April 25, 1978
Page 11416
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President. I yield myself 5 minutes.
I think the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, my good friend, Senator BELLMON, has touched on the heart of the problem posed by the Curtis motion.
May I say that the longer I find myself in this responsibility as chairman of the Budget Committee, the more frustrations I accumulate, and the more inclined I am to support the kind of approach that the Senator from Nebraska proposes here.
One would like to think that there should be someone or some committee who could be given sufficient clout in order to achieve a balanced budget by simply forcing everyone into line. As I say, I wish that that kind of result could be achieved.
I have found it impossible to get Senators to support even the little we have done in the Budget Committee. What we have done has been so much less than what we need to achieve that I speak of it as little in this year of 1978.
But, addressing myself to this motion specifically. In the first place it is not clear how Senator CURTIS would accomplish the outlay reduction he proposes without changing budget authority, since the outlay figures in the resolution are simply estimates of the rate at which budget authority will be spent.
We control the budget by controlling budget authority. Budget authority spends out at widely ranging, widely differing rates, from 40 years for a housing assistance budget authority to 1 year for salaries in the defense and other budget functions. So there is no way of controlling deficits by simply controlling outlays. There is no way of controlling spending by controlling outlays. We control spending by controlling budget authority.
But the second point that I make is that an outlay reduction of the size proposed by Senator CURTIS would not balance the budget since it does not take into account the effect of reducing outlays on the economy and on receipts. The outlay reduction, if we could achieve, it would reduce incomes and employment which would produce a loss of Federal tax revenues and an increase in outlays for programs such as unemployment compensation, unless we were simply to repeal such programs. This revenue loss and outlay gain could be as much as 40 percent of the initial outlay reduction.
So the 1979 deficit would be about $22 billion after we had reduced outlays by the $55 billion reflected in the deficit number in the pending resolution. That deficit would be $22 billion even though 1.8 million jobs would be sacrificed by the end of 1979.
How much further in the way of outlay reductions would we have to have in order to achieve Senator CURTIS' objective of a balanced budget?
Frankly, at this point we are dealing with something that would have such a shock on the economy that I am not sure the econometric models could accurately predict what would happen.
I see the Senator smiling and I understand what his reaction is. But a rough estimate of it, given the interplay between budget reductions and the effect on the economy and the effect on revenues, outlay reductions of over $900 billion and not $55 billion probably would be required to balance the budget. Since entitlement programs cannot be reduced much in the first year, even if we change the law, this would necessitate the major reductions to be in defense spending, grants to State and local governments and other areas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 additional minutes.
This outlay reduction would cause a severe recession. Real GNP would fall, the unemployment rate would rise above 8 percent, and about 3 million jobs would be lost by the end of 1979. Moreover, those effects would grow in 1980, unless substantial stimulative measures were taken which would result in a larger fiscal year 1981 deficit.
These are projections of the kind of traumatic economic effects that could flow from the kind of measures that the Senator from Nebraska proposes.
Having said that, I still wish there were a single step of this kind that might be taken to achieve a balanced budget as quickly as possible. But frankly, I cannot willingly assume the responsibility for the economic consequences that, as we are told by economists across the range of political philosophies, who testified before our committee, would flow from this kind of dramatic reduction in Government outlays.
I remember the first year that I was chairman of the Budget Committee. Two of our first witnesses were Joseph Pechman, of the Brookings Institution, and Charls Walker, a conservative, who was an Assistant Secretary of Treasury in the Nixon and Ford administrations. At that time President Ford had proposed a budget with a deficit of around $50 billion, and he decried the deficit.
So I put this question to these two experts, Pechman and Walker. I said: "If the deficit is such a bad thing, why do we even consider it? Why don't we eliminate it? We are just beginning as a Budget Committee to consider the budget, and this is the first Presidential recommendation we have received. And the President says we must have a deficit of $50 billion even though he does not like it. If he does not like it, I do not like it, and I am asking you gentlemen why we have to have it."
Mr. Pechman's reply went into the kind of macroeconomic implications and budgetary implications that I have tried to describe here this afternoon. He said: "It is impossible to get rid of the deficit that way."
