September 6, 1978
Page 28009
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. President, I think my good friend, Senator BELLMON, has covered adequately the issues raised by Senator ROTH.
I simply make the point that the functions chosen by Senator ROTH, in large part, were very tough battlegrounds within the Budget Committee for getting outlays and budget authority down.
There are four major items on Senator ROTH's list, One is function 400, transportation, where he proposes cuts of $3.3 billion in budget authority and $1 billion in outlays, as I understand it.
I would like to point out that the House Public Works Committee has much higher figures than the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. We undertook to protect the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in its determination to conform to the budget, but we anticipate a very difficult and prolonged conference between the two committees before the issue is finally resolved, because the difference between the House and Senate figures is very great.
So, I think the numbers we included in the budget resolution, in terms of that conference and the problems it will face, are conservative and supportive of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. We doubt that we could cut another $3.3 billion in budget authority from that function.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, the function 400 total BA is $44.7 billion and the highway trust fund is $8.4 billion, which leaves $11.1 billion in that function. So if we undertook to cut by $3.3 billion, this would be a 33-percent cut in that one function, which I think the Senator would agree is unrealistically drastic.
Mr. MUSKIE The Senator is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 5 minutes, to relieve the time pressure a little.
With respect to function 500 — the education, training, employment, and social services function — the Budget Committee had a long, drawn-out discussion and several votes on this function, centering largely around CETA, but also including education, the administration's program of tuition assistance, the refundable tax credits related to the tuition tax credit proposal, and so forth.
The numbers we finally agreed to again, were pretty rock bottom figures, in an attempt to accommodate the divergent views within the Budget Committee on what the total numbers for the function should be.
In my view, a further reduction of $7.7 billion in budget authority in that function would be very difficult to do, depending upon whose order of priorities has to be implemented. It is difficult to accommodate those differences.
Function 550, the health function, is also cut significantly in the Roth proposal: $2.3 billion in budget authority and $1.9 billion in outlays; and we have problems there.
I will say this about the Roth amendment. He has undertaken to be specific with respect to the functions in which he would seek to reduce spending. But these are not going to be easy to reconcile, and I suspect that if we were to try to enforce the numbers reflected in the Roth amendment when the appropriations bills hit the floor we would probably lose some, if not all, of those battles.
I simply make those points of observation to the Senate and to my good friend, Senator ROTH, who is one of the authors of the Budget Act.
I think the Budget Committee, which is always faced with the problem of trying to reconcile divergent and even conflicting views on priorities, did a reasonably balanced job, even though we might individually quarrel with some of the priorities reflected in the final numbers. I simply make those observations.
I think it would be very difficult to get those numbers down much further, and I would not find myself unsympathetic to some of the proposals of Senator ROTH.
I make this final observation. We have undertaken constantly since we discovered the shortfall phenomena in budget work to get the budget resolutions to anticipate more carefully and more precisely possible shortfalls. We are beginning to get some handle on it and, of course, the second resolution reflects the identification of shortfalls in spending. For instance, I think the savings in the second resolution over the first resolution represented by shortfalls is about $5.1 billion.
I emphasize to Senator ROTH that the second resolutions set binding ceilings on spending. They are not a mandate to spend up to those ceilings. I think we are fortunate that Senator MAGNUSON has taken a hard-line on appropriations bills and has taken pride in bills which fall below the targets established in the first resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think we should be careful not to try to anticipate shortfalls to the point where we get our priorities distorted. In other words, we might well be able to save a major portion of the dollars the Senator's amendment addresses itself to but not necessarily in the places and in the priorities that he suggests.
We must keep in mind the fact that we are setting ceilings; we are not mandating spending up to those ceilings. The whole thrust, I think, of the budget appropriations process now is to spend below ceilings and targets, and I think that these amendments on the floor exert very useful pressure. But I think, given the different views about priorities within the committee and given the differences on priorities within the Senate as a whole, the resolution brought to the floor is pretty realistic. It represents a clear signal that we intend to exert budgetary restraints. I think that when the year is over, if the present mood in the country, the Senate, and Congress prevails we will find actual spending in 1979 will prove to be below the ceilings that are stated in the pending budget resolution.
