September 6, 1978
Page 27990
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. HATCH. I will be happy to wait. I was going to speak in favor of the Senator's amendment. I will be happy to wait until the distinguished Senator from Maine is through.
Mr. MUSKIE. I assure the Senator that I will not take too much time.
Mr. President, as I listened to the statement of my good friend from Wisconsin, I reached several conclusions that bear on the work of the Budget Committee: One, that we are not conconcerned about inflation; two, that we have not really tried to reduce spending; three, that we are opposed to further reductions where they can be identified.
I heard the same argument last spring. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin has undertaken to capsulize my response of last spring in ways that I think do not accurately reflect what I said last spring. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that my colloquy and my statement at that time, which appear on pages 11405—11408 of the RECORD for April 25, 1978, be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, let me say at the outset that the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin is consistent with his long record of concern about Government spending and the need for budgetary restraints and prudence, and I applaud the general thrust of his efforts over the years in this connection,
However, I must say with respect to his amendment that it goes to the very heart and the very life of the congressional budget process, because it is ambiguous, it is — and I say this is the most respectful way — arbitrary and indiscriminate. It's the kind of approach to budget cutting that we tried many times before the establishment of the congressional budget process. It never worked. It never succeeded, because it never identified the areas where real cuts were possible, and where cuts could be achieved without damaging essential and vital areas of governmental activity.
If we want to return to that form of budget cutting, and abandon the congressional budget process, that is all right with me. But after we have gone through the kind of tradeoffs and balancing of judgments which the budget process requires, if we are then asked to subject ourselves to an across-the-board cut of this kind, we have wasted a lot of time on identifying priorities, balancing priorities, and undertaking to set them within a rational economic policy.
The two approaches to budgeting just do not go together. We tried it the other way and it did not work; and frankly I am getting pessimistic about whether or not this budget process is going to work, because here, too, we are inclined to abandon the discipline when it serves our immediate interest.
But let me get down to this specific proposal, Senator Proxmire's amendment proposing a 5 percent across-the-board cut in budget authority in fiscal year 1979. I repeat, a cut in budget authority.
He would cut budget authority by $26.1 billion, from $566.1 billion recommended by the Budget Committee to $540 billion.
He justifies all of this as a contribution to the fight against inflation and as a contribution to reducing the deficit.
Unfortunately, Mr. President, one cannot judge either of those contributions because one is not told where the cut in budget authority will come. Budget authority does not all spend out at the same rate. Budget authority for housing, for example, requires up to 40 years to spend out. As a matter of fact, in this present budget there is $25.5 billion in budget authority for housing assistance.
(Mr. MOYNIHAN assumed the chair.)
Mr. MUSKIE. If we were to apply the Senator's amendment to housing assistance, and there is nothing in the amendment to prevent us from doing so, we would eliminate the housing program from the budget. But how much of a contribution would that make to inflation? When one considers that the spend out from this program is spread over 40 years, it is very little. There would be almost no reduction in this year's deficit from such a budget authority cut. That $25.5 billion will not spend out in fiscal year 1979 to any measurable degree.
The budget does include outlays of $4.4 billion in housing assistance, but that is driven by budget authority which we provided in previous years.
So if we were to take the proposed $26.1 billion cut out of the housing assistance program, we would hardly make any contribution to reducing the deficit. We would make no contribution to reducing inflation. The size of the deficit which worries the business community and others in the country who are concerned about Government spending, would remain essentially unchanged.
If, on the other hand, one took the cut from budget authority that spends out in 1 year, where would we go?
Well, the Defense Department spends out a lot of budget authority in 1 year, much of it in the form of salaries. So if we wanted to make a maximum impact on the deficit and a maximum signal against inflation, we would cut the $26.1 billion from the defense function and mandate that it be taken out of salaries, which would probably mean that we would decimate the Armed Forces of the country.
That is the range we can consider, but the Senator does not tell us how he would distribute his cut in budget authority. It is for that reason that I call his amendment an arbitrary and undiscriminating approach to budgeting.
Mr. President, the budget process was designed to enable the Congress to make individual spending and revenue decisions in the context of the budget as a whole.
The discipline provided by the process forces Congress to make hard choices among competing national priorities after careful consideration of the issues which are involved and deliberate decisions on how our limited resources will be allocated.
