March 21, 1978
Page 7761
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
I thought the Senate might like to know the perception that some people outside this Chamber have of what goes on here. I just read in the press that my ACA rating — that is the rating by the Americans for Constitutional Action — was 13 percent last year. I stood on this floor in the last 3 years, opposing and voting against proposals that will breach the budget, and people in this body have voted to breach the budget who have a much better ACA rating than I do. I am a little curious as to what it is all about. So as sort of an exercise in amusement, I have prepared a table here that I might call the Muskie Rating System.
Last year, there were 11 key votes involving the first budget resolution. The Budget Committee lost 8 of those 11 here, in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the table indicating those votes, without the names of Senators, 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 have another table to accompany that. We have analyzed the votes of every Senator with respect to those 11 key votes. Anybody looking over this list will quickly note that a substantial majority of Senators voted against the budget resolution more often than they voted for it. There are two notable exceptions, Senator BELLMON and myself. I ask unanimous consent that that table, without the names of Senators, 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 shall strike the names of Senators so that Members may look at this survey dispassionately. If they can identify their own place in the table, that is fine. If not, we shall be glad to supply them with the information.
Why do I refer to this sort of thing? Mr. President, frankly, I think we set something in motion last year and we are adding momentum to that motion here today, that can destroy the budget process. If all we need to breach our own targets is a constituency out in the country, there are plenty of them: In the field of education, the field of health, the senior citizens, veterans — you all know who they are. We can set the example for them here in the way we do this — and there is no doubt in my mind what we are going to do this afternoon — we are going to vote for this package of unanalyzed, undigested, inconsistent proposals, for only one reason. We all know what the reason is.
Do you not suppose that other constituencies are watching? Or, if they are not watching, that they will not quickly learn how to do it for themselves? Do we think this is the only budget function that is vulnerable to that kind of pressure? If you do, you are more naive than a U.S. Senator ought to be.
I told the Senate earlier this morning that the deficit for 1979, if we are to look only to the recommendations of the Appropriations Committee and the Committee on Finance, is going to be $80 billion in 1979, and that does not include this legislation. The Budget Committee has already lost 1 vote today to add to the 11 last year. Now it is 12 votes, of which we have lost 9. We are going to lose at least 2 more this afternoon, so it will be 11 out of 14. As we build up momentum behind our notion that whenever — whenever — there is a loud enough voice and an urgent enough problem raised back home, we are going to breach the budget, the budget process is gone.
I would have supported Talmadge. I was prepared to support Talmadge even though it involved some budget problems.
One of the reasons was that the administration already has the authority to do what Talmadge would do. So we have provided the authority, the budget problems would have been procedural rather than substantive, in my judgment, and I think the problem the farmers face is urgent enough to justify that kind of action.
But now we are adding things we do not even have time to properly analyze.
I listened to the Senator from Kansas complaining about the CBO estimates. We created CBO, this Congress. For what reason? To give us our own analytical arm. We did not want to trust OMB. We did not want to trust the agencies downtown. We created our own.
What does the Senator from Kansas propose? That we brush CBO aside and create another independent arm of some kind.
I ask the Senator which is worse, to put estimates on the basis of the worst case or to put estimates on the basis of the best case?
The Senator is inclined to use the best case, the case that minimizes budget impact, the case that minimizes costs, and he says that CBO is biased the other way.
The second point I would make to the Senator from Kansas is, how in heaven's name — how in heaven's name — does he evaluate either the budget cost or the inflation cost of this three-headed monster? We have Talmadge, we have Dole, we have McGovern.
The Senator from Kansas was using the cost estimates of Dole standing alone. Well, I have some of those, but I do not regard mine as being relevant to this new package, and I am surprised if the Senator from Kansas thinks his are relevant to the new package.
The fact is that we do not have the facts on what this new package is going to cost. We do not have the facts on what its impact on inflation will be. We do not have the facts on what possible shortages may be stimulated by an overgenerous stimulus to farmers to withdraw land from production.
