to deprive the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, I am not going to use it all.
Mr. CURTIS. We need the time because we do not have the votes. If you can give me some votes, I would give up my request for the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would assume that in giving the Senator more time, I am giving him the equivalent of votes.
Mr. CURTIS. The Senator leaves me speechless.
Revisions of eligibility and grant formula in reference to persons with high outside income, specifically changing the present "$30⅓" income disregards, 4 month rule, and insertion of a gross income ceiling in our welfare program would result in a saving of $1 billion.
Elimination of voluntarily unemployed persons from caseloads, and other inappropriate beneficiaries such as students, strikers, and illegal aliens, $200 million.
Strengthened work requirements, such as mandated job search and community work experience programs, $200 million.
More aggressive fraud control efforts, including photo identification and access to records for cost checking, $100 million.
Enhanced quality control performance, including tolerance levels and rewards and penalties based thereon, $600 million.
Improved child support performance through parent locator service and State use of child support incentive payments, $200 million.
Resource utilization changes, such as pro rata reductions when a welfare family lives with a noneligible caretaker, or two welfare families live together, $100 million.
That totals $2.4 billion, under the welfare program.
Under food stamps — and these are amendments I have already offered on the floor:
Gross eligibility ceiling at poverty index plus $100 standard deduction would save $700 million, and it would not take food away from one hungry person in this country.
Revision in purchase requirement to reflect consumer expenditure survey on what families normally spend for food, $500 million.
Strengthened assets test — there is none in the law now. There is no assets test on food stamps, $300 million.
Strengthened work requirements, as in AFDC, $200 million.
Elimination of inappropriate beneficiaries such as students, strikers, and aliens, $200 million.
Retrospective accounting, $800 million.That is a total of $2.7 billion.
Now, when we go overboard in some of these programs, it automatically makes people eligible for medicaid. Automatic savings in eligibility and benefits by AFDC reforms and those in SSI as they occur, $1 billion saved in medicaid — not from taking it away from the needy, but from those who should not have it.
Oh, I wish that great and powerful Budget Committee would turn their attention to reducing the cost of Government by attacking the job of too many programs and too big items in here, rather than assuming it cannot be done.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I am happy to.
Mr. BELLMON. I believe the Senator will agree with me that these programs to which the Senator refers are entitled programs, that are put in place by the authorizing committees and put in place by the full Congress. There is no way the Budget Committee can change the law.
Mr. CURTIS. That is correct.
Mr. BELLMON. We tried, 2 years ago,to get the Finance Committee to change the law to the extent of $2 billion, and we got into all kinds of trouble with the Finance Committee chairman and the ranking minority member of that committee.
There is no way the Budget Committee can change the law. We have to make room in our resolution for what the law requires.
Mr. CURTIS. But there is a way in which you can recommend changes in the law and report to the Senate as to what would be saved.
The reference the Senator made was in reference to the Budget Committee's effort to determine the details of the tax laws.
Mr. BELLMON. That is what the Senator is suggesting now, that we determine the entitlement programs.
Mr. CURTIS. No, that you bring in a budget that says that if Congress changes the law and cuts these programs by a certain amount, we could reduce expenditures by that amount.
Mr. MUSKIE. But, if the Senator will yield, all we did on the tax bill was to provide $2 billion of tax expenditure reductions, and we got nowhere with the Finance Committee.
Mr. BELLMON. And you interpreted that as an unjustified encroachment by the Budget Committee on your jurisdiction.
Mr. CURTIS. Well, I think it was.
Mr. BELLMON. Other committees would feel the same way.
Mr. CURTIS. You did not bring it in as a recommendation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course we did. It was in the committee report.
Mr. CURTIS. No, you brought it in as something to be accomplished by your action.
Mr. MUSKIE. But you, just a moment ago, voted for a similar thing. You voted for an $11.4 billion tax cut, which, if included in the resolution, would mean we as a committee would have mandated that the Finance Committee change the tax law. Now, you objected to that last year; yet you voted for it just a few minutes ago.
Mr. CURTIS. No, no; I concede to the Budget Committee the right to set levels.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is what we did last year and this year.
Mr. CURTIS. Not to write the details of tax law.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator from Nebraska has expired. We are now on the time of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. On the assumption that I took at least 2 minutes of that time, I yield the Senator from Nebraska 2 additional minutes.
Mr. CURTIS. The Senator is most gracious. I thank the Senator.