Senator PROXMIRE's amendment proposes, in contrast to this, an anonymous cut of $26.1 billion in budget authority. He does not tell us which areas of the budget he would cut. He does not tell us which national priorities would be affected. He says only that—
"There is not a single agency of government which could not absorb a 5-percent decrease in its funds and actually increase the efficiency of its programs if it were determined to do so."
Well, attractive as that proposition is on its face, when one looks into the facts of individual functions and agencies and programs, onefinds it to be debatable.
Rhetoric such as this was common in the Congress prior to the Budget Act. We established a congressional budget process because we found that such rhetoric did not provide effective budgetary control.
The Budget Committee recommends, Mr. President, a carefully crafted spending plan for fiscal year 1979. Of course, there is room for increases or decreases in that plan as the Senate wills. We have just acted on two proposals to cut defense spending and one proposal to increase spending in domestic programs, out of the savings in defense spending. Those are perfectly appropriate amendments. Whichever way the Senate acted upon them, the Budget Committee would live with the result.
But what would Senator PROXMIRE's amendment do to that plan? It is not focused on specific functions or programs.
The Budget Committee recommended total budget authority for fiscal year 1979 of $566.1 billion. Where did we get that? The authorizing committees requested of us $603 billion in budget authority. We cut those requests, not by $26.1 billion, as proposed by the Sena-tor, but by $36.9 billion. The Senator now says—
"That is not good enough. You ought to add another $26.1 billion in cuts to that $36.9 billion so that we would have a total of $63 billion in cuts."
Where would we get those cuts? From what programs should we get them?
Within the total of $556.1 billion that the Budget Committee recommended, $535 billion — mark the number, $535 billion — is required simply to carry out laws currently on the books. That $535 billion total provides for no new or expanded programs and for only those inflation adjustments that are mandated by law.
Senator PROXMIRE's amendment would cut total budget authority to $540 billion, which is just slightly more than the current law level.
Laws on the books should not be regarded as sacrosanct. Indeed, the Budget Committee recommendation assumes that some reductions through changes in current law can and should be made. But the simple fact is that achieving savings from changes in existing law is a longer term business, and the savings in the first year are small. This is especially true when we realize that within that $535 billion current law estimate there is some $300 billion for entitlement programs. An entitlement program means just that: States, local governments, or individuals are entitled to receive payments under current law.
In the short run, Mr. President, savings in these programs are especially difficult to achieve.
So the truth is that the bulk of Senator Proxmire's budget authority cut in fiscal year 1979 would have to come from those areas of the budget where the Budget Committee recommends carefully considered increases over current law. These increases recommended by the Budget Committee are, as I have said before, considerably less than the increases recommended to us by the other Senate committees.
Mr. CURTIS. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, for one, and then I would like to finish my statement.
Mr. CURTIS. Does the distinguished chairman agree that to do the job that many in the country feel should be done on the budget, we ought to change some laws?
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, I think there is a recognition that in order to make the kind of cuts some would wish, we would have to change the laws. There is no question about that. The Senator understands that perfectly, and especially in the entitlement area, which is $300 billion.
Incidentally, there is one entitlement program that one should never forget. That is interest on the public debt. The obligation to pay that goes back to legislation which was enacted in the middle of the last century. It amounts to $53 billion in the fiscal year 1979 budget.
That is uncontrollable. That is a contractual obligation.
Mr. CURTIS. It is a contract, yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. And of course, there are defense and non-defense contracts, and other commitments made in prior years totaling, possibly, as much as $80 billion a year which are uncontrollable unless the Government reneges on its promises. Then there are the entitlements. Those commitments plus the entitlement programs form the so-called uncontrollable portion of the budget.
Interest on the debt we cannot reduce by changing the law without breaching a contract, and we would not want to breach other contracts and commitments. So when we talk about reducing the budget by changing existing law, we are talking about changing entitlement programs or changing other programs prior to the time commitments are made.
Of course, if we want to reduce that spending, we have to change the law, the Senator from Nebraska is absolutely correct.
Mr. President, I have a table showing the major increases over current law recommended by the Committee on the Budget. I ask unanimous consent that this table be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me discuss a few salient elements of that table. The Budget Committee recommends a total increase in budget authority of about $32 billion over current law.
One-fourth of this increase, $8 billion, is in the area of national defense. Does Senator PROXMIRE mean to eliminate all or most of this increase, which would actually cause the defense budget to decline in real terms and cause us to renege on our NATO commitment?
