September 27, 1978
Page 31808
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the manager of the bill, the Senator from Washington.
Mr. President, before I address this amendment, let me put it in terms of the overall second concurrent budget resolution and this bill as a whole.
Last Saturday, Mr. President, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the second concurrent budget resolution. That followed action by the House of Representatives 2 or 3 days earlier which similarly overwhelmingly approved the second budget resolution. I take it from reactions that I heard on the Senate floor, as well as from the House, that that support reflected strong endorsement and approval of the fiscal restraint reflected in the second budget resolution. The net result of that restraint was a reduction of the deficit for fiscal year 1979 from the President's projected $60 billion in January to $38.8 billion in the second budget resolution.
That reduction was not done with mirrors. It had to be done by the very real exercise of restraint if we were to achieve that result which is consistent with the current economic situation in the country, consistent with the current mood of the voters and taxpayers of this country.
The bill that is before us is consistent with that overall context.
But before I say anything else, let me say that I support this bill. It represents a balanced policy of growth in vital programs and selected reductions consistent with the fiscal constraints imposed by the current economic situation.
H.R. 12929 as reported provides budget authority of $56.5 billion. Outlays associated with this bill total $63.3 billion, including $21.3 billion of outlays from prior-year authority. The bill is consistent both with the first budget resolution targets adopted last spring and with the second budget resolution ceilings adopted last week.
Under section 302(b) of the Budget Act, the Appropriations Committee divides among its subcommittees the total budget authority and outlays which it has been allocated under the budget resolution. Since the second concurrent resolution was just adopted last Saturday, the revised subcommittee allocations have not yet been made. However, the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has stated on numerous occasions that the committee fully intends to stay within the congressional budget. Based on our assessment of the reported bill and requirements remaining to be funded at a later date, we believe the subcommittee will be able to live within the second budget resolution ceilings. I would point out, however, that there is not likely to be room within the second budget resolution for any significant increases in the funding levels for programs included in the reported bill.
It is within the context of that conclusion that I address the amendment which is before us.
Our judgment that the bill is consistent with the second budget resolution ceilings takes into account possible later requirements for programs not included in this bill for lack of an authorization.
As a result of the Appropriations Committee policy of not appropriating funds for unauthorized programs, this bill excludes funding for several programs not yet authorized, such as CETA programs; certain education programs, including middle income tuition assistance; and grants to States for social services and vocational rehabilitation.
The Senate reported bill is below the administration's request primarily because the Senate bill does not include additional amounts for middle-income tuition assistance. The Senate bill is below the House-passed bill, again primarily due to middle-income tuition assistance.
The Appropriations Committee wisely deferred the funding decision for the middle-income tuition assistance proposal because the authorizing legislation has not yet been enacted and final action on the tuition tax credit legislation has not yet occurred. The Appropriations Committee, along with the Budget Committee, strongly believes that we cannot afford both proposals. Therefore, it has delayed consideration of funding for this program until final congressional action has been taken on these two divergent proposals.
While the conference agreement on the second budget resolution assumes appropriations of $1 billion for middle-income tuition assistance, the statement of managers says clearly,
The conferees believe that enactment of both a tuition tax credit and a college tuition assistance spending program would be inefficient and duplicative. The Congress should choose between these two proposals.
I urge Senators to support this bill as reported. I applaud Senator MAGNUSON's prudence and restraint in making the difficult funding choices required in these times.
I further urge Senators to follow Senator MAGNUSON's lead and exercise similar restraint with respect to programs not included in this bill to be considered for funding at a future date.
(At this point a unanimous-consent agreement was entered, and by unanimous consent the proceedings in connection therewith are printed later in today's RECORD.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am delighted to yield to the majority leader. I shall not take more than 4 or 5 minutes, perhaps not that long, to complete what I have to say on this amendment.
A moment ago, I made the point that, last Saturday, the Senate approved overwhelmingly and with more enthusiasm than I have noted in recent years the second concurrent budget resolution, principally because it reflected the exercise of real restraint in spending that enabled us to cut the deficit from a projected $60 billion in January, the President's budget request at that time, to $38.8 billion last Saturday. That kind of restraint is not done with mirrors; it reflects a tremendous effort, not only on the part of the Committee on the Budget but on the part of the Committee on Appropriations, as it has reported appropriations bills to the floor, to exercise real fiscal restraint.