I reiterate, I appreciate the gift of time and I would appreciate much more his gift of some votes.
Here are the ways we can save this money: under SSI, improved quality control, performance, and tolerance levels, $200 million.
Mr. BELLMON. If the Senator will yield, SSI is the responsibility of the Finance Committee.
Mr. CURTIS. Yes.
Mr. BELLMON. If the Finance Committee will make provision for those savings, I assure the Senator the Budget Committee will accommodate those savings.
Mr. CURTIS. All I am reading from is the pending legislation of the Senator from Nebraska.
In the food stamp items which I have read, it would bring about a reduction of $2.7 billion. As I recall, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma attempted to help me on some of those. I appreciated that very much. I did not get any help from the majority members of the Budget Committee.
My complaint against the tax activity of the Budget Committee is two fold. I might as well lay it out in the open.
One is I do not think it is their purpose to determine the details of the tax program but to set levels.
Second, I think they have added to an erroneous contention in this country. That is that if we just make some change called tax reform there would be plenty of money for everything. That perhaps was not intended, but the country gets that idea. The only way we can have any relief is to reduce expenditures, and the only way we can reduce expenditures is to reduce the size of the welfare state. We have to choose in this country between the welfare state and our present economic system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional time has expired.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank my distinguished friend for yielding the time.
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Will the Senator yield for a brief moment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, there are a couple of clerical errors in the amendment I submitted. I would like to correct those. I send a corrected copy of the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
On page 1, line 7, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$383,600,000,000". On page 1, line 9, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$12,000,000,000". On page 1, line 11, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$489,800,000,000". On page 2, line 2, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$448,300,000,000". On page 3, line 17, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$6,600,000,000".
On page 3, line 18, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$9,000,000,000".
On page 3, line 21, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$22,100,000,000".
On page 3, line 22, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$22,400,000,000".
On page 4, line 3, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$174,300,000,000".
On page 4, line 4, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$142,100,000,000".
On page 4, line 16, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$8,600,000,000".
On page 4, line 17, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$8,700,000,000".
On page 4, line 22, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$400,000,000".
On page 4, line 23, delete the numeral and insert in lieu thereof "$500,000,000".
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I would like to include Senator HELMS and Senator CURTIS as additional cosponsors of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, this amendment includes the Roth tax cut amendment which the Senate has just rejected. I believe the argument on that amendment was sufficiently comprehensive so it is not necessary to repeat the applicable elements of that argument on this amendment. I will address myself to the spending cuts proposed by the distinguished Senator from California, the principal sponsor of this amendment.
I would like to make the point, and I think it is a legitimate point, Mr. President, that both the Senator from California and the Senator from Nebraska yesterday voted to increase spending in the agriculture function by $700 million. The effect of that, of course, was to increase the deficit, to increase the debt, and make it more difficult to achieve a balanced budget.
I cite that not so much to needle these two Senators as to make the point that what the Budget Committee is faced with is to try to accommodate the views of 100 Senators, the views of all authorizing committees, and the views of the Appropriations Committee in undertaking to present a budget resolution to the Senate.
The Senator from Nebraska chose to describe the deficit in this budget resolution as something we recommended on its own merits. That deficit is the product, may I remind Senators, of the program spending that is contained in the resolution, all of which is a reflection of recommendations by Senate committees, and we did not provide in the budget resolution all that all authorizing committees requested.
So the Budget Committee does not initiate spending. It simply responds to requests for spending and has done so with restraint. It has done so by adjusting total requests. The deficit numbers that come out are the mathematical result of those decisions.
When we come to the floor and the Senate, as a whole, adds to that spending, who is responsible for that? The Budget Committee?
This amendment is offered on the assumption that spending cuts are easy. Well, if spending cuts in other programs are easy, may I ask the Senator from California, why did he not demonstrate that yesterday by voting against a specific spending increase? Each of these proposals has a constituency. That one had a farm constituency. But there are other constituencies across the country. Each of them watch what we do. When a vote like yesterday is taken and carried, then these other constituencies say, "Why can't we have more?" So the city people come in and they want more. The jobless come in and they want more. The veterans come in and they want more. Everybody wants more.
The Senator from Louisiana, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, is fond of saying that from his cynical point of view — and he is not necessarily cynical but sort of pragmatic — that the rule with respect to new taxes is "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the fellow behind the tree."