Agriculture programs, Mr. President, account for $5 billion of the increase. Does Senator PROXMIRE mean to reduce or eliminate this support for America's farmers? I emphasize that this number is significantly below the agriculture bill that was recently passed by the Senate and defeated in the House. So when I say there is an increase, that is not the increase that was mandated by the Senate, and a substantial majority of the Senate, not too long ago.
Energy programs account for $2 billion of the increase. Would Senator PROXMIRE have us cut back on our efforts in this critical area?
Education, employment, and veterans programs together account for $4 billion of the increase in budget authority. Would Senator PROXMIRE recommend that these increases be eliminated?
International affairs programs account for $3 billion of the increase, much of it related to U.S. commitments to the multilateral banks. Does Senator PROXMIRE suggest that these commitments be scaled back or eliminated? I am asking these questions not to prejudge the answer. It is a perfectly legitimate objective for any Senator to propose, by appropriate amendment, the elimination of any of these increases. I identify them so that we may have an answer to them from the author of this amendment, who simply gives us the overall cut of $26 billion and ask us to find the places to cut.
Community and regional development programs account for $2 billion of the increase, much of it related to the President's new urban initiatives. Would Senator Proxmire have us send a signal to our distressed cities that the Federal Government is not interested in their plight?
So, Mr. President, I ask the Senator, in the spirit of an effective budget process, to tell us what programs of the budget he proposes to cut and what national priorities he wishes to affect. When we have the answer to that, we shall have a better answer to the question of how fast the outlays from the proposed cuts in budget authority would flow. When we know how fast the outlays would materialize, we can judge better what the economic impact of those outlay cuts would be in 1979, 1980, or future years.
In other words, as of this moment, the Senator's amendment does not tell us what programs to cut or how fast there would be a reduction in outlays, or when, if ever, the deficit would be affected or what the economic implications would be. We cannot have the answers to those questions until and unless he tells us what programs he would cut. We cannot have an effective debate, indeed, Mr. President, unless we know more clearly the effects of his proposal in these terms. The days are over when we can simply suggest anonymous cuts without spelling out their consequences.
I know my colleagues in the Senate will agree with me on the need to make spending choices after careful consideration of the issues that are involved. The congressional budget process is the instrument for making hard choices with respect to national priorities. Arbitrary spending cuts, as in this proposal, fall unevenly on different areas of the budget, deal capriciously with national priorities, and demonstrate once again the difficulty of attempting to affect the budget in a one-year time frame.
I urge the Senate to reject this amendment. I would like to close as I began, praising Senator Proxmire for his long-held commitment to budget restraint and budget prudence. I hope I have said nothing to denigrate his reputation in that respect. With respect to this amendment, I have tried to be as candid as I can be.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I am going to yield to the distinguished Senator from Delaware in a moment. Before I do that though. I should like to reply briefly to the Senator from Maine.
I very much appreciate his viewpoint. As I have said before, I think he has done a remarkable job, he and Senator BELLMON, in the Budget Committee in holding down spending. They did make big cuts, as he pointed out, a cut of $37 billion, roughly, in what the authorizing committees requested.
The Senator from Maine argues that this amendment is ambiguous, arbitrary, and undiscriminating. I reply that there is no way, and I think the Senator knows it better than anybody in the Chamber, that a Senator can come in and duplicate the work of the Budget Committee. After all, I have a limited staff. I have two or three people who work on this kind of thing. They work on many, many other things, too. The best that an individual Senator can do, in reality, is to indicate on the basis of the most careful analysis he can give what the level of spending ought to be. To go into meticulous detail on each one of these programs to indicate where the cutback ought to be is something that really is asking too much. If we did it, I think we would be subject to tremendous criticism, because it would be irresponsible.
I am not in a position to hold hearings and to explore in great detail with the Office of Management and Budget and with the various agencies where the cuts could be made. We have some ideas where it is possible. But to do this in detail in this enormously complex budget would be doing far more than would be responsible.
Furthermore, Mr. President, I have great faith in the Budget Committee. I think if we tell them this — after all, this is the first budget resolution; there are three — they will have the opportunity to consider where a reduction should be made in order to comply with this $26 million cutback in obligational authority.
It will not be easy, there is no question about that. It will be difficult, extraordinarily difficult, very painful. There is no way we can make this kind of cut without great difficulty.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE Yes, indeed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think It would be difficult at all if the Senator wanted to do it. With respect to spending mandated by current law, you know, you could not do it easily.