When he was finished, I then turned to Mr. Walker. I said: "What is your answer?"
He said: "I agree with Mr. Pechman."He said something like that was tried at the beginning of the 1932 depression. Members of Congress on both sides, with the Hoover administration, undertook to balance that budget by increasing taxes by the amount of the difference. The result was an exacerbation of the economic problems which led to the deficit in the first place.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that colloquy with Mr. Pechman and Mr. Walker be included in the RECORD at this point. It is a more informed answer than I can possibly give to the Senator from Nebraska's motion.
There being no objection, the colloquy was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
COLLOQUY
Chairman MUSKIE. The question I wanted to ask is back to back with Senator Bellmon's. What would be the economic consequences if we would follow the householder's prudent guide, and seek to avoid that $52 billion budget deficit? I am not talking about program implications. I am talking about economic implications.
Mr. PACKER. I think if one took $50 billion out of the budget, one might expect that the economy would be 3 or 4 percent higher than it would be under these projections.
Chairman MUSKIE. And the GNP?
Mr. PACKER. The GNP would be somewhat lower. If you took $50 billion out you would still find that you are—
Mr. PECHMAN. The $50 billion has a multiplier, too. You would reduce the GNP by about $100 billion, which is about 7.5 percent for the present GNP. And that would increase unemployment by 2.5 percentage points, from 7.5 you can expect unemployment to go up about 10.
Chairman MUSKIE. What would that do for the Government revenues?
Mr. PECHMAN. Government revenues would melt away, and the deficit would be increased.
Chairman MUSKIE. So you would have to take out more than $52 billion?
Mr. PECHMAN. If that is all that happened, the GNP would go down about $100 billion, and you could figure that the Federal Government revenues would decline by 20 or 25 percent, or $20 to $25 billion. Unless you economize, the debt would go higher by that amount.
Senator BELLMON. So you are chasing your tail then.
Mr. PECHMAN. If you tried to balance the budget in the face of a declining economy, yes.
Mr. WALKER. I very much share Senator Bellmon's distaste for deficit. I have been coming up here now for 15 or 16 years, and it seems like we keep moving the decimal over to the right all the time, spending revenues, increasing deficits and so on. And I find myself in a very uncomfortable position saying that I think we have got to stay somewhere in the range, hopefully closer to the $52 billion deficit in the coming fiscal year, in order to get back into a position where, in the long run, we can get away from deficits as a way of life.
The point I wanted to make that would support what these gentlemen have said, about the tail chasing thing, you said, what if you cut spending? You can look at it the other way: What if you tried, as crazy as it sounds right now, to raise taxes in order to balance the budget? That might sound crazy in 1973. It did not sound crazy in 1931 and 1932. That is precisely what the Federal Government tried to do. It was a bipartisan effort. President Hoover and Mr. Garner and the whole crowd wanted to balance the budget. That was the fiscal orthodoxy of the day. So they sent a message to the Treasury, let's raise taxes — and they raised practically every tax they could get their hands on. In fact, that was the birth of our highly progressive income tax. And I believe the Treasury calculated — Joe, you remember the figures, not because you were there then but because you are a better historian than I am — I believe the deficit was running in the general horrifying range of a billion dollars, and they tried to raise taxes about a billion dollars, maybe around $800 million.
They did not get anything back. They raised the taxes, and that further exacerbated the deflationary pressures.
Incomes dropped, and profits dropped, and it just did not work. This is just the other side of the same coin we are talking about.
Chairman MUSKIE. I think that story, prompted by Senator Bellmon's story that I tried to follow up, is a very important one to get out to the public. The public does not understand that. And a lot of Senators that do not understand it that I have run into, they said. "What are we going to cut?" And I think we need to know the economic conditions of that from this committee's point of view.
Mr. MUSKIE. All I can say to the Senator is bless him, I wish I could find it possible to agree with him. But I have sufficient reservations, for the reasons I have outlined, that I do not really think it will work.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, all I can say to my dear friend from Maine is have a little more faith.
Do not believe those pessimists who say that free government and private enterprise fail, that they cannot carry on, we have to run a deficit; we have to inject the Government in it or there will be a depression, there will be more people unemployed. That is nonsense, and history proves it. That sort of nonsense was talked up and down the country from 1933, and we never got rid of the unemployment until World War II came along.
