CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD — SENATE
April 24, 1978
Page 11167
Mr. MUSKIE. First, I express my appreciation for the Senator's attention today. Second, I would like to say how grateful I have been for the steadfast and understanding support which he has given the Senate Budget Committee and, more importantly, the congressional budget resolutions over the years he has been in the Senate that we have brought those resolutions to the floor. I know for the last 3 years the Senator has been one of only 16 Senators whose support for the budget resolution is above 500. I know that comes, because of his great interest in the problem and his great concern about inflation and about the importance of setting a goal for balancing the budget.
I have listened to what he has had to say this afternoon. I think he is right on target. I appreciate his philosophy. More than anything, I wanted to indicate my recognition of the help that he has given to us and to me particularly over the last 3 years.
Mr. MORGAN. I thank my distinguished colleague very much.
Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time would the Senator wish?
.Mr. MOYNIHAN. Fifteen minutes, if possible.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee.
Mr. President, I would like to raise a concern with the managers of this resolution. The Committee on Finance will soon be coming to the Senate floor with a bill know as H.R. 7200, the public assistance amendments of 1978. This will include a series of important provisions affecting the present public welfare system.
One of these provisions is fiscal relief for State and local governments with respect to their present share of welfare costs. In some jurisdictions these costs are very high indeed. In most of the counties of New York State, for example, they exceed 50 percent of the county budget.
I am chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Assistance of the Finance Committee. Last summer I first proposed such relief in the amount of $1 billion to be allocated among the several States according to their welfare cost burdens. In our hearings, Governors, mayors, county executives, and public welfare administrators made it abundantly clear that not only was such relief essential to them if they were to continue providing welfare recipients the benefits to which they are entitled, but also that such fiscal relief is necessary as a precursor of general welfare reform itself.
This proposition was initially resisted by some, including the present administration, which indicated reluctance to provide fiscal relief until such time as a comprehensive welfare reform plan was fully implemented.
We argued the opposite view, that States and localities ought not to have to wait until 1982 for help with these financial burdens of the welfare system inasmuch as a single clear and undisputed objective of the welfare reform proposal is that the Federal Government should assume a much larger proportion of the local costs of this national program than it now does.
We argued further that the way to build momentum for welfare reform was to begin right now what we could do right now, which was to provide some share of that relief. In time, the President came round on this view, and it was agreed that for the 3 fiscal. years commencing with the present one and including the two to follow, there would be fiscal relief for welfare costs, the payments for fiscal 1979 and 1980 to be included in, the President hoped, a general welfare bill which would take effect in fiscal 1981.
Mr. President, I would like to state that I, for one, am still altogether optimistic about our prospects of enacting a major piece of welfare legislation this year. I accept that it is historical to suppose that such an event is ever going to happen but there has been an intervening event of great consequence, which is that the distinguished minority leader and the Senator from Oklahoma, who is the distinguished ranking minority member of the Budget Committee, Senator DANFORTH, of Missouri, and Senator RIBICOFF, of Connecticut, have come forward with a major welfare proposal which represents the first assertion of large bipartisan interest in the Senate for such a measure.
We are now holding hearings on the Baker-Bellmon-Danforth-Ribicoff proposal, and we have in HR. 7200, among other things, a vehicle by which we might send elements of such a bill back to the House. Members of the House by no means have given up their efforts. We have spent 15 months in bringing ourselves to this stage. To abandon the enterprise now would scarcely abide by our own purposes or previous pronouncements. In my mind, it makes the case for not abandoning fiscal relief.
I would have to say that the report of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 1979 is not reassuring with respect to the broader responsibility the Federal Government has taken on to share the increasing resources that flow from a graduated income tax under conditions of protracted inflation with State and local governments which do not have the same resources.
The Budget Committee reports, for example, with respect to function 850, which is general revenue sharing, the level of assistance contemplated over the next 5 years — this is on page 155 — would decline from its present 4 percent total of all State and local revenues to about 2 percent in fiscal 1983.