Well, we could apply that here. "Don't cut you. Don't cut me. Cut the fellow behind the tree."
Yesterday, I take it the Senator from California and the Senator from Nebraska voted to cut the fellow behind the tree. Now the Senator from California has identified the people he sees behind the tree in the proposed cuts he has offered. That is the situation in which we find ourselves.
Let me say this about the second budget resolution: The Budget Committee, in considering the second resolution, engaged in careful deliberation on spending for social programs as well as all other programs in the budget. As a matter of fact, the second resolution represents cuts in social programs and an increase in the agricultural function of $1.25 billion, which was made possible by cuts in social programs. That is what happened in the second concurrent resolution.
In fact, the functional totals in this resolution are equal to or less than the first resolution targets for all human resources functions.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a table showing spending totals for the human resources functions in the first and second budget resolutions. The net result is a reduction in budget authority for those purposes of $2.3 billion, and a reduction in outlays for those purposes of $1 billion.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Thus, the second resolution for social spending is tighter than the Congress agreed to last spring. Almost all the 1978 spending, may I say in addition, is contained in bills the Senate has already passed. What the Senator is proposing is to cut spending which is already a part of law. Almost all the supplementals assumed in the second resolution, such as for forward funding of CETA public service jobs, were assumed in the first resolution as well. The second resolution also anticipates enactment of savings legislation in the health and income security functions.
With the economic recovery still far from complete, it would be poor timing, Mr. President, for Congress to reduce spending below the levels Congress adopted earlier in the year.
Unemployment remains over 7 percent. Unemployment of blacks has actually surged upward to 14.5 percent. President Carter has expressed concern about the need to ameliorate this situation.
To suggest budget cuts in job creation programs and in programs designed to alleviate human suffering is to suggest a completely inappropriate course of action, a course contrary to both Presidential and congressional policy up to now.
Further, Mr. President, in order to implement the budget cuts in these functions proposed by the Senator from California, we would have to have a rescission of about $9 billion of actions already completed or under way in the Senate.
In other words, we would have to undo what has already been done as the result of the appropriations process and by the Senate and the Congress as a whole if we were to adopt this. We would have to encourage the President to rescind actions already taken in order to implement that.
I ask unanimous consent that a table illustrating this impact 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. Mr. President, this act would bear heavily on the States and local governments who are already budgeting the general revenue sharing and countercyclical funds which are now law. Congress would have to rewrite the law and take back this money just 3 weeks before the start of the fiscal year, totally disrupting the budget process in these localities.
I also note, Mr. President, that the reduction of the announced Federal pay raise which is proposed by this amendment, would, again, require amendment to existing law and would work a severe hardship on loyal Federal employees who are counting on these funds to meet the rising cost of living.
More than that, the Senator's amendment treats different classes of Federal civilian employees differently from others. It would not apply to DOD civilian Federal employees. It would apply only to non-DOD civilian employees, thus creating an inequity, for which I have heard no justification whatsoever.
Mr. President, there is only one way to deal with the kind of responsibilities that Congress faces when it considers the priorities of Federal spending. That is to do what we now do in the Budget Committee and in authorizing committees: Consider, program by program, service by service, the requirements; hold them down to the minimum that our judgment tells us is needed to meet real problems; and then act, on the basis of that selective judgment, to determine what resources should be made available to meet these program needs. To come in here and, without that kind of consideration, just propose arbitrary cuts, many of which would require changes in existing law which the Budget Committee cannot make, which the Senate has not indicated a disposition to make, is simply unreal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Twelve minutes remain.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 more minutes.