It does not work. Oh, these machines are great things. But if you put trash in there you are going to get trash out. It is just that simple.
There is nothing sacred or unerring about their charge that if you do thus and so, you are going to add so many jobs or subtract so many jobs. They cannot predict world events at all. That is nonsense.
I happen to take an opposite view. I believe if the U.S. Government sets its house in order financially, people everywhere will be so encouraged that our economy will boom and we will have jobs and jobs, plenty of them. I believe if we set our house in order the nations of the world will see and they will decide that the American dollar is sound after all, and they will not need to charge so many dollars for a barrel of oil or whatever it is.
I want to get my version of what the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma said as to what they would have to do to balance the budget. They do not have to raise everybody's taxes by 12.5 percent; you do not have to cut defense by a dime. Why, you can do it in one program. All we would have to do is say to our States and local governments, "We are going to have no revenue sharing until we have some to share." Eighty billion dollars—
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. CURTIS. In just a moment, yes, I would be happy to, after I finish my thought.
As the year goes along new things happen and they come in here, a committee comes in, and asks that the budget be waived or increased a little bit. Oftentimes the Committee on Budget goes off. We have got to expect that, that there will be new things that have to be met as the year goes along. You cannot always predict the future.
So I want to say to the Senator from Oklahoma — and I voted against the authorization of more programs that have given this Government such a huge Government, so many bills to pay, so many obligations — that I yield to no man on my voting record.
As a matter of fact, the Senator also singled me out in reference to my vote on the agricultural bill. The Senator knows that in that agricultural budget of about $14 billion that $9 billion of it has nothing to do with agriculture. It is welfare, and I stood on this floor with seven amendments to the food stamp program.I am happy to say that, as I recall, the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma supported me on those, many of them, maybe all of them.
So I do not deprecate the fact that a few isolated votes are mentioned here to insinuate that the Senator from Nebraska is a spender. I criticized certain programs here. I criticized medicare, I never voted for it.
I criticized revenue sharing, I never voted for it.
I criticized public housing, I did not vote for it. Why do we tax people who live in very unimproved little cottages to build a house for somebody else? I did not vote for it.
I never voted to put the Federal Government into education.
I did not expect to stand here and defend myself or brag about my voting record until I was attacked on this floor with a few isolated votes. But I have opposed the expansion of government.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSTON) . The time of the Senator from Nebraska has expired.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BELLMON. I only wanted to set the record straight, Mr. President, on the cost of general revenue sharing which the Senator from Nebraska has been talking about.
If the Senator will turn to page 156 of the report, it lists revenue sharing, and it shows that the cost in fiscal year 1979 in both budget authority and outlays is $6.9 billion. The figure the Senator has been using earlier is a figure that includes many other items than revenue sharing. It includes such things as water treatment, sewage disposal, highways, and a raft of other programs.
Mr. CURTIS. I meant to use the general term revenue sharing, in the sense of general aid to States and localities.
Mr. BELLMON. I understand. That is all I have to say.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
In reference to some 11 votes where people came in here and wanted to waive the budget requirements, I did not research that. I do not know, I am sure his report is correct, but it is only part of it.
Mr. CURTIS. I yield back the remainder of my time. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Nebraska to recommit. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 19, nays 72, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues — we are getting more information about amendments all the time — it is apparent that we cannot finish tonight. We would like to finish the Roth amendment. Senator HAYAKAWA has a 15-minute speech preceding it. The Roth amendment has 60 minutes allotted to it. With those two items completed, we will break for the night and come back tomorrow.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Is it possible to take up my amendment? It is only 10 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. We will try to do that, too. Perhaps they can yield back some time on the Roth amendment.
That will give us until 7 o'clock or earlier than that, to the extent that time is released on these two amendments.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I could not hear the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. Could I ask the distinguished Senator from California a question? Would he have any objection to changing the order, so that the Proxmire amendment will be next, to be followed by the Roth amendment, with a 60-minute time limitation, and then to be followed by the Senator's speech either tonight or tomorrow?