This marks a major decision in political economy. If it goes forward like that, it seems to me I should be most reluctant to see that happen, but in any event that is what is projected here.
Under section 850, for general purpose fiscal assistance, the Budget Committee recommendation is to cut the President's budget request of $15.1 billion to $9.7 billion, a reduction of one-third, or 36 percent. At the same time — and in striking contrast — on function 350 the committee proposes to increase the President's budget request for agriculture from $7.2 to $12.4 billion, an increase of 70 percent. The figures have been just about reversed; from $7.2 billion agriculture and $15.1 billion for general revenue sharing, we go to $12.4 billion for agriculture and $9.7 billion for revenue sharing.
It is a policy decision of very large moment. My proposal with respect to $400 million is not very sizable. I hope the chairman of the committee will want to comment, inasmuch as revenue sharing has seemed so much to be an urban program. Most Americans live in urban areas. Revenue-sharing is cut by a third.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Of course, I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the President's budget in function 850, that number was higher than the committee's, because the administration has proposed a taxable municipal bond option. At the present time, as the Senator knows, municipal bonds are not taxable.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the administration proposed was a substitute for that in the form of an interest subsidy. If we had included that, we would have had to include budget authority in function 850 to cover it. We did not include it.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I am only harassing the chairman about these bills for the purpose of impressing upon him the minuscule proposal I put before him for a mere $400 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand, but I was puzzled for a moment, because I momentarily forgot why we should be so much lower than the President in budget authority for function 850. Once I recalled the facts, I thought I ought to share the recollection with the Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I had feared the Senator might, but at the same time, he would grant that on page 155 of the committee report appears the 5-year forecast for general revenue sharing. To cut the proportion of State and local expenditures supplied by revenue sharing by half, from 4 to 2 percent, is an event we will all want to talk about, a proposition we will want to discuss.
Mr. President, what I want now to ask of the chairman is, would the budget resolution as recommended by the Budget Committee prevent the Senate from approving State and local fiscal relief as recommended by the Finance Committee and agreed to by the President?
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, if I may respond, the Budget Committee's recommendations to the Senate do not assume any of the $400 million funding for fiscal relief the Finance Committee recommended. While the Budget Committee's recommendations do not preclude the passage of a fiscal relief provision, such a provision could only be enacted if there were offsetting reductions in one or more of the priority items included in our assumptions. To pay for fiscal relief, the Finance Committee could reduce spending by a total of $400 million in other programs within its jurisdiction. This could be achieved by substituting fiscal relief costs for other increases in expenditures assumed by our committee such as the social service claims settlement, increased title XX funding, increased health program funding and an expanded earned income tax credit — or by enacting benefit reductions in current programs such as social security, medicare, medicaid, AFDC, and SSI.
What I am saying, Mr. President, is that there is room here, but it is up to the Finance Committee to decide where to use that room.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I do thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for a very clear and satisfactory reply.
I would like to ask one further question, in order that we might know what our relationships are likely to be. That is, does the Senate Budget Committee oppose fiscal relief in principle? I point out, for example, that the committee's altogether proper concern for inflation may not be most effectively directed to this issue, because we are involved here not with an increase in overall Government expenditure, but with a transfer of levels of expenditure among levels of Government. I wonder if. my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, wishes to comment on that.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I am very happy to respond. Let me first say that the Senator from Oklahoma does not oppose fiscal relief. In fact, the bill which the Senator from New York mentioned earlier does provide fiscal relief.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. It most assuredly does, and most effectively, I might. say.
Mr. BELLMON. The Budget Committee's decision not to assume, in the first budget resolution, that the $400 million would be provided was based on two considerations: First, our judgment that we had to identify any and all uncertain items — and cut those out of the budget wherever possible — in order to hold down the deficit. This is a particular concern this year, as my colleague knows. The deficit is still far too large.
It is up around $55 billion. We felt we had to be vigilant not to let it get any higher than it already is.