I say that honoring Senator ROTH for his sense of budgetary restraint, but with the feeling that we should not cut any closer to the line at this point, given the fact that we are dealing with ceilings and not mandated spending.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises that the Senator from Delaware has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, one observation I wish to make to the distinguished chairman that has concerned me has not so much to do really with the budgetary process as with the fact that many people back home are confused about the difference between authorizations and appropriations or, in the case of a budget authority and budget outlays.
It seems to mislead many of our people back home, whether they are in education or other fields, that Congress is duplicitous or at least not consistent in what it is doing. It is hard for them in the case of education, for example, to understand why authorizations are much higher than what we appropriate.
One thing that I do think that in the future would be very helpful is if the Senate began to become more realistic in some of these areas so that we do not mislead our people back home into expecting more than they actually secure.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROTH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator says is valid comment. Outlays, of course, are not controllable except as we control budget authority. It is budget authority that is actual appropriations. But since budget authority does not all spend out at the same rate — it can vary from spend out in 1 year or spend out in 10 years or spend out in even more years than that, 40 years in the case of housing, for example — it is not possible to equate budget authority and outlays.
I think another factor or another difference between Federal budgets and other budgets that people do not focus on is that the Federal budget excludes capital expenditures. By definition capital expenditures spend out over time. If you had a straight operating budget at the Federal level as we do in our personal lives or in our private businesses, then I think the difference between budget authority and outlays would not be as great and people might have an easier time understanding them.
But the Senator's point is very valid. Earlier I put in the RECORD a table explaining the increase in outlays between fiscal 1978 and fiscal 1979. I now wish to put in a composite table which shows the difference in outlays between fiscal 1978 and fiscal 1979 and budget authority in 1978 and 1979, so that people can get an explanation of where the increases took place.
The increases, of course, are about two-thirds attributable to inflation and in some cases — the national defense, for example — there were real increases dictated by our current view of our national security needs. In other cases, as in social security, demographics produced increases, and I think that a breakdown as between programs may help people to understand why both budget authority and outlays for 1979 are larger than 1978.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in the RECORD. I think it tends to be responsive to the observations that the Senator from Delaware has been making.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I express my appreciation for the comments of the chairman of the Budget Committee. I also say that I recognize the difficulties that that committee has in making accommodations between the priorities that different Members of this Senate feel very strongly about. It is just my feeling that these are extraordinarily difficult times. They call for great restraint, and I hope that Congress will show that kind of restraint in an effort to once again get our economy moving upward.
I am ready to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, before the Senator yields back his time, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I join in complimenting the distinguished Senator from Delaware for having the courage and also for having the insight to be specific in this amendment.
It certainly improves the quality of the debate and makes it possible for the Members to cast their votes on specifics rather than on the general principle of having an across-the-board cut in outlays and in budget authority.
Certainly this is the way we should approach the budget process, and I commend the Senator from Delaware for having taken this approach.
Mr. President, to go a little further in discussing some of the specifics in function 600, CBO's outlays estimates which the Budget Committee uses are consistently below those of the executive branch, which means we are using a more conservative approach than the executive branch uses on these programs.
The proposed $3.6 billion cut in outlays which Senator ROTH suggests would override the judgment of the technical experts at CBO in what these programs will actually cost.
Also, Mr. President, in the health function, function 550, a $2.3 billion cut in budget authority would provide for a 7 percent increase over fiscal year 1978; however, this is less than the health inflation costs, which have averaged about 12 percent over the 4 years. So this means that unless some action is taken to put on a cap or some other similar approach by the authorizing committees we would simply wind up under funding this program and have to increase the budget later in the year through a possible third budget resolution. I have long been opposed to reopening the budget after Congress completes action each fall on the binding totals in the second budget resolution.
Also the $1.9 billion cut in outlays would provide for an increase of only about 6.8 percent over fiscal year 1978 in the same function. This is also less than the health inflation rate we have experienced in past years which, apparently, we are going to experience in fiscal year 1979.
These cuts recommended in Senator ROTH's amendment would not allow for the necessary inflationary adjustments in these programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would just point out that I recognize, No. 1, the effort to slow down the rate of growth is difficult in many cases. I would, however, point out that there have been a number of these areas, such as HEW, where there has been admitted fraud and waste.