Mr. HAYAKAWA. I would just as soon postpone it until tomorrow, in that case.
Mr. MUSKIE. That would be all right with me. That would get these two votes out tonight.
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, what time would we convene tomorrow, in light of the unanimous consent agreement about another bill tomorrow?
Mr. MUSKIE. I can ask the majority leader to respond to that.
The leadership suggests 9:30 tomorrow morning to resume action on this bill.
Mr. DOMENICI. How many amendments will be left at that point?
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, there is a Domenici amendment, the Tower amendment, two Byrd amendments, and two other amendments.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will we vote tonight on the Proxmire amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. We will vote 10 minutes from now.
The next vote will be in about 10 minutes, to be followed by the Roth amendment for 60 minutes, with a vote on that in approximately an hour and a half.
Mr. NELSON. Will there be two more votes this evening?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. NELSON. And I will be able to call up the amendment that the Senator is familiar with for a discussion tomorrow?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
Mr. HART. I wonder if the floor manager will yield 5 minutes to me on the bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I am happy to yield 5 minutes.
Mr. BUMPERS Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. HART. Yes.
Mr. BUMPERS. I ask unanimous consent that Grace Rice, of my staff, be granted the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, the distinguished manager is not only chairman of the Budget Committee, but he also serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee. In his capacity as a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, he will recall that that committee, in its report to the Budget Committee, made very emphatic reference to its intention and desire to enact legislation that would provide economic development assistance or so-called energy impact assistance to the States that are being called upon to provide most of the energy for the rest of the country. That recommendation by the Environment and Public Works Committee was at the level of $200 million.
As a principal sponsor of that legislation, I want to indicate to the floor manager and the chairman of the Budget Committee the seriousness of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's intention to proceed to markup on the legislation. Hearings having been held and the administration indicates that it will very, very shortly provide its support for this impact assistance. Of course, there is widespread support in our own committee for this very badly needed legislation, as is evidenced by the fact that the subcommittee's recommendation of $200 million was the only recommendation that was accepted, without reduction, by the full Environment and Public Works Committee as it prepared its recommendations for the Budget Committee. All other programs were cut to some degree by the full committee.
I am. therefore, concerned, as is the chairman of the committee (Mr. RANDOLPH), whether or not the budget resolution we are considering today will be able to accommodate this proposal when it is reported at the level of funding I have mentioned.
I know the Senator from New Mexico also is concerned about this. He is one of the cosponsors.
Mr. DOMENICI. I join in the concern and in the question that is being propounded. I believe the issue, Mr. President, is whether or not the amount of money that is found in function 450 is adequate to accommodate the proposal that the Senator from Colorado has just discussed. When we consider the various programs that are within it and the amounts that have been added for them, I think the question is whether or not that would accommodate the impact assistance program at the $200 million level in the event that is chosen by the committee and by the Senate as an appropriate legislative addressing of the issue we are discussing.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me answer the question in this way: The budget function involved is function 450. Targets in function 450 in the budget resolution are $10.4 billion in budget authority and $9.0 billion in outlays. In budget authority, that is $2.2 billion above current law, or $1.7 billion above current policy. Those targets, in the judgment of the Committee on the Budget, permit significant expansion for programs of community, area, and regional development, many of which are under the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The specific detail of programs to be approved, of course, will be decided by the authorizing committees and the Appropriations Committee.
As the Senator from New Mexico knows as a member of the Budget Committee, and as the Senator from Colorado understands from his exposure to this process, there is to some extent competition within functions for the authority provided by the budget resolution, since the Budget Committee does not line item in any way. It seems to me that, given that expansion above current law and current policy, we are talking about a reasonable amount of budget authority to deal with programs likely to be approved by the authorizing and Appropriations Committees.
We do not preclude this program or any other program, but we do not, at the same time, decide the ultimate priorities to be established by the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. HART. I thank the distinguished floor manager. His response indicates that the answer to my question is in the affirmative, that this program could be accommodated if, in fact, the authorizing committee so recommends. It is my understanding that the committee will.
I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. DOMENICI. I join the Senator from Colorado in thanking the chairman.