Second, the Budget Committee felt that fiscal relief should be addressed as part of the overall welfare reform issue rather than as a forerunner of welfare reform. On the latter point, I would like to make the following personal observations as a coauthor of one of the pending welfare reform proposals:
First. Most people who have studied the welfare system agree that poverty is a national problem — I think that is the key underlying issue here — and that the Federal Government should bear a larger percentage of future welfare costs than it now does. In particular, the burden of welfare financing should be taken off the local property tax in those States where that tax provides much of the support for welfare.
Second. I fear that providing fiscal relief without first enacting a welfare reform bill may slow down the progress of welfare reform, since it will tend to take off some of the pressure for enactment of a reform bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. METZENBAUM) . The 15 minutes allotted to the Senator from New York has expired.
Mr. BELLMON. I yield an additional 5 minutes.
Third. President Carter has not included in his budget or otherwise endorsed fiscal relief before welfare reform. His most recent position statement is contained in the March 22 announcement of his urban strategy. He said:
... I propose to phase in the fiscal relief component of the Better Jobs and Income Act as soon as Congress passes this legislation, rather than in 1981 as originally planned.
Fourth. The welfare bill, which six other Senators and I have coauthored (S. 2777), provides fiscal relief for State and local governments, starting in fiscal year 1980 and increasing in fiscal year 1981 and fiscal year 1982. In fiscal year 1982 and beyond, our bill would provide a shift of more than $3 billion per year in State and local costs to the Federal level.
Fifth. I believe personally, and I want to stress this point, that we can and should pass a welfare reform bill this year. If substantial progress can be made between now and September on welfare reform, I would support the addition of money to the second budget resolution if needed to enable fiscal relief to begin in fiscal year 1979, even though it would not start until fiscal year 1980 under the bill that we have introduced, which I support.
What I am saying to the Senator is, if we can get some progress toward welfare reform, I shall be glad to support additional funds.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I could not be more grateful to the Senator, both for the energy he has shown in the preparation of the welfare bill and in his responses today.
I appreciate the clarification the Senator has provided on first, the considerable flexibility which will exist under this resolution for the Finance Committee and the Senate as a whole for consideration of fiscal relief, and second, on Senator BELLMON's personal perspectives on fiscal relief and its relationship to welfare reform. While I differ with him on the latter point, I am very pleased that we are in basic agreement on the much more important longer-run fiscal relief question.
I would take 1 more minute of his time just to ask whether there may be some current figures on this whole question of the different rates of revenue increases for the Federal Government and the State and local governments.
The last time I knew, these figures, because of this phenomenon of inflation, suggested that for every 1 percent increase in the revenue of the Federal Government owing to the graduated tax system and an increase of 1 percent or less in revenues of State and local government.
I do not assert this is a fixed ratio in our economy, but it was once rather stable and, if it is still the case, the Federal Government has a responsibility to increase its rate of revenue sharing rather than otherwise if anything like equal levels of governmental competence and fiscal viability are to be retained at the different levels of the Federal system.
Inflation will do many things to us. One thing it will do the quickest is give the Federal Government an extraordinary predominance in the political economy as against State and local governments.
Mr. BELLMON. The Senator's figures are correct. The Federal revenues are increasing more rapidly than State and local governments. But we probably should not press this too far because during hearings this year we were told by competent witnesses that whereas Federal Government budget deficits are $55 billion or $60 billion, the State and local governments are carrying very sizable surpluses.
That is not true in all instances.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I do thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Maine.
I leave the general thought in mind, but I thank them very much for these specific undertakings. I appreciate the time of the committee.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank the Senator. I have enjoyed working with him on this.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to the Senator's observations relative to the relationship between Federal revenues and growth in GNP, the figures he used, were 1.5 to 1, as I recall.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. That was the early 1970's.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is true as to the personal income tax, but not as to Federal revenues generally. The figure there is between 1.2 and 1.3 percent.
With respect to general revenue sharing, we made no assumptions that would respond to the magnitude of that program, would respond to inflation. That is a decision for Congress to make.
