April 26, 1978
Page 11530
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, I have called up my amendment which increases the budget authority and outlays which the Budget Committee recommends for energy — function 270 — by $200 million for fiscal year 1979. The need for this increase is as simple as it is unfortunate:
Because it is becoming increasingly apparent that the administration is reneging on its commitment to develop solar and other renewable energy resources, it is up to Congress to assure that the budget resolution leaves sufficient room for higher authorizations in this critical area.
As an advocate of solar energy development, I was taken completely by surprise when the administration submitted its proposed fiscal year 1979 Department of Energy (DOE) budget. We had expected to accelerate the Nation's commitment to wind, small hydroelectric resources, passive solar, photovoltaics, and the many other renewable resources which we had been promised would be emphasized. Instead, I discovered that the solar budget actually had been cut from the inadequate levels of the previous administration. Once again, those of us who believe in solar energy found ourselves scrambling for crumbs while breeder reactor research was given a second lease on life.
In spite of this administration reversal, we are taking constructive action to assure that solar energy continues to receive a fair share of the DOE research, development, and demonstration funds. Through the solar coalition, my colleagues on both sides of the Capitol and myself are acting in committee to speed up DOE programs in passive solar energy, photovoltaics, biomass, wind, and small-scale hydroelectric development. With these increases, it is my hope that the optimistic solar predictions appearing with greater frequency in the reports of such agencies as the Council on Environmental Quality will be borne out.
These comments are not intended, of course, to cause any dispute with the distinguished members of the Budget Committee, who have had a most difficult task trying to piece together recommendations for a budget ceiling for the energy function when the energy bill has been stalled in conference and when the administration continually ignores its own promises to the American people about the development of alternative energy sources. The Budget Committee, in these times of too much Federal spending and a too large Federal deficit, must try to keep a lid on spending. But I know the members of the committee are also aware that some short-term apparent savings on something as crucial as research and development of solar energy will have long-term substantial costs as this country becomes more and more dependent on imported oil.
I think we all realize that we have a national energy crisis and a national energy problem, but I believe the administration has failed to realize, in its schizophrenic approach to resolving our energy problems, that many of these problems, while national in scope, are regional in solution.
The work of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee already is being hindered by the insufficient energy budget which has its roots in the administration's solar program slash. The recommended Budget Committee ceiling of $10.2 billion already has caused the chairman of the Energy Research and Development Subcommittee to urge caution in increasing the authorization for vital solar programs. At a time when the Nation is supposed to be concentrating on alternate energy resource production as one of its highest priorities, this is incomprehensible. My amendment to increase the budget ceiling by $200 million is intended to provide the necessary flexibility to the Energy Committee so that we can recommend to the full Senate a balanced energy budget which reflects the appropriate emphasis on solar and other renewable energy resources.
Mr. President, at this time, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the first point I should like to make, before getting into more extensive discussion, is that the Budget Committee does not build the budget resolution on a line item basis. If, for example, the Senator's amendment were to be adopted. there is no assurance that that $200 million would be devoted to solar energy research.
So the question is not whether or not in this budget resolution we can somehow focus more resources on solar energy by way of the budget resolution. The question is — whether or not the Senator's amendment is adopted — whether the authorizing committees can succeed in shifting the thrust of the effort being made in the executive branch.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. DURKIN. I realize that that is true. But our problem has been that in the Energy Research and Development Subcommittee we run up against the ceiling when we come to an alternative energy source. There seems to be money for something exotic — for a breeder and some of those projects — but we run into constraints when we bring up an alternative. I know there is no line item for particular energy projects.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will get into the question of the sufficiency of the resources, but I wanted to make that point at the outset.
Second, I hope the Senator has focused on the fact that there is pending — we have just completed debate on it — the Domenici amendment, which would cut several functions, including the energy function. The proposed cut in the energy function is $200 million in budget authority and $200 million in outlays — the same number in the reverse direction of the distinguished Senator's amendment.
Senator DOMENICI is very much involved in energy legislation. As a matter of fact, yesterday, he engaged me in colloquy to get reassurance that the amounts the budget resolution assumed for energy were sufficient to allow a project, in which he is interested to compete for funds.