I also remind the chairman and ask him if it is not correct that in the energy function, as distinguished from function 450, there is sufficient latitude for the moneys that the conservation bill carries by way of land acquisition within the energy conservation conference. I believe that figure is $60 million. That is not the total impact assistance that the Senator from Colorado is asking about, but a completely different approach, or part of it. That is in there also, is it not, or would accommodate it?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I believe that is a relatively small amount, but I believe it could be accommodated.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
UP AMENDMENT 1245
(Purpose: to decrease the appropriate level of new budget authority to $561,100,000)
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment that is at the desk and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows :
The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 1245.
On page 1, line 11, strike out "$566,100,000,000" and insert $561,100,000,000.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, this amendment reduces the total budget authority in the first concurrent resolution by $5 billion from $566.1 billion to $61.1 billion.
Five billion dollars is less than a 1-percent reduction. One percent. Is there any Senator that will argue that our $566.1 billion budget cannot be reduced by less than 1 percent?
What is more, this amendment would permit a 10-percent increase in obligational authority over last year. So there is plenty of leeway here.
The Senator from Maine properly pointed out that the first amendment that I offered, the $25 billion cut, would have left much less leeway. This leaves a tremendous amount of leeway for the Budget Committee.
This 1 percent represents what the productivity increase should be for the Federal Government. Right now we make no formal allowance for productivity increases.
Or the 1 percent can be accounted for by the admitted mismanagement and fraud occurring in just one Government agency — HEW — $6.3 to $7.4 billion range.
Or the 1 percent could be accounted for just by the amount the Congress has increased the President's agriculture function (+$5.2 billion).
Or the 1 percent could be accounted for by the additions. of the Budget Committee over the President's budget for national defense ($1.4,billion) , energy ($0.7 billion, natural resources and environment $1 billion), and transportation ($0.9 billion).
There is not one Government agency that cannot stand a 1-percent decrease in budget authority.
Why, that amount alone is wasted each year in mismanagement, inefficiency, misplaced priorities, and duplication.
Mr. President, it took from 1789 until 1962 — 174 years — for the budget to break the $100 billion barrier. Then 9 years passed before we broke the $200 billion mark. Four years later we hit $300 billion still running fast. And 2 years later, this year, we go over $400 billion. At this rate of increase we soon will be adding $100 billion annually — an unthinkable rate of increase.
At the present deficit rate, our Government will be spending $1 billion a week more than it takes in. Or another way of looking at the issue is that the current deficit of this year and last would have financed the entire cost of the Federal Government for budget year 1965.
Why should we be concerned about the deficit and the national debt? If the standard economic arguments do not persuade, then just look at one simple fact. In this concurrent resolution, the fourth largest item in budget authority isinterest at $46.8 billion. Only income security, national defense, and health rank higher.
We now are spending more on interest than for international affairs; general science, space and technology; energy; natural resources and environment; agriculture; commerce and housing credit; transportation; community and regional development; education, training, employment, and social services; veterans benefits; justice; general government; and fiscal assistance. Interest payments are one of our largest obligations.
Interest, of course, is the result of the enormous deficits we have been running and this $5 million would help in a small way, but at least indicate our sentiment in trying to cut back the size of that deficit.
Mr. President in fiscal year 1976 the official estimate for total annual outlays was in error by $6.6 billion. We over estimated the amount of money that would or could be spent by 1.8 percent.
In fiscal year 1977, the estimating errorfor outlays was $14.7 billion or 3.5 percent. We again could not spend as much as estimated.
The point to keep in mind about these figures is that a $5 billion reduction in budget authority and its consequent outlay reduction would be within the estimating error of last year. In the past 2 years we have been trying to spend more money than actually was possible.
From this perspective, the $5 billion reduction is very modest indeed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from North Carolina (Mr. HELMS) be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to my good friend from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I salute the Senator from Wisconsin. I think it is an excellent amendment. I do not know how anyone could oppose such a small reduction in the proposed new obligational authority.
As the Senator pointed out, it amounts to less than a penny on each dollar that is proposed to be spent, and every department of Government wastes at least that much.