The Congress has just renewed general revenue sharing with some increase to reflect inflation. But we felt in committee we ought not make any assumptions about what Congress would do when the next authorization period came up.
Of course, Congress can do whatever it decides appropriate at that time.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. But is it not the case that the figure the Senator has just projected as in the Budget Committee report shows, in effect, a policy decision to reduce the impact of revenue sharing rather considerably unless we decide to do something about it.
The way things are left, we are going to cut the impact of that program in half.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think—
Mr. MOYNIHAN. This is not the doing of the Budget Committee at all.
Mr. MUSKIE. But I do not think there is anything in the history, which is not all that long, to shorten that conclusion. That may happen, but my own guess is that Congress will probably increase the amount by something to reflect inflation.
But may I state, Federal expenditures on the order of $84 billion in the 1979 budget now go to State and local governments through grant and aid programs and block grant programs.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. And that has—
Mr. MUSKIE. That has grown enormously.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is the point I would make. This money will make its way back. But if we do not watch out, it will be in very precise grants decided on in Washington and administered from Washington, in contrast to the general theory of revenue sharing which was to maintain local decision making.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand whenever moves are undertaken to convert those specific grant-in-aid programs to more general block grant programs or general revenue sharing, not only is there response here in Congress where people like to make the spending decisions more directly, but there is also resistance among constituencies at the grassroots who do not like to lose our specific programs.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Constituencies created by the Federal Government.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is true, but they are there.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. A vertical bureaucracy, to the State capital and the county.
Mr. MUSKIE. There are also State, local and county governments who become constituencies because they see that when programs are converted to general purpose programs like community development programs, for example, that the larger units tend to benefit and the smaller get lumped together in groups where they have to scramble for inadequate funding.
So the problem of shifting from grant-in-aid programs to general revenue sharing is not all that simple.
I have been a proponent for that movement over several years and we may make some progress. I think we ought not ignore the fact, however, that $84 billion is being made available in fiscal year 1979.
There is another point, may I say to the Senator. Although surpluses are not evenly distributed among State governments today, nevertheless, overall, State governments are in surplus.
There are those in politics at the State level who pat themselves on the back for the fact that they are in surplus, whereas the big, bad, Federal Government is in deficit, ignoring the fact that in many cases their surpluses are made possible by the general revenue sharing funds that deepen the Federal deficit.
So there is a little grating of the nerves that takes place in that kind of dialog.
But, nevertheless, I think the Senator has made a valid point. I have long believed when we finally dealt with the welfare problem adequately we would lift that burden to a substantial degree off State and local governments, as we probably should. I think that is likely to happen.
So when we look at the whole picture, at that time we may see the equities a little differently and, hopefully, we will make more equitable distributions of the burden.
I would like to say one other thing, if I may, to the Senator about the tough choices that he will face as he considers the possibility of finding room in this budget resolution for fiscal relief.
The choices to which Senator BELLMON referred are tough ones. We assumed increases in a variety of programs in the Finance Committee jurisdiction, such as $500 million for social services claim settlement, $200 million for increased title funding, and $400 million for an expanded earned income credit. To accommodate fiscal relief, one or more of those may have to be cut.
But, in any case, that option is there. I agree with what my good friend from Oklahoma said on that point. We do not try to exercise those options for the committees involved.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. You have troubles enough.
Mr. MUSKIE. We inherit all the accumulated problems of all the other committees, and I guess we should not complain about that.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the chairman and I thank the ranking minority member.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, earlier, the Senate acted on an amendment presented by the distinguished Senator from Virginia (Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) . Subsequent to the vote on that amendment, I received a letter from the Secretary of HEW, Joseph A. Califano, Jr., on the subject of the amendment and the intentions of the Department to seek to implement the Inspector General's report which was the basis for that amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the RECORD at this point,so that Members who are concerned about the amendment and particularly the Inspector General's report can get this evidence of the Secretary's determination to seek to implement that report.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
Washington, D.C.,
April 24, 1978.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman, Committee on Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that during floor consideration of S. Con. Res. 80, the First Concurrent Resolution on the FY 1979 Budget, Senator Harry Byrd intends to offer an amendment to reduce outlay authority by $5.6 billion in the three functional categories affecting HEW programs. Specifically, the amendment would eliminate: (a) $500 million from Function 500 — Elementary and Secondary Education Programs, (b) $4.1 billion from Function 550 — Medicare and Medicaid, and (c) $1.0 billion from Function 600 — AFDC and SSI.