It is a little frustrating on one day to be asked to give that assurance and on the next day to be asked by the same Senator to reduce the total resources available in the very function with which he is concerned.
So this business of competing for the resources is a very real one.
Now let me go to the gross amounts that are available here and put those in perspective.
Solar energy programs are classified, as the Senator knows, in function 270. It is a new function, incidentally, added to the budget this year. It is the first time energy has had a function by itself.
The committee's recommended targets in function 270 are $10.2 billion in budget authority and $10.1 billion in outlays. The Budget Committee considered these adequate for the following reasons : They are $700 million in budget authority and $200 million in outlays above the President's budget.
Second, if we exclude the gas guzzler tax refund — which, I take it, will not be enacted in any case — they are $1.2 billion in budget authority and $700 million in outlays above the President's budget.
The aggregate amounts provided in function 270 are $2.2 billion in budget authority and $1 billion in outlays above current law. They are $1.8 billion in budget authority and $900 million in outlays above current policy. Current policy, defining it in shorthand, includes an allowance for inflation in addition to current law funding.
So what we have is about 21 percent real growth in budget authority in this function.
The targets are comprised of the following mission recommendations, and the Senator will be interested in this, I know. This year, for the first time, we have divided the functions into missions.
For example, in this function there are four missions — energy supply, energy conservation, emergency energy preparedness, and then an all other energy program mission. We break the function down by mission and establish amounts for each mission; not that they are in the resolution — they are not — so they are not binding, but they demonstrate to the Senate how we reached our recommendation for the functional total.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. DURKIN. The mission I am referring to at this time is the mission on energy supply, and that is earmarked at $3.9 billion. If I understand the Senator's statement correctly, that was merely a guideline for the Budget Committee, and that is not a subceiling within function 270.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DURKIN. The Energy Committee can exceed that, so long as the total $10.2billion energy function is not exceeded.
Mr. MUSKIE. A mission subtotal is not a ceiling. Nevertheless, if any mission were increased by the appropriate committees, then another mission would have to be reduced in order to come under the total aggregate. So I think there is a discipline built into these mission numbers, even though they are not enforceable ceilings in the sense that the functional ceiling is.
Mr. DURKIN. If energy supply, say becomes $4.1 billion, one or the other missions has to be reduced by $200 million?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. DURKIN. But that is left for the authorizing committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right, to the authorizing committee, the appropriation committee, and ultimately to the Senate itself.
With respect to that mission, let me give the Senator some numbers. As to that mission, $3.9 billion in budget authority is $1 billion above the President's recommendation and $500 million above current law, and it is very close to the Energy Committee's recommendation of $4.1 billion.
In all, we have cut authorizing committees almost $37 billion. So that $200 million reduction in that one mission is a minuscule reduction compared to the cuts that we imposed on other committees.
Mr. DURKIN. If the Senator will yield for another question, maybe we can move this along. If my mathematics are correct, there is currently an approximate $700 million cushion between the energy staff projections and the figures of the Budget Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Budget Committee staff tells me we do not know what the energy staff's figures are.
Will the Senator repeat what he said so I may be sure I understand?
Mr. DURKIN. It is my understanding that the energy staff recommendations are exceeded in the total 270 function by about $700 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Energy Committee's recommendation was $10.7 billion in budget authority for the whole function, and the Budget Committee's recommendation is $10.2 billion. That is one of the smaller reductions that we made in the committee recommendations.
Mr. DURKIN. I have been getting those figures from the most recent Energy Committee staff recommendations, not the March 15 submission. They may well have not been forwarded to the Budget Committee, because they have not been resolved.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have the full committee's recommendation in the March 15 report and that figure is $10.7 billion in budget authority for the whole function. Within the $10.7 billion of the Energy Committee's recommendations they allocated $4.1 billion to energy supply.
And we came within $200 million of that recommendation.
Mr. DURKIN. One further question, and then I think maybe we can resolve the problem. If I understand the figures correctly, there is approximately $4.3 billion in money to buy oil for the strategic oil reserve, which we all support if they will put some of those reserves in places that New England will be protected.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the emergency energy preparedness mission, for which budget authority is $4.3 billion and outlays are $3.5 billion. Most of those sums go to the purchase of oil for the strategic petroleum reserves. Some go for facilities design and construction, but most of it is for purchase of oil.