But if the Senator wanted to offer an amendment that reflected the table I put in the RECORD this afternoon, it would be very simple to draft the amendment.
National defense, reduce $8 billion; international affairs, $3.1; energy, $2.2; agriculture, $5.1; transportation, $4.2; community and regional development, $2.2; education, training, employment, and social services, $2.5; veterans' benefits and services, $1.4; all other, $2.9.
There is the easiest and quickest way to make the cuts the Senator proposes to, unless he wants it out of housing assistance.
Mr. PROXMIRE. As the Senator knows, there are many ways these cuts can be made and there is a long time to do it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator likes to say that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It is true.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not true.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Of course, it is.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not true and I have given the reasons. These are the only increases in this budget above current law. I want to make that clear.
Mr. PROXMIRE May I make it clear to the Senator from Maine, there is nothing written in the wind that tells us we have to make the cuts only in areas that have been increased. We can make cuts in old programs.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield so I may make an observation?
Mr. PROXMIRE I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have been put in as chairman of the Budget Committee in order to acquire some knowledge about how Government money is spent, where it is spent, how fast it spends out. I am saying to the Senator that, when we are talking about this budget. $535 billion of it is mandated by current law.
I am not saying current law cannot be changed, but I am recognizing that it takes some time to change current law when your objective is to run against some of these constituencies built up here in the Senate in support of programs.
So the quickest way to achieve the kind of cut the Senator is talking about is to eliminate the increases over current law that the Budget Committee proposed, and I have given him the areas.
So if the Senator wants to bite the bullet, bite the bullet and make the cuts where they could be effectively made, that is the place.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine is right. There is no question this is the quickest way to make the cut, but it is not the only way to make the cut.
Let use take the place that is the most difficult of all the issues and examples the Senator gave, that I think every Senator and everybody in the country, would immediately, instinctively say he is absolutely right on — interest on the debt.
He says that cannot be reduced. The fact is that this is something that can be reduced, not much, but it can be reduced some, and because it is so big, it is over $50 billion a year, or $56 billion a year, something of that kind, I think any reduction here is helpful.
How can this amendment possibly result in cutting interest on the debt? We do not have long-term contracts. These are not 20-year bonds. It turns over in about a year. We have a very short term Federal debt, very short term.
The result is that to the extent a cut of this kind results in reduced inflation, results in reduced interest rates, the interest on the debt is reduced.
Now, as I say, it is not a massive reduction, but it is a limited reduction that can be taken into account.
The same thing is true—
Mr. MUSKIE. Well now—
Mr. PROXMIRE. Let me finish on this point — on a number of contracts. A number of the contracts we have written have an inflation clause in them. Almost all do. Almost all our procurement contracts provide, to the extent there is inflation tied to some index, the Federal Government will have to pay more in 1979.
If this amendment results in a lesser rate of inflation, it means the expenditures required under those uncontrollable, apparently, contracts will, in fact, be reduced.
And, of course, Government salaries also are tied to an inflation index, as is the social security tied to the inflation index.
So I do not think it is quite true to say the only way we can make any cuts is to cut the increases that have been proposed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not believe that I said that.
I said that when we are talking about cutting what is mandated by current law, we have to change the law. Indexing is in current law and it is reflected in this budget resolution. If we want to propose eliminating indexing for social security benefits, we have to change the law.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I do not propose that.
Mr. MUSKIE I am not saying the Senator proposed it. But he keeps talking about these other places and every time I come to a specific place, he says, "I am not talking about that." So that every time I come to a specific place, he says, "I am not talking about that." So that every time the Budget Committee mentions specific places, tries to identify s specific place and identify the difficulties of cutting in a specified place, the Senator says, "Well, I don't mean that specific place, I meant some other places."
Well, what other places? Every specific place I suggest, "Oh, I don't mean that."
In the table I put in the RECORD, there are specific places, and all we have to do is reject the increases proposed by the Budget Committee. They have not yet been approved by the Congress, they are not a part of law.
So, here is the easiest target. But the Senator says, "I don't want the easiest target, there are some other places."
Then he talks about indexing and I remind him that it is part of current law. He says, "I don't mean that."
Mr. PROXMIRE No; the Senator misunderstands.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to know what the Senator means.
Mr. PROXMlRE. I understand indexing is part of the law. I do not say we should change the index. But I say we will have a lesser rate of inflation, in my judgment, if this amendment passes. If we have a lesser rate of inflation, it means we have a reduction in the amount to be paid out under indexing, without changing the law at all.