With respect to the proposals of the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, I will say that, every time he has made his opposition to budget resolutions known, he has offered his own specific ideas as to how it can be done. He handed to me a 2 page list of proposals dealing with several welfare programs. I am happy to ask unanimous consent to have that list printed in the RECORD so that the record may reveal he has presented them to me.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Billion
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(from S. 1719, Curtis-Duncan, National Welfare Reform Act of 1975) :
Revisions in eligibility and grant formula re persons with high outside in
come (change in "$30 and ⅓ income disregards, four-month rule, and
insertion of gross income ceiling) $1.0
Elimination of voluntary unemployed persons from caseloads (and other
inappropriate beneficiaries, e.g., students, strikers, illegal aliens) .2
Strengthened work requirements, such as mandated job search and
community work experience programs .2
More aggressive fraud control efforts, including photo identification and
access to records, for cross checking .1
Enhanced quality control performance, including tolerance levels and
rewards and penalties based thereon .6
Improved child support performance, through Parent Locator Service and
state use of child support incentive payments .2
Resource utilization changes, such as pro rata reductions when welfare
family living with non-eligible caretaker to two welfare families living
together .1
Total 2.4
Food Stamps (S. 1993, Buckley-Michel, National Food Stamp Reform Act of 1975;
reflects Curtis amendments rejected in Senate Agriculture Committee and on floor) :
Gross eligibility ceiling at poverty index plus $100 standard deduction .7
Revision in purchase requirement to reflect Consumer Expenditure Survey
on what families normally spend for food .5
Strengthened assets test .3
Strengthened work requirements, as in AFDC .2
Elimination of inappropriate beneficiaries (students, strikers, aliens) .2
Retrospective accounting .8
Total 2.7
MEDICAID
Automatic savings in eligibility and benefits as AFDC reforms (and those
in SSI) occur 1.0
SSI
Improved quality control performance, with tolerance levels and more
accurate redetermination .2
Total 1. 2
Grand total $6.3
Of the above amount, 50% of the AFDC savings are state-county.
Deduct from total 1.2
Net 5.1
Income Security 4. 1
Health 1. 0
Mr. MUSKIE I say, Mr. President, commenting on these items generally, and I shall look at them specifically when I have the opportunity to do so, that we have asked the Committee on Finance, for example, to save $300 million in health and $300 million in income security spending. I understand that the chairman of the Committee on Finance feels that this amount of savings for fiscal 1978 may be impossible. If that is his judgment, it is an important judgment. He is the chairman of the committee which can recommend legislation to effect the changes. If that committee finds it difficult to do, I fail to understand how the Budget Committee can do so.
Incidentally, with respect to the tax issue which the Senator from Nebraska has raised, there was nothing in last year's budget resolution detailing the tax reforms that the Budget Committee thought needed to be achieved. We said that tax reforms raising a certain total amount of revenue seemed to be a reasonable budget goal in the public interest. We left it to the tax writing committee and to Congress as a whole to determine the details. We did not. We subsequently voted individually as Senators on specific tax reform proposals, but the Budget Committee never recommended a detailed tax reform proposal and never would. We do not regard that as our responsibility.
In the same way, we do not regard it as our responsibility — though some of us might welcome it if we were to be perfectly frank — we would not even try to impinge on committee responsibilities to detail program changes.
We are not that kind of committee, we were not given that kind of authority. That is why the law says that, by March 15, other committees will report to us so that we can have the benefit of their judgments. We depend a great deal upon those judgments and will continue to do so. But, then, when we are criticized because we did not assume the jurisdictional authority of these other committees to be detailed and to be specific, I have to remind Senators that that is not the nature of our present jurisdiction and authority.
With that. Mr.,President, I urge rejection of this amendment.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator yield for a second?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to my good friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. I wonder if the chairman of the Budget Committee remembers, as I do, that in 1977, when the budget resolution came from our committee, we anticipated a $500 million savings in the food stamps, AFDC, and social security programs, and we got nothing, exactly zero.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. BELLMON. I am curious as to why the Senator from Nebraska, who is on the Finance Committee which has jurisdiction over those programs, or many of them, was not able to help us out in achieving these savings we asked for. The simple action of the Budget Committee does not produce the savings. It takes the actions of the authorizing committees to accomplish the savings that the Budget Committee anticipates.
Mr. CURTIS. I think I have.
Mr. BELLMON. The savings were not realized.
Mr. CURTIS. Oh, no. I have only one vote there. But I offered to the Senate the opportunity to reduce the agricultural budget by $2 billion.
Mr. BELLMON. What happened to the$500 million that the Budget Committee asked the Finance Committee to accomplish in the AFDC and social security programs? Did the Finance Committee bring forth a detailed proposal?
Mr. CURTIS. I supported it.
Mr. BELLMON. The Senator from Nebraska is asking the Budget Committee to make certain savings. We asked for these savings and the Finance Committee did not respond.
Mr. CURTIS. As to the items on these entire 2 pages, I have voted for every one of these.
Mr. BELLMON. That is the action of the Senator from Nebraska. I am asking what the Finance Committee did to support the Budget Committee request for this saving? The saving was anticipated in our 1977 budget resolution and nothing happened.