Mr. DURKIN. And there is testimony in the Energy Committee in the letter from Assistant Secretary of Energy George McIsaac which says given physical conditions and time constraints, DOE will not be able to expend much more than $2.5 billion in fiscal 1979 for the oil reserve outlays.
My question is, because that provides an additional cushion for reallocation of these missing figures in the energy function, if the Energy Committee and if the full Senate—
Mr. MUSKIE. That is on the outlay side. If that mission for any reason does not require all the resources that we have assumed, the resources are available to the Energy Committee under the overall function for other purposes.
Mr. DURKIN. So, in other words, there is within the Budget Committee recommendations adequate funds to provide the additional money for solar energy that my amendment seeks, realizing the limitations of not having line-by-line items in the Budget Committee recommendations. Our job is not necessarily to increase the budget figure, but to convince the Energy Committee to allocate that money toward renewable resources—
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. DURKIN (continuing). Because the money is actually there and has not been restricted by the Budget Committee action.
Mr. MUSKIE. I want to be very careful not to say that the sums will fund any and all energy projects that any Senator can see. The targets are not that large. However, they are ample, and, within reason, I think that there is likely to be room for the energy technologies the Senator favors, in the mix the Energy Committee decides is the right mix for the national interest. The Senator is a member of the Energy Committee, and a very articulate spokesman, I might say, and a scrapper. There are resources available for the competition among energy technologies, within the targets for energy set in this resolution.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the position of the chairman of the Budget Committee in trying to keep our Federal spending within reasonable bounds. It is my belief that during a national crisis as severe as the energy crunch it is appropriate to spend as much as we need to maintain our national security. I can think of nothing which is more likely to enhance our national security than increasing our reliance on solar and other renewable, non-polluting energy resources.
My major concern, and the reason why I am offering this amendment, is that I want to see that solar energy and other renewable resources can be developed at the fastest possible rate. The total budget ceiling for the energy function — $10.2 billion — certainly should provide enough money to do this and much more. The difficulty is that the Senate Budget Committee report on the first budget resolution breaks down its discussion of the energy function into several mission discussions, each with a portion of the total $10.2 billion energy function ceiling, only $3.9 billion of which appears to be earmarked for energy supply development including solar energy.
It may be unclear to some who read the report whether the $3.9 billion energy supply figure is a ceiling beyond which the Energy and Natural Resources Committee cannot go in authorizing energy technology development or whether it is simply a guideline which discusses how the Budget Committee arrived at the $10.2 billion total energy ceiling.
This question is of some importance, because it may influence the outcome of the Energy Committee consideration of the fiscal 1979 Department of Energy authorization bill. If the Energy Committee shares my enthusiasm for solar energy development, it may choose to accelerate significantly the proposed budget for solar and other renewable resource technologies at the expense of less immediate expenditures covered in the budget resolution report under other missions. But the Energy Committee might not have this choice if the budget resolution or the report have the effect of limiting the Energy Committee's authorizing discretion within bounds of the budget ceiling.
Therefore, since the chairman clarified the effect of the mission breakdown in the budget resolution report on the energy function by explaining that each mission was intended as a guideline to illustrate how the Budget Committee reached the total ceiling figure of $10.2 billion for this function — rather than being further subdivisions of how the ceiling is to be allocated by the Energy Committee — I am satisfied that there is enough budget authority available for an adequate solar energy program and will withdraw my amendment.
Mr. President, in light of that explanation, I withdraw amendment No. 1805.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. MUSKIE. I reiterate my request for the Senator to join in opposing the previous amendment.
Mr. DURKIN. If nothing else, the Senator picked up my support on the other.
Mr. MUSKIE. Otherwise, we have $200 million less in this function.
Mr. DURKIN. That is not the direction that I intend to go.
AMENDMENT NO. 1806
(Purpose: To increase new budget authority and outlays for transportation by $100 million)
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, at this time I call up amendment No. 1806.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. DURKIN) proposes amendment numbered 1806.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 3, line 17, strike out "$19,500,000; 000" and insert "$19,600,000,000".
