April 26, 1978
Page 11552
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, with respect to that part of the Tower amendment which deals with the adequacy of the defense function, I am sure I cannot add to what the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator STENNIS, has said — he is our chairman — with respect to national defense requirements — and his assurance that the numbers provided in the budget resolution match his conception of what our defense requirements in fiscal year 1977 should be is all the defense that the Budget Committee's defense recommendation needs. That is the assurance upon which the Budget Committee built its numbers.
The Senator from Texas suggested that we have sacrificed defense spending in order to serve our exaggerated notions of what we should spend for domestic purposes.
The first point I make in response to that is the testimony of the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. I have worked closely with Senator STENNIS throughout the years of this budget process, and I have found him most cooperative and accommodating, not to the sacrifice of his own sense of duty with respect to his responsibilities, but in an effort to accommodate his own best judgment of what our Nation's defense requires and to the need to