With respect to the amendment before us, I say to the Senate that the Senate conferees on the second concurrent resolution specifically assumed the reduction in impact aid as reported by the senate Appropriations Committee in the pending bill. We did so on the basis of the action taken by the Senate Appropriations Committee on this bill and action by the full Senate just a short time ago on the authorization bill. Under the leadership of Senator MAGNUSON, many of the appropriations-forcing provisions of the authorization bill, and particularly the tier system, were modified by the Senate as a whole. The Senate took that decision deliberately and after an excellent debate. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee (Mr. MAGNUSON) made it clear that the Appropriations Committee took that action on the authorization bill because it was seeking guidance from the Senate as a whole. The Senate gave the committee that guidance.
The conferees on the second budget resolution undertook to implement what the Committee on Appropriations did on impact aid, by assuming the numbers in this pending bill which were reported out by the Appropriations Committee. I do not know of a better example, Mr. President, of the budget process; the Budget Committees and the Senate Appropriations Committee working together, marching to the beat of the same drummer on a specific program. It does not seem to me that this morning is the time to reverse that decision.
I should like to say just a few things in general on this particular amendment. In the first place, the proposed funding level in this bill, as I am informed, would keep the payments for impact aid at the current rate; that the fiscal 1978 level. It is not a cut in dollars.
Second, the funding level would not totally eliminate impact funds for any group, such as "A" or "B" students.
Third, funding for impact aid has increased from $650 million in 1978 to the $856.4 million proposed for 1979. It could be over $1 billion in 1980.
Fourth, in my judgment the impact aid program should be revised so that it serves only school districts which are directly affected by Federal activities. The rapid growth of the program should not be continued.
Fifth, the proposed cut is a reasonable approach to controlling impact aid. No one school district would be severely damaged and they would all be funded at the current level.
Finally, Mr. President, this is a reasonable action. The only cut the authorizing legislation would allow is a reduction of $449 million. The committee recommendation would stabilize funding. It would not be a meat-ax cut.
Mr. President, that concludes my thoughts on this. I understand, incidentally, that the present level of funding represents some increases for 38 of the 50 States because of the way in which the formula operates. But with respect to the total, the total remains at the 1978 level.
With those observations, Mr. President, I strongly support the position of the Senator from Washington, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and urge the Senate to endorse and reaffirm its support for the action taken on the authorization bill, for the action taken by the Committee on Appropriations, for the action taken by the conferees on the second budget resolution, and for the action taken by the Senate in approving that second budget resolution overwhelmingly.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. MATHIAS. I ask the Senator from Wisconsin to withhold for just 30 seconds, because I should like to address the remarks of the Senator from Maine.
He is a reasonable man and made a reasonable argument. I point out to him that we are talking in this amendment about $54 million. The cuts in education made by the committee total $1,400 million. We are only talking about $54 million here.
Now, as the Senator from Maine made his remarks — I do not want to delay the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from New Hampshire, both of whom want to speak, but I do think this point has to be made. We are dealing now with a natural phenomenon. If you read the press from around the country, from every State, they are cutting out local property taxes, they are cutting local taxes for the support of education at the local level. We need to do it because inflation is a serious problem and Government spending is a part of the cause of inflation.
But we have to do it, as the Senator from Maine, I think, would want to see it done, in a reasonable way. To do it all at once is not reasonable and to sit here in the Senate on the 27th of September and legislate for the first of October a 10-percent cut in the funds for the State of Maine, the impacted area funds for the State of Maine, is not giving adequate notice to the school administrator in the State of Maine. I think it is not the kind of reasonable action which the Senate ought to take.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Now, Mr. President, I yield myself time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?
Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from Maryland is usually very, very accurate, but the State of Maine, with the amendment, gets a plus. It does not get cut at all. It is not right to say that we are making any drastic cuts. All of these school districts knew that there was going to be something done about impact aid and we are giving them the amount that they had last year. We go from $738 million to $746 million.
Is that not enough? That is not a cut at all.