Mr. MUSKIE Let me ask this—
Mr. PROXMIRE. That we have to pay out of interest. It means we have a lesser rate we have to pay out in salary increases, because there is a moderation in inflation.
Mr. MUSKIE Let me ask the Senator this, he has not told us what budget authority he proposes to cut.
I assume without asking that he does not mean to cut $25.5 billion in budget authority from housing assistance. That spends out over as much as 40 years. If we were to cut that, the contribution to the inflation fight would be virtually zero because we do nothing to save outlays in the short rim. But if we cut budget authority that spends out in 1 year, like salaries in the defense function, then we could reduce the deficit by $26 billion and that might have an impact on inflation.
It might also trigger unemployment, but. in any case, there we would make a positive impact on inflation if we wanted to cut salaries in the defense function by $26 billion.
But until the Senator tells us where he is going to cut budget authority, we cannot possibly estimate the outlays or the economic effects.
Mr. PROXMIRE. My time is almost up.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, charge the last 10 minutes to my time, I do not need it.
He may have an estimate in his mind, but we cannot estimate how much reduction in outlays that would mean, and in the national deficit, how much less borrowing that would mean, and how much downward pressure on interest rates that would produce.
How will we provide answers like that when the Senator does not tell us where the budget authority is to be cut?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the gist of the argument by the Senator from Maine is that we cannot do it. It cannot be done.
I say it can be done. He says that we can do all right, but only if we eliminate all of the increases that the administration has proposed.
Mr. MUSKIE Will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, that is what I understood him to say.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have not mentioned cuts from the administration. I have told the Senator of cuts and increases included in this budget resolution, and when he interprets my remarks saying that cuts cannot be made, I say we cut $36.9 billion from recommendations by committees, including the committee of which the Senator from Wisconsin is chairman.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I said that.
Mr. MUSKIE So do not interpret what I say as meaning it cannot be done. We have done it, but we have done it in a thoughtful, careful rational way, in which we try to give people the facts about what we have done and the implications of what we have done. We have not given the Senator a meat ax. We have given him specific facts.
Mr. PROXMIRE Mr. President, do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I have indicated that we are making an amendment that would cut obligational authority. We have a right to make that amendment. The Senator from Maine, of course, has indicated that he disagrees with the amendment very strongly.
He has pointed out, and I have agreed with him, that he has made a cut of $36.9 billion, including a cut in what the Banking Committee recommended over my objection. I wanted the committee to recommend a reduction lower than what the President had called for. But the Budget Committee has indeed made those reductions.
It is my position that we can make a 5-percent cut in obligational authority and we can do so responsibly.
The Senator has raised the question as to where cuts of this kind could be made. One is in the nonmilitary personnel in the Pentagon. The Pentagon has almost a million employees. It is proposed that they cut that number by at least 50,000. That would be $500 million. That would be a cut that would have an effect on outlays almost completely, because the military personnel and the pay of nonmilitary personnel would be reflected about 97 percent in an outlay reduction.
Any cut in operation and maintenance would be about 86 percent, reflected in a reduction in outlays.
Procurement would be a much lesser reduction. The cut there, I am told, would result in about a 14-percent cut.
Mr. President, almost every element of the budget is subject to a variation in the percentage of reduction that you get in outlays if you cut obligational authority. We recognize that. We recognize that it would be very difficult, in our view, for us to put together a specific listing of areas we might reduce.
Furthermore, if we did that, I am sure there would be no way we could get reasonable consideration. I think it is perfectly proper — I know that other Senators may not think so, including the Senator from Maine — for a Senator to come on the floor and indicate that he would like to put a limit on obligational authority and make this kind of recommendation. That is what I propose, and that is all I propose.
I think the function of the Budget Committee, if this amendment is adopted, would be extraordinarily difficult; but I think they could do it. and do it in a responsible way.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, among other things, the Senator from Wisconsin has said that my argument was that it cannot be done. Well, let us look at that. It is not a question of whether or not reductions in spending can be achieved but how best to achieve them.
In that statement of last spring, I reminded the Senator from Wisconsin that authorizing committees had requested of us $603 billion in budget authority. We cut those requests not by the $26.1 billion then proposed by the Senator but by $36.9 billion.
