November 4, 1977
Page 37197
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a statement by the distinguished Senator from Maine, Mr. MUSKIE.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE
As the Senate proceeds with debate on the Social Security financing bill, I would ask my colleagues to pause for a moment and reflect on the role of the budget process and the Budget Committee with respect to this legislation.
The bill reported from the Finance Committee is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to come to the Senate floor this session. The Social Security financing bill is intended to be the major piece of Social Security legislation for the balance of this century. It is undoubtedly the most significant Social Security bill considered since the creation of the Social Security system itself and its economic and fiscal implications will have far reaching effects for the next thirty years.
It is deplorable that such a major piece of legislation would come to the Senate floor in the last hours of the session for debate with such little time for review and analysis. The bill itself did not become available until after debate on the measure had begun and the printed report was not available to members of the Senate until two days into the debate. This situation was most distressing to members of the Budget Committee and to the Senate as a whole.
Because I was necessarily absent for reasons of health, the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, has served as Acting Chairman of the Budget Committee during consideration of this measure. Let me say for myself and I am sure for the Senate as a whole, that we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for his able leadership of the committee on this very critical and complex legislation. Let me also pay tribute to the important role of the Ranking Minority Member of the Budget Committee, Senator BELLMON, whose wise counsel and support were essential during the debate on the Social Security bill.
I firmly believe that the Budget Committee has played an important role in permitting the Senate to proceed in a more orderly fashion and in assembling costly amendments relating to certain segments of the bill in one place for the Senate to consider and compare.
Mr. President, let me briefly summarize the involvement of the Budget Committee with this legislation and my assessment of the role of the budget process in the formulation of legislation.
The Finance Committee met Tuesday morning to report out the Social Security financing bill. At that time they reported a resolution to waive Section 303(a) of the Budget Act with respect to consideration of the Finance Committee bill, two alternative amendments to be offered by the Ranking Republican on the Committee, and five other amendments to be offered by Finance Committee members with respect to other provisions in the bill. This waiver was necessary to permit Senate consideration of the bill and the amendments thereto because they provided for increased revenues and new entitlements which first became effective in fiscal 1979, a fiscal year for which no First Budget Resolution has yet been adopted.
The Budget Committee staff had received an advanced copy of the bill the night before and was able to prepare for the membership a memorandum detailing the highlights of the bill. This memorandum served as a basis for a Committee meeting Tuesday afternoon to review the requested waiver. At that meeting, Committee members expressed strong reservations with respect to granting a waiver for costly amendments which would tie the hands of the Budget Committee and the Congress with respect to actions on revenues and entitlements in future years.
The Committee agreed to seek guidance from the Leadership and the chairman of the Finance Committee on these matters.
Senators Hollings, Cranston and Bellmon met with the distinguished Majority Leader, Senator Byrd, and the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Long, in an effort to reach agreement on the most orderly way to proceed with consideration of the request from the Finance Committee. It was suggested that the Finance Committee might report out separate waivers for the bill and any important amendments which members of the Finance Committee might seek to raise.
Wednesday morning the Finance Committee met at 9:00 a.m. and reported out a waiver with respect to the bill itself and two alternative amendments from the Ranking Minority Member.
This waiver was considered by the Budget Committee within minutes of the conclusion of the Finance Committee meeting and was favorably reported to the full Senate within an hour. Later that day and early on Thursday, several individual Senators introduced waiver resolutions which were referred to the Budget Committee for consideration. Again, the Budget Committee arranged to meet in midafternoon to review the waiver requests transmitted by four senators. After a poll of the Committee which resulted in a tie vote with seven members voting to approve the waiver requests and seven members voting to disapprove the requests, the Committee reported the waiver resolutions back to the Senate without amendment or recommendation. Under these circumstances, it was left to the full Senate to act on these waiver requests. They were approved en bloc by a voice vote.
Looking at these events, I would draw the following conclusions which I would like to share with my Senate colleagues. First, I believe it is important that we understand that the Budget Committee and the budget process is not intended to obstruct the work of the Senate or in any way curtail prompt consideration of legislation. Rather, it is an important tool to aid informed Senate debate and consideration of important legislation.