Mr. CURTIS. I can only answer for one member of the Committee on Finance. It does not require much research for me to assure the Senator that what I am saying is correct, because I am against the welfare state and voted against the creation and expansion of practically all of them.
Mr. BELLMON. Let me ask the Senator a further question.
In the 1978 budget, the Budget Committee wanted a $800 million savings in health care, plus a $600 million saving in welfare programs. This totals $1.4 billion. Are we going to get that from the Committee on Finance?
Mr. CURTIS. May I ask this: Was it included in the Budget Committee estimate that the administration's recommendation is that we just put a ceiling on the amount of increase in hospital care, if that were included? That is purely a demagogic proposal, without any substance, and cannot work.
Mr. BELLMON. The Budget Committee does not have the responsibility nor the authority for detailing what savings should be made. We simply asked that the Finance Committee save $800 million in health care and $600 million in welfare.
Does the Finance Committee have a proposal for that saving?
Mr. CURTIS. The Senator from Nebraska, as one member of the Finance Committee, has a proposal now before the Finance Committee that would save $1 billion in health programs.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, I understand what the Senator's own personal preferences would be and what he would write into law if he had sufficient votes and authority.
But the Budget Committee has to deal with what the committee process produces in this Senate. We cannot write the Senator from Nebraska's budget resolution. We have to write a resolution, that reflects the consensus of the Senate committees in the Senate.
For example, authorizing committees this year asked us to provide a total of $540.9 billion in budget authority. We provided $39.7 billion less than that.
Authorizing committees requested a total in outlays of $474.4 billion. We provided $15.4 billion less than that.
We do our best to exert downward pressure on the requests of committees, on the Senate's inclination to increase spending from time to time — as we did yesterday — and often without success — as yesterday — and the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from California voted against the Budget Committee yesterday.
Mr. CURTIS. No. I offered amendments here on the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am talking about yesterday's vote, which was the vote that decided the issue.
What the Senator offers that he does not get support for in his committee is something different.
Yesterday, we had a specific issue which was going to determine whether or not this budget resolution authorized an additional $700 million in spending and the Senator from Nebraska voted for the spending.
That tells me a lot more than some bill the Senator introduced that did not get enough votes to pass. Yesterday's action passed. It became the official action of the Senate.
Both my friends, the Senator from California and the Senator from Nebraska. voted for it. That is their prerogative. All I am saying is that other Senators vote their prerogatives, too, and we cannot control their votes any more than we could control the Senator's votes yesterday.
Mr. CURTIS Well, the—
Mr. MUSKIE. If I may, I yielded 7 minutes to the Senator.
So the best we can do is try to exert downward pressure on everybody, try to insure that the right priorities are reflected, and are the reflection of the consensus in the Senate. Then when we come to the floor we are told from time to time, "Mr. Chairman, you're not meeting the responsibilities of the Budget Act, you're reporting deficits, you're reporting excessive spending."
I have not found many people in this Senate who are consistent in arguing that philosophy. When I find one, I am going to illuminate him. I do not find many who are consistent.
Mr. CURTIS. Will the Senator yield for 20 seconds?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. CURTIS. On the total votes on this floor on agriculture, I have voted for a net, not counting the increase I voted for yesterday, a net of $1.3 billion over what is in the budget, and the net vote is what counts.
Mr. MUSKIE. Over what is in the budget?
Mr. CURTIS. I voted for that much reduction.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the point is that the numbers in this budget resolution, and those who vote for them, are what opens the door to others to increase agricultural spending.
When we raise the ceiling on a function, we do not identify what the Senator would spend. We identify what the Congress as a whole is authorized to spend, and that is what was done yesterday.
Mr. CURTIS. It was very well identified.
Mr. MUSKIE. It was not. The budget resolution does not itemize programs.
Mr. CURTIS. No. Everybody knew this was not $700 million that we were trying to take out of the food stamp program. It was very well identified.
Mr. MUSKIE. It was well identified, but the numbers the Senator recommended for the budget resolution was not S. 275 that is coming up today. The numbers we put in the budget resolution yesterday are not earmarked for S. 275. They are earmarked for any spending in that function and food stamps do not happen to be in that function.
Mr. CURTIS. They are in the—
Mr. MUSKIE. But they are not in that function.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has expired. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add to the list of sponsors on my amendment the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. McCLURE).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified, of the Senator from California. The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas, 16, nays, 69, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]