In the second resolution, as I indicated in my statement earlier this morning, we cut budget authority by an additional $11.1 billion because of our concern with inflation, because the Appropriations Committee, in the actions it has taken up to this point this year, has made it possible for us, in conjunction with reestimates of spending provided by CBO, to reduce spending by that much.
To argue that I said last spring that this could not be done, in the face of the fact that subsequently the Budget Committee has cut $11.1 billion additional, is to distort my whole position in this matter.
The Budget Committee spent long days and hours combing the functions, combing the administration's mid-session review, combing the Appropriations Committee bills that had been before the Senate, to identify every conceivable cut.
I simply will not yield to the Senator from Wisconsin in my concern to send the clear signal to the country that we intend to reduce Government spending to the maximum extent possible.
The Senator is a member of the Appropriations Committee. Earlier this morning, I praised the Appropriations Committee for holding appropriations below the target set in the first congressional resolution. Because the Appropriations Committee did that, it was possible for us, following on the heels of those actions, to reduce budget authority and outlays in the second resolution. My argument in the spring was that that is the way to do it. If the Appropriations Committee, which goes over these appropriations bills item by item, had found it possible to cut another 5 percent or 10 percent in the budget authority, I assume it would have done so.
I think Senator MAGNUSON, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, has demonstrated his commitment to reduce spending over and over again in these appropriations bills. We have applauded him; we have supported him in every way we possibly could; and that is the way to do it.
As of this moment, the Senate already has enacted or passed $402 billion in budget authority, leaving yet to be reported in the Senate $156 billion. I take it that, unless we are going to go back and redo the bills we already have passed, what the Senator now proposes will have to come out of the $156 billion. What will it be? Where will we cut?
Let us look at some of the budget authority items in the budget: social security and other retirement, $107 billion; Federal employee retirement, $20 billion; unemployment compensation, $15 billion; medicare, $30 billion; net interest, $39 billion.
Those live items of budget authority total $211 billion. Are we going to cut those, or is this 5 percent cut or 3 percent cut to come out of the remainder? If it comes out of the remainder, what does that total, percentagewise? This is 40 percent of the total budget authority in the budget.
I have told the story many times about the restriction that uncontrollable items in the budget imposes upon efforts to reduce Government spending. Apparently, the Senator from Wisconsin dismisses that as an inconsequential argument. Let me put it in terms of outlays, if I may.
Total outlays recommended in the second budget resolution are $489.5 billion. Let me list some favorite items of various Senators: defense programs total $112.5 billion; net interest, $38.8 billion; social security, $104.5 billion; railroad retirement, $4.3 billion; Federal employee retirement, $12.0 billion; unemployment compensation, $10.4 billion; medicare, $28.1 billion; medicaid, $11.3 billion; veterans' programs, $20.4 billion; farm income stabilization, $6.0 billion.
The total of those items is $348.3 billion; remaining outlays in second budget resolution, $141.2 billion.
The luxury that these across-the-board budget cutters are able to indulge in on the Senate floor is that they do not have to zero in, in committee, on those particular programs. They just say, "It is possible." Of course, it is possible to cut 3 percent, even though we already have cut $36 billion and then another $11 billion. Of course, it is possible to cut another 3 percent or 2 percent or 1 percent or 5 percent or 10 percent.
It is always possible. But the budget committees and appropriations committees in their deliberations must get down to the items, the programs, and that is when you begin to realize that there are program needs that cannot be further compromised or cut, or whose constituencies are such that there is no practical way to achieve further cuts, and so in the Chamber it is nice — and I used to enjoy that business of just across-the-board cuts in the Chamber — to vote for them and vote for them, and never have to face the wrath of the constituencies interested in specific programs.
I have listed some of the most popular programs. They total $348 billion.
Any Senator who tells me it would be a simple matter to reduce any of those by the amount that is proposed has not faced the problem of program reduction in the same way that the appropriations committees and budget committees have to face them.
To look at it in an even simpler analysis, defense and veterans programs total $132.9 billion, or 27 percent of the budget; contributory insurance and retirement, $159.3 billion, or 33 percent; debt interest $38.8 billion, or 8 percent. That is a total of 68 percent of the budget, leaving $158.5 billion, or 32 per-cent, for all other programs.
Are we going to focus on those for this cut? Here is a way to offer a cut. The Senator proposes a cut of $17 billion. Why not exempt defense and veterans pro-grams? We are not going to get any cuts beyond those already included in the budget resolution in those areas, whether we take the case to the Appropriations Committee or to the Senate as a whole with specific amendments.