Review by the Budget Committee of the legislation from the Finance Committee and costly amendments thereto permitted the Senate to proceed with a more orderly debate. The time needed for Budget Committee review and analysis permitted other Senators to examine more carefully the budgetary impact of the bill as reported from the Finance Committee and the report when it finally became available. Let me not be misunderstood, Mr. President. I believe that the Budget Committee acted with dispatch at every juncture. Its meetings were scheduled on short notice, with participation by the majority of the Committee in every decision that was made. Moreover, by grouping the amendments with respect to the earnings limitation in one place, the Budget Committee allowed the Senate to make important comparisons among alternative proposals with respect to this important issue.
Second, it is important to recognize that individual Senators with costly amendments worked closely with the Budget Committee to maintain the discipline of the budget process with respect to these amendments. Because of serious reservations with respect to the refundable tax credits for nonprofit organizations, Senators agreed to change the refundable tax credit to an appropriated payment or to establish a differentiation in the rate of tax in order to achieve the same objective.
From the standpoint of sound fiscal policy, the alternative formats allowed greater Congressional control and avoided the backdoor spending which the Budget Act was enacted to preclude. From a procedural standpoint, the alternative formats avoided the need for Budget Act waivers or for the raising of points of order on the floor.
In two other cases, individual senators agreed to modify their amendments so that new entitlements would not have increased outyear costs. These modifications obviated the need for Budget Act waivers and reduced the overall costs of these amendments.
Thirdly, the Finance and Budget Committees worked together very closely to examine the consequences for the federal budget of the legislation and the amendments thereto. It is no secret that the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana and I are not always in agreement as to the means to achieve sound fiscal policy. In this instance, however, we both agreed that a delay in changes in financing the Social Security system was essential to permit the economy adequate time to recover from the serious recession of the last few years.
In summary, the review by the Budget Committee of the bill and its amendments permitted the entire Congress more time to examine closely this legislation which will set the pattern for all Social Security payments and taxes for the next quarter century. If this were the only thing we achieved, we could be justly proud. But I firmly believe that we have done more than that. The Committee and the process are still alive and well. The budget process has served the Senate and other committees as a means to examine and to compare costs of one provision against another.
Reflection and comparison is critically important if the Congressional budget process is to establish a sound fiscal policy and to project Congressional needs and priorities for the coming fiscal year.
We do not lightly waive the constraints of the Budget Act on future year spending. It is only in the most extraordinary cases that such waiver should be granted to permit consideration of a Committee's bill and amendments thereto on the Senate floor. In this case, the Budget Committee had earlier determined that a delay in financing in the Social Security system was essential to assure the sound economic footing of the country prior to the imposition of new payroll taxes.
With this understanding, we proceeded to consider closely the bill as reported from the Finance Committee and amendments thereto. The Budget Committee then acted favorably on the waiver request from the Finance Committee. Upon reviewing individual amendments which senators wanted to offer, the Committee was divided on a 7-7 vote and determined that it should report them back to the Senate without recommendation and permit the Senate to work its will on these waiver resolutions.
I hope in the future, Mr. President, that when a bill of this magnitude comes to the Senate that the Budget Committee will be permitted time to review it in a more deliberate fashion. Within the time constraints placed on the Budget Committee, I believe that the Committee did an outstanding job and provided a great service to the Senate and to the Congress in permitting the debate to focus on current, as well as out year implications for costly and controversial measures.
In closing, Mr. President, let me make it clear that the review of the Budget Committee is not intended to pass judgment on the substance of any amendment, or the legislation itself. The Budget Committee does not want to become a Rules Committee or an authorizing committee.
We view our role as simply that of a watchdog for the Congress in reviewing the budgetary impact in both the short and long term of all important legislation which the Congress must consider. It is on those grounds, and those grounds alone, that our decisions must be made. If we are not free to exercise this responsibility without undue pressure from other members of this body, then the role of the Committee is subject to serious question.
But I believe that the debate of the last several days has shown that the Budget Committee serves an important purpose. The Budget process is working and the Senate is conscious of the need for sound, orderly debate on matters of significant budgetary and economic impact.
For myself, Mr. President, I must say that I am sorely distressed that the cost of the Social Security bill has risen so markedly during this debate. We now find that this bill could exceed the Finance Committee's allocation under the budget resolution by more than half a billion dollars.
I certainly favor the Social Security system as an insurance system for older Americans and fully support legislation to restore the program to fiscal soundness. But the adoption of costly and unsound floor amendments has produced a bill that is fiscally irresponsible. For these reasons, Mr. President, I cannot support this bill and would vote against it if I were present.