According to Senator Byrd, the basis for this sweeping amendment is the recently released annual report by HEW's Inspector General, which estimated that of $148 billion in HEW fiscal year 1977 outlays, between $6.3 and $7.4 billion were unnecessarily or improperly spent. This estimate, which is rough and incomplete, was prepared at my request because I believe it is important that we identify all potential areas of unnecessary and inappropriate expenditures as we strive to eliminate them.
To use this estimate as a basis for making widespread reductions in HEW programs, however, would be a serious mistake. It would attempt to cure complex problems primarily in the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC and SSI which have developed over many years.
Adoption of the Byrd amendment would not help to accomplish the goal of eliminating fraud, abuse and error from these programs. Aggressive and sustained action is the way to deal with such problems, and we are committed to such action.
Congress acted last year to assist us in meeting problems of fraud and abuse by approving H.R. 3, the Medicare, Medicaid anti-fraud and abuse legislation. Enactment of our proposed hospital cost containment bill, now pending before Congress, would represent a major step in dealing with the problem of excessive health care costs. Reducing the excessive number of existing hospital beds will also contribute significantly to a lowering of unnecessary Medicare and Medicaid expenditures. We will also need assistance from Congress in other areas to acquire the necessary tools to eliminate fraud, abuse and waste in Federal health programs.
The other major reduction proposed by the Byrd amendment would be in the area of education activities. It would eliminate Administration initiatives to increase Title I, ESEA to benefit approximately 900,000 more children, increase the Federal share of educating handicapped children, and increase Head Start Funds.
We are committed to improving the management of HEW programs and to assure that taxpayers' dollars are properly spent for the purposes intended. We have undertaken major initiatives to deal with the problems discussed in the Inspector General's report, among them:
Project Integrity, which uses computer techniques to screen Medicaid claims of doctors and pharmacists for fraud, abuse, and error.
Project Match, which matches payrolls and welfare rolls to identify individuals improperly receiving cash assistance.
Operation Cross-Check, which uses computer techniques to identify government employees who have defaulted on student loans.
A reorganization that consolidated Medicare and Medicaid administration in the Health Care Financing Administration in order to manage more effectively the Federal health dollar and to reduce fraud, abuse, and error.
A reorganization and consolidation of the student assistance program and to put them on a sound financial footing.
Consolidation of all cash assistance programs under the Social Security Administration.
Timely development of criteria for the establishment of State fraud and abuse units in Medicare and Medicaid as required by Congress.
Tightened control over grants and procurements.
Development of major new accounting and quality control systems in Medicare and Medicaid, SSI and AFDC aimed at reducing error rates.
Institution of a major initiative tracking system to monitor departmental provision of services in an effective fashion including error rate reduction.
Proposing major welfare reform legislation to consolidate all cash assistance programs on a single computer system to reduce fraud, abuse, and error.
These and other actions clearly demonstrate our commitment to deal effectively with the problems identified in the Inspector General's report. Senator Byrd's amendment would not result in the savings he has projected. If adopted, it could instead cause reductions in important discretionary grant programs to meet the outlay levels proposed. We therefore urge the rejection of Senator Byrd's amendment.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH A. CALIFANO, Jr.
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. ROBERT C. BYRD. 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. CRANSTON. I want to comment on how this budget resolution affects funding for the Space Shuttle. As most Senators know, the Space Shuttle is a transportation system which enables a space vehicle to be launched, orbit the Earth, and be recovered. As the generation of space vehicles which follows upon the successful Apollo program, the Shuttle will provide us with routine access to space, at considerable savings resulting from phasing out of inefficient non-reusable launch vehicles.