Break up the amendment. Offer the same percentage cut in defense and veterans programs in one item. Let us test the Senate's opinion on that. Just break it out, a 3-percent cut in defense and veterans programs. Then break up the amendment into a second one, contributory insurance and retirement. Let the Senate vote on that separately. And then one on interest. Let us break that up and see how the Senate votes on it. And having disposed of that 68 percent of the budget, I would be willing to make a small wager as to what the result would be and then take the total $17 billion out of all other programs and see what the Senate's vote would be. I would be interested in that. That to me would be a more responsible way to approach this business of further reducing the budget below the second resolution than this across-the-board one where you do not have to face the constituency of the programs which have the strongest support.
All you need are four amendments instead of one. It would not take that much longer to vote on them. Then we would know whether the Senate as a whole wants a 3-percent cut in defense and veterans' programs, whether the Senate wants a 3-percent cut in contributory insurance and retirement, whether the Senate wants to renege on its contract to pay interest on the Federal debt by 3 percent. We would have those blockbusters out of the way.
Then the Senator offers his amendment to cut $17 billion from all other programs and see where that goes. That would be a meaningful test.
If the Senate supported the Senator's proposed cuts in those four different categories, then we would have a clearcut message that could be implemented by the appropriations committees and by the budget committees.
I do not really think there is that much to be added to what I said on this subjectlast spring. I have put that in the RECORD.
There are only four of us Senators in the Chamber at the present time anyway.There is no point in repeating that argument. It is there, and it is there in the way that I propose it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I wish to yield shortly to my good friend from Utah and good friend from California, but before I do that let me very briefly respond to the manager of the resolution.
The manager of the resolution started out by saying that I indicated that I thought the Budget Committee was not concerned about inflation. Of course they are concerned about inflation. I said they have done a magnificent job in cutting the budget by an additional $11 billion, and I acknowledge now that they did a fine job in reducing the requests of the various committees. I commend them on that and I know they are deeply concerned with inflation. I am sure they are very interested in having further reductions, also, but I get the distinct impression from the distinguished Senator from Maine that when anyone comes in and offers a general kind of amendment we are not responsible, we do not know what we are doing,and we have no basis on which to offer such an amendment.
Mr. President, as I say, it is up to the Senate to decide this, not a committee. The committees do not dictate to the Senate. The committees just advise the Senate. We make the decisions right here.
Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maine indicated one of the questions that bothers him is the Budget Committee was concerned with how best to achieve these cuts, and they found out how best to achieve the cuts and they made the cut on the basis of that, and he went on to say that if the Appropriations Committee had found it possible to cut another 3 percent or 5 percent, they would have done so.
I am sure they would have tried to do so. But if the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee were mandated by the Senate to cut an additional 3 percent, they would find a way to do it, and that is what I am suggesting here.
As I say, it is not easy. It is tough. It is difficult. We recognize that the advice they give to us is advice we should consider very, very carefully because these are extraordinarily able and thoughtful members and they labored hard with probably the toughest job that the Senate assigns to any committee.
But for us to come in and say that we want to cut further is not an act of effrontery. It is an act of simply saying that we feel that if we are going to confront inflation effectively, if we are going to hold this spending by the Federal Government down to what we think it should be held down to, to the increase in inflation, that is our decision and of course they would have to abide by it.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for several questions?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes, I am happy to yield to my good friend from Florida.
Mr. STONE. Is it not the case that this resolution does not do any substantial damage to any particular governmental program?
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is certainly my understanding, and I would be surprised if Senators came in and offered substantial amendments to increase it. Perhaps they will. But I do not know of any program that is damaged by this resolution.
Mr. STONE. Is it not a fact that this approach retains the priority-setting authority to the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee?
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is precisely what this does.
Let me point out that the Senator from Maine indicated that we have already passed appropriations amounting to about two-thirds or more, maybe 80 percent. Now what the second budget resolution does is require the Appropriations Committee to propose revisions, and that is what I think we have to do. Otherwise, the second budget resolution would make no sense at all. We would have come in and just accepted it because we have done so much already. We have in an active way said whatever they have done is all right.
Obviously, that is not the case. We have a right to amend it, and I am exercising that right right now.
Mr. STONE. Is it not the case that the Budget Committee itself has made cuts between the first resolution and this resolution and are coming in with some substantial improvements in this resolution?