One of my concerns in Government in contrast to the private sector is that there is never any real pressure to improve efficiency. In the case of the private sector when times are difficult, money is not coming in, they are forced to sometimes take very stiff corrective action. We here in Congress, sometimes for good reasons, increase Federal spending when there is a recession, so that we never really do ask the agencies to try to provide services for less. That, in a sense, is what I am trying to propose here.
I am ready to yield back the remainder of my time if the managers of the resolution are willing to yield back their time.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? The Chair is advised that there is not a sufficient second.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would propose two perfecting changes. In function 500 the budget authority should be $29.5 billion, and we should change the total budget authority figure to $547 billion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Since the Senate has not yet acted on the Senator's amendment, the request for those changes is in order. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and the modifications are made.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Beginning on page 7, line 4, strike all after the words "Budget Act of 1974," and insert in lieu thereof the following: "that for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1978
(1) the recommended level of Federal revenues is $447,200,000,000, and the amount by which the aggregate level of Federal revenues should be decreased is 23,400,000,000;
(2) the appropriate level of total new budget authority is 547,000,000,000.
(3) the appropriate level of total budget outlays is $479,400,000,000;
(4) the amount of the deficit in the budget which is appropriate in the light of economic conditions and all other relevant factors is $32,200,000,000; and
(5) the appropriate level of the public debt is $829,400,000,000, and the amount by which the temporary statutory limit on such debt should accordingly be increased is $31,400,000,000.
SEC. 2. Based on allocations of the appropriate level of total new budget authority and of total budget outlays as set forth in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the first section of this resolution, the Congress hereby determines and declares, pursuant to section 310(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that, for the fiscal year beginning on October 1, 1978 the appropriate level of new budget authority and the estimated budget outlays for each major functional category are as follows:
(1) National Defense (050) :
(A) New budget authority, $127,000,000,000; (B) Outlays, $112,500,000,000.
(2) International Affairs (150):
(A) New budget authority, $10,300,000,000; (B) Outlays, $6,300,000,000.
(3) General Science, Space, and Technology (250) :
(A) New budget authority, $5,100,000,000; (B) Outlays, $5,000,000,000.
(4) Energy (270) :
(A) New budget authority, $8,900,000,000; (B) Outlays, $8,900,000,000.
(5) Natural Resources and Environment (300) :
(A) New budget authority, $13,600,000,000; (B) Outlays, $11,600,000,000.
(6) Agriculture (350) :
(A) New budget authority, $12,200,000,000; (B) Outlays, $7,200,000,000.
(7) Commerce and Housing Credit (370) :
(A) New budget authority, $5,500,000,000; (B) Outlays, $2,800,000,000.
(8) Transportation (400) :
(A) New budget authority, $16,200,000,000; (B) Outlays, $16,500,000,000.
(9) Community and Regional Development (450);
(A) New Budget authority, $8,900,000,000; (B) Outlays, $9,600,000,000.
(10) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services (500) :
(A) New budget authority, $29,500,000,000; (B) Outlays; $28,500,000,000.
(11) Health (550) :
(A) New budget authority, $49,600,000,000; (B) Outlays, $46,700,000,000.
(12) Income Security (600) :
(A) New budget authority, $191,500,000,000; (B) Outlays, $156,000,000,000.
(13) Veterans Benefits and Services (700) :
(A) New budget authority, $20,900,000,000; (B) Outlays, $20,400,000,000.
(14) Administration of Justice (750) :
(A) New budget authority, $4,100,000,000; (B) Outlays, $4,100,000,000.
(15) General Government (800):
(A) New budget authority, $3,900,000,000; (B) Outlays. $3,500,000,000.
(16) General Purpose Fiscal Assistance (850) :
(A) New budget authority, $8,800,000,000; (B) Outlays, $8,800,000,000.
(17) Interest (900) :
(A) New budget authority, $47,800,000,000; (B) Outlays, $47,800,000,000.
(18) Allowances (920):
(A) New budget authority, $500,000,000; (B) Outlays, $500,000,000.
(19) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950) :
(A) New budget authority, $17,300,000,000; (B) Outlays, $17,300,000,000.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Ed Twilley of Senator THURMOND's staff, and Mr. Mark Edelman of Senator DANFORTH's staff have the privileges of the floor during the debate and votes on the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROTH. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the yeas and nays having been ordered, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified, of the Senator from Delaware.
The result was announced — yeas 35, nays 38, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]