On page 3, line 18, strike out "$17,500,000,-000" and insert "$17,600,000,000".
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, it is essential for the Senate in considering this year's budget resolution to set its own priorities based on its assessment of the Nation's needs, rather than to acquiesce in the administration's judgments when they are questionable. The recommended budget ceiling for the transportation function — function 400 — is just such an example. Today I am introducing an amendment to increase the transportation budget authority and outlay ceilings by $100 million to assure that there is enough flexibility for railroad rehabilitation of lines needed for energy transportation.
The coal conversion bill, still stuck in conference at the administration's behest, contains an important amendment which I sponsored to upgrade the Nation's railroads for transporting coal and other forms of energy. Senators MAGNUSON, JACKSON, BATH, RANDOLPH, MCINTYRE, HASKELL, FORD, MATSUNAGA, HATHAWAY, ABOUREZK, WEICKER, PELL, and LEAHY all cosponsored it and passed the Senate by a roll call vote of 60 to 21. Our amendment provides $100 million specifically for the purpose of rehabilitating rail lines through the existing railroad rehabilitation and improvement fund to help increase coal use in areas which could offset imported oil with domestic coal. In enacting this amendment by such a wide margin, the Senate agreed with us that our energy policy must take into account the substantial transportation problems which afflict regions like New England.
Nonetheless, the administration failed to include budget authority for this important purpose in its transportation budget recommendation for fiscal 1979. Faced with increasing inflation, the budget committee has wisely tried to hold the budget down as far as possible. Unfortunately, the failure to include the $100 million in my amendment may mean that this important program is delayed by at least a full year.
It is essential that the transportation budget be sufficient to permit the appropriations committees the flexibility to recommend funding for this important program if they deem it worthwhile. Increasing the transportation budget ceiling by $100 million will accomplish this goal. I urge my colleagues to support my effort to assure that our energy policies take account of the serious transportation problems which all regions will have to face if we are to break the iron grip of imported oil.
Mr. President, last year the Senate adopted an amendment of mine cosponsored by Senators MAGNUSON, RANDOLPH, JACKSON, and others. The energy policy seems to be that there is going to be a need for increased use of coal especially in those areas of the country that are most dependent on OPEC oil. The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and I come from that area which is the empty and expensive end of the energy pipeline. We are heavily dependent on OPEC oil.
We have heard Dr. Schlesinger make statements endorsing coal conversion. Yet the only way we are going to get coal to New England — in the event the President removes his hold on the coal conversion bill, the utility reform bill, and the conservation bill, which have languished in committee since mid-December — under today's conditions is to fly it in. The rail beds are inadequate to haul the amount of coal that would be needed to reduce our dependence upon OPEC oil.
Again, as further evidence of the schizophrenic approach to the national energy policy as articulated by Dr. Schlesinger, the administration in conference with the House opposed my amendment which provides $100 million in authorization to rebuild the rail beds to haul coal and changes the purpose clause in title V of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act so that the existing funds could be used to rebuild the rails for hauling coal.
But the House, having better sense than the White House, went along with our amendment, and so it is engrafted to the coal conversion bill which is tied up in the energy conference.
My immediate concern is with respect to pages 102 and 103 of the Budget Committee report on the first budget resolution. On page 102, the committee talks about future-year choices. Item (2) is railroads: Rail rehabilitation in future years when the administration produces its promised programs. It seems to be the hallmark of this administration that they are going to have a comprehensive program always next year. They seem to have a lot of comprehensive programs but very little comprehensive accomplishments.
But be that as it may, on page 103, item (2), in reference to railroads, again there is no mention of utilizing the existing funding in the title V program of the act for rehabilitating rail beds to haul coal in this upcoming year 1979.
I understand the concern of the Budget Committee. The FRA seems to view itself more as a minor OMB. They seem to be more interested in presiding over rail abandonments than spending money that Congress has appropriated. I hope that will change under Mr. Sullivan, and I am still optimistic that he will havesome impact in that direction.