The development plan for Space Shuttle envisions construction of five orbiters. The orbiter is that component of the Shuttle that contains crew and payload and is reusable. Congress, wisely I believe, established a five-vehicle fleet in order to assure that the full potential of the Shuttle system would be realized.
The administration has proposed to reverse the Congress decision and reduce the Shuttle fleet to four orbiters, and consider additional orbiter capacity in future years. The fifth orbiter is needed.
At the relatively small additional cost of $265 million, spread out over several years, it constitutes a particularly sound investment. For fiscal year 1979 the funding requirement is small indeed, some $4 million. Moreover, delaying its procurement until fiscal year 1981 will add as much as $235 million to its cost according to reliable estimates. That, in my view is penny-wise and budget-foolish.
Will the chairman tell me whether the budget resolution we are debating today assumes funding for the fifth Space Shuttle orbiter?
Mr. MUSKIE. I know that the distinguished Senator from California is a strong supporter of the Space Shuttle. Let me respond to his question by first noting that the civilian space program, including the Shuttle, falls into Function 250: General Science, Space and Technology. In this function, the Budget Committee is recommending targets of $5.2 billion in budget authority and $5.0 billion in outlays.
Mr. CRANSTON. Yes, I am aware those are the recommended amounts. The chairman will recall our discussion during the Budget Committee markup about this item.
Mr. MUSKIE. As the Senator knows, the Budget Committee does not make its determinations by line items. We do not specify individual programs in the budget resolution, so the Budget Committee has neither endorsed the fifth orbiter nor rejected it.
However, the $5.2 billion budget authority recommended amount would be sufficient to accommodate first year funding of the fifth orbiter, should the authorizing and appropriations committee wish to proceed with it, as the committee's report notes on page 72.
Mr. CRANSTON. I believe the other items that are included in the President's budget in this function are also quite important. They include funds for the National Science Foundation and the basic research programs of the Department of Energy, and the balance of the civilian space program.
To assure funding sufficient to cover the fifth Shuttle orbiter, it is my understanding that the budget authority total in function 250 would need to be $5,220 million. This amount represents the President's budget request for this function of $5,216, which does not include the orbiter plus the orbiter's first year incremental cost, which is only $4 million. Is the $5.2 billion recommended by the committee sufficient to cover the $5,220 required to fund the fifth orbiter and the other programs in this function?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. The Budget Committee, as the Senator from California knows, in order to simplify its work and assist others in understanding it, uses the conventional rule of rounding. Under this rule, for example, 5,163 would be rounded up to 5.2 while 5,249 would be rounded down to 5.2.
Mr. CRANSTON. So the $5.2 billion recommended by the committee is not a flat 5,200.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. CRANSTON. So that if actual fiscal year 1979 spending in function 250 threatened to total 5,220 in budget authority or even 5,235, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee would not come to the floor and suggest that a piece of pending legislation which would create that spending level was breaching the functional target of the budget resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. As long as the spending, under the rule of rounding, could be rounded down to 5.2, my position would be that the bill does not exceed the target. The committee's past practice and current policy has been and is to define spending as within the target if the amount in question can be rounded to the target amount.
Let me state though that should spending legislation involve additional spending and, when rounded, cause the function 250 total to reach $5.3 billion in budget authority, then the target the committee is now recommending would be considered breached, and I reserve judgment as to what action I would recommend to the Budget Committee as appropriate.
Mr. CRANSTON. I understand that, and I thank the chairman for his clarification of this issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. Again, let me state for the record that the Budget Committee's recommended budget authority target in function 250 of $5.2 billion does not endorse or reject the fifth Shuttle orbiter.
The mix of program activity within the functional amounts is for others to determine. But the target of $5.2 billion is not our view of a ceiling of 5,200. If spending can be rounded down to the 5.2 amount, I will not consider the functional target to have been breached. If the fifth orbiter can be funded within such spending, then the target is sufficient to accommodate the orbiter.