We do not know.
I do not care what the Senator from Kansas' estimates are on his bill. They are not relevant to this new package, and he knows it as well as I do.
There is not a Senator on this floor, including the chairman of the Budget Committee, who can tell any Senator who may inquire, "What is this going to cost, Mr. Chairman? What is the inflation impact going to be, Mr. Chairman? Will this result in too little production? Will it put us in a position to respond economically to a crop shortage this year, if it should happen?
If that should happen, as it did following 1972, what will happen to prices? How will that impact on cattle producers? We do not know.
So, out of the emotion of this emergency, we are going to do something without adequate information. Are we going to build up expectations of the farmers as to what we are doing for them? Are we going to mislead consumers about what we may be doing to them?Are we going to have an impact upon our potential agricultural exports upon which we depend for much of our foreign exchange earnings to pay for our oil? We do not know.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Two more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Should we not know things like that, I ask my colleagues, before we embark upon policy making of this quality?
The budget process is something more than holding a ceiling on costs. The budget process is supposed to provide us with information. I cannot see any hunger for information on the floor of the Senate this afternoon.
Mr. President, I am going to discuss estimates with respect to the Dole bill as it was, not because I think that is the kind of information we ought to have, but because it is the only information we do have. We ought to have better, and we ought to wait until we have better information. But no, we are not going to.
The troops are there. The vote was 58 to31. I doubt that it changes much. So the 58, having the votes, have the power. Because they have the power they are able to say that they are right and that we are wrong. As a matter of fact, we may be a little annoying because we raise these questions.
But I have raised them not just to agriculture programs, may I say to my good farm friends in the galleries, I have raised them all across the budget because I was charged 4 years ago to try to implement a system for disciplining the way in which we pay out taxpayers' dollars.
I do not seem to have much company this morning.
The Muskie survey is now in the RECORD. It will make interesting reading for a number of people.
May I say to the press, I will not supply the names of Senators.
Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator give mine?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of my time, for the time being, because I do want to go elsewhere, and discuss this with the Senator from Kansas, if there is some way we could.
Mr. DOLE. The Senator from Nebraska is willing to proceed for 10 minutes at this point. Would that give the Senator enough time?
Mr. MUSKIE. That will be convenient. I will come back at that time and we can continue the debate.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I am sure that by the time I use my 10 minutes, our beloved friend from Maine will think of something else to say. [Laughter.]
Mr. President, he is a very much loved Senator. He is honest. He speaks with conviction, and he is forceful. But, Mr. President, on the issue of the budget he is totally wrong.
Under his leadership as chairman of the Budget Committee, this country is headed further and further into debt, into larger and larger deficits.
What is it that is weighting the country down? It is the welfare state.
What is our Budget Committee doing about that under the leadership of the distinguished chairman? Nothing.
Take the budget for the Department of Agriculture in round figures. It is $14 billion. Who gets $9 billion of it? Welfare programs. Food stamps and related items.
I stood on this floor and offered amendment after amendment to take out the abuses of the food stamp program. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee opposed every one ofthem.
I am glad to say that not all the members of the Budget Committee did. The distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee supported amendments that would do what every American knows ought to be done — reduce the food stamp program.
Has the chairman of the Budget Committee ever come on this floor and asked us to do something about the $9 billion in welfare programs in the Agriculture Budget? No.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I will yield when I finish my statement.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator should review the record to find that, with respect to administration of the food stamp program, the Budget Committee did, indeed, urge the committee of jurisdiction, of which the Senator, I think, is a member, to reform the administration of the program to reduce the cost.
Second, the authorizing legislation originates not in the Budget Committee, which is not a legislative committee, but in the committee of which the Senator is a member. We cannot rewrite legislation. The best we can do is report to the Senate the budgetary consequences of the law as it is.
Mr. CURTIS. The Senator declines to yield further. I have only 10 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator referred to my name.