I might say to the Senator from Wisconsin, he underestimated or understated the case in regard to the interest on the national debt. The interest on the national debt actually is $53 billion.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is correct, I gave the net figure.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. He gave the net figure.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. But the cost is substantially higher than that.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be added as a cosponsor.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I say to my good friend from Wisconsin, there is no answer to an amendment like this. The only one I can suggest is this. Let us approve this one, $5 billion, and then let us have Senator MUSKIE offer an amendment to reduce another $5 billion using the same argument.
After all, on a budget of $561 billion, who is to say we cannot possibly save another $5 billion?
Then the Muskie amendment is approved and then Senator BELLMON, whoalso is a prudent fellow, gets up and says, "Well, my heavens, who is to say you can't cut $5 billion from $556 billion?"
I can see that exercise going on for each of 100 Senators.
Mr. CHILES. And then CHILES would like to have one.
Mr. MUSKIE. Senator CHILES would like to have one, Senator CANNON would like to have one, and so on.
Then Senator HELMS would like one, Senator DOLE would like one, Senator HATCH would like one, and there is no rebuttal to any one of those. None whatsoever.
I do not know to what level we would have to go before we could begin to say in response to the amendment that it would cut too deeply, because the response to any one of them cannot be that we have already approved 5, 10, or 15 of these $5 billion cuts.
I mean, obviously, that is not an argument, because the Budget Committee has already approved seven $5 billion cuts, and that does not satisfy the Senator.
We have cut $37 billion from committee requests. To the Senator, that is not an argument in answer to his amendment, because he says, "Well, of course, with the $566 billion budget, who is to say you can't cut another 5. Heavens, you have already cut 37."
But what kind of budget making is that? Where are we to take the $5 billion?
Mr. CHILES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. This budget resolution provides $25.5 billion in budget authority for housing assistance. I will say to the Senator, if this amendment passes since I will have the responsibility for recommending where that ought to come from, I will recommend taking it from housing assistance.
There is $5 billion. There is the place.
The Senator seems reluctant to identify places to cut. He says, "Oh, it ought to be possible somewhere." All right, let us begin right there.
I do not know where Senator CHILES' cut will come from, but he can name his own.
What I mean is, if we want to propose a specific cut, a specific priority, a specific place, that is legitimate, and the Senate can vote up or down on it. But when we say cut $5 billion in budget authority without saying where it is going to come from, who is to do the dirty work, may I ask the Senator?
I guess the best place for me to suggest where the dirty work is going to be done is in a program that the Senator is interested in. Since the Senator thinks it can be found somewhere, let us take it out of housing assistance. If we get that kind of restraint demonstrated by everybody who has a pet program, let us have them stand up one at a time.
Where is the $5 billion coming from, and so on? And I do not mean somebody else's pet program. I mean each Senator's pet program.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Then maybe we can get somewhere.
I offered in the Budget Committee, after the first round of deliberations, an aggregate cut of $4.7 billion in budget authority and $4 billion in outlays. This is almost the amount the Senator is now proposing, but I specified the 17 functions of the budget that would be cut. I specified defense and other functions, all across the board.
Do Senators know what happened to me, the all-powerful chairman of the Budget Committee? I lost, by a vote of 9 to 7 in the Budget Committee, which is hardly a great radical group of Senators in this institution. I lost, because I was specific.
The Senator is trying to cut by not being specific, and that is the difference.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. There is time on the bill.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Is it not a fact the distinguished chairman in his committee actually cut $37 billion from the request by this Senate?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have already said so.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Well, let us emphasize that. We did not walk in there. We had a struggle to get down to the House, and we did better than the President. I think Senators ought to know that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Cutting $5 billion at a time is painless. The Senator knows that.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Oh, yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1799 of the Senator from Wisconsin. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 43, nays 46, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]
So Mr. PROXMIRE's UP amendment No.1245 was rejected.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. CRANSTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the Roth amendment be taken not later than 7 o'clock tonight. The Senator from California (Mr. HAYAKAWA) has a 10-minute. to 11-minute speech. Senator ROTH and I will divide the time remaining equally. I doubt that I will need all my share of the time, so the vote may take place before 7. In any case, I ask unanimous consent that the vote take place not later than 7 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.