But, Mr. President, I want to ask the chairman, though the Budget Committee reports does not mention rehabilitation of rail beds for coal hauling on page 103, is it correct to say that the committee does not mean to prevent existing title V programs — now that the purpose clause has been changed — being used to rehabilitate the rail beds to haul coal?
I raise the question, because with the language on pages 102 and 103 of the report, it could be argued that there is no intent on the part of the Budget Committee that money will be spent in fiscal year 1979 to rebuild the rail beds for coal hauling out of the existing and ongoing funds in title V. I gather the answer is that is not the intent of the Budget Committee to give that impression, but I would like to hear from the chairman.
Mr. MUSKIE. It has no such intent.
May I say to the Senator that beginning with the budget process created 4 years ago, rail rehabilitation has been a priority in the view of all members of the Budget Committee, past and present. We have been somewhat frustrated that plans for rehabilitation related to specific objectives and transportation have been so slow in developing. But we have been more than ready to provide funds to do so.
With respect to the future year issues and that language that disturbs the Senator, the only purpose of that part of the committee report is to identify for the information of Senators future challenges that Congress faces in terms of the need for budget resources. It is not to suggest a postponement of what we ought now to be doing but rather to identify the big challenges, and some of the smaller ones, that face us.
We regard rail rehabilitation not only as a challenge today, but probably a growing challenge of sizable proportions that we are going to have to face.
The purpose there is to gear us up to the effort we are going to need over the long pull as well as the short pull.
Now, with respect to the short pull, let me say this: The Budget Committee targets already include $600 million in both budget authority and outlays above current policy for Mission 2, which is rail transportation.
Now, that increase will permit additional Federal investment for the continued rehabilitation of ConRail. But then in current policy the targets are adequate to accommodate the President's request of $279 million for national rail rehabilitation, and it is not clear that even this amount will be fully utilized. It represents the balance of the $600 million authorized by section 505 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, the shorthand title of which is the 4R Act, as the Senator knows.
In the 2 years since the 4R Act was enacted, all DOT has received only $400 million in applications for these funds and has approved less than $100 million.
The 4R Act provides additional financial assistance for rail rehabilitation which is not used.
Section 511 of the act authorizes Federal loan guarantees of up to $1 billion. But in 2 years DOT has received applications for less than $200 million and has approved less than $50 million.
We would like to see the commitments of funds moving faster than that, so we think there are funds sufficient to serve the Senator's objective, in which I wholeheartedly concur. I doubt if there is any area of the country in which the railroads are in such bad shape, and I say that not on the basis of any personal survey but just personal impression, as they are in our native New England. So rail rehabilitation is very much in the interests of the region.
We have provided that money, and there is not that much competition for that money as there is for the energy money the Senator was talking about earlier.
All we need is some prodding from Congress directed at DOT and maybe the stimulation of some applications within our region for the available funds.
Mr. DURKIN. I think one of the problems is the desire of the Department of Transportation not to spend the money which frustrates the will of Congress and those who are concerned with the rail bed situation. I suspect that this morning the people in Bowling Green, Ky., are rather concerned with the deteriorating rail beds inasmuch as they had a derailment last night. We are going to have to get after DOT about these problems. DOT has been dominated by the highway builders, and they have not stressed rail revitalization. The FRA would rather preside over abandonments and not spend the money. In fact, I hope under Mr. Sullivan, and I hope under Secretary Adams, that we will see some fairly immediate changes, because it is a very serious problem.
But inasmuch as the chairman of the Budget Committee has indicated that the language on page 102 and page 103 cannot be used by Members of Congress and, more importantly, by the administration and DOT, to frustrate the ongoing programs, I am satisfied with the chairman's answers, and I ask to withdraw my amendment on the basis of the statements made.
Mr. MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, I will give the Senator a statement now which will be in the RECORD to which the Senator can refer.
Mr. DURKIN. All right.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I can safely urge on behalf of the Budget Committee that DOT push forward with this program as vigorously as possible. We see it as a high priority need in the field of transportation, and I personally would join with the Senator from New Hampshire in pressing for action.
Mr. DURKIN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I ask to withdraw amendment No. 1806, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SARBANES). The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. DURKIN. I want to thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from New Hampshire.