Mr. PROXMIRE. They have indeed. As a matter of fact, in the spring when the first budget resolution was up I offered an amendment to cut it 5 percent and then 1 percent. It was said that a 1-percent cut could not be made for various reasons or could not be made responsibly without very serious effect on various programs. The Budget Committee cut twice as much as that. They cut not $5 billion but $11 billion.
They did a much better job, and I suggested here on the floor I think they can do it again.
Mr. STONE. I agree.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I think the Senator from Wisconsin makes a very persuasive argument, if the Senator will yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. If the position is taken that the Senate cannot make any changes in the second concurrent resolution because some appropriation bill has been passed, then what is the purpose of bringing to the Senate the second concurrent resolution?
Mr. PROXMIRE. We have in the law a system by which that can be done by the Appropriations Committee, by simply proposing a rescission which the Senate can act on.
As the Senator points out so well, if we are circumscribed from offering any reductions, any significant reductions, in the resolution, then we might just as well forget about having a budget resolution that does anything except ratify what the committee recommends to us.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin include me as a cosponsor?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator
from Virginia (Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) as cosponsors of the amendment.
I yield to my good friend from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be interested in having both Senators tell me when I ever took the position that the Senate cannot change the budget resolution. For 4 years I have been defending the Senate's right to work its will on budget resolutions. Now I have heard the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Virginia putting words in my mouth I do not think I have ever uttered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Let me answer my good friend from Maine. I do not think he recognizes how tremendously forceful he is and how effective he is when he gets up on the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. What am I supposed to be?
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is exactly what he should be and what he is. I am praising the Senator. I am not criticizing him but praising him when he makes those statements with so much—
Mr. MUSKIE. It did not come out that way.
Mr. PROXMIRE. With so much force that he gives the Senate the understanding that if we amend this resolution, if we cut by 1 percent or 2 percent or in this case by 3 percent, that somehow we are imposing an act of irresponsible and arbitrary choice on the Budget Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. In other words, if the suggestion you propose—
Mr. PROXMIRE. That you cannot do it.
Mr. MUSKIE [continuing]. Is arbitrary, I am not supposed to criticize it because I may intimidate you. Is that what the Senator is saying?
Mr. PROXMIRE. No. If the Senator says this is arbitrary, the Senator is wrong in describing this as arbitrary. There is nothing arbitrary about it. It is something that is specific and well within the budget process, and I just say the Senator is wrong, that is all.
Mr. MUSKIE. My job, first of all, as chairman of the Budget Committee is to see to it that the Budget Committee does the best possible job of squeezing every possible wasteful dollar or low-priority dollar out of the budget. That is my job. Second, my job is to do my best to see that the highest possible priorities are served by the budget. We bring that product to the floor.
I have never been one to believe that committees had the ultimate wisdom, but I do happen to know what we did in the Budget Committee, what problems we ran into, how difficult it was, and I think I have the duty to report that, and I can-not help it if I have a loud voice.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I know.
Mr. MUSKIE. Or if I seem to be intimidating.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I am praising the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me just say this—
Mr. PROXMIRE. Let me answer this. I have the floor. I only have a few minutes. My half hour is about up. Let me read what I said. I said that the Budget Committee has done an amazingly good job in cutting about 2 percent in both budget authority and budget outlays from the time of the first budget resolution. That is what I said.
Mr. MUSKIE. After that none of the rest of the Senator's statement sounded like praise. I am not expecting praise.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I think the Senator could have done a better job, and I am trying to impose it on him now.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not expecting praise. What I am saying is if you really want to be helpful to the process, then I suggest that you break your amendmentup into at least four, so that you can get real guidance.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator knows the answer to that. That was tried before on the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is darned right. I know the real answer to that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. And it was overwhelmingly defeated.
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I think it is something perfectly proper and consistent for the Senate to do. We want a lower budget resolution. We want the Budget Committee to spend the time and expertise to tell us where that reduction can be made most responsibly and most effectively. If we want to hold down spending to $540 billion, I see nothing wrong with that as to what you should be doing.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know you see nothing wrong with it. I see everything wrong with it. When I challenge your premise and offer what I consider real guidance, you back off because it cannot be done that way, and you know it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I think my time is about up. The Senator from Utah, I understand, has an amendment to my amendment which he will offer. Do I have to yield back time? I guess I do on my amendment for that to be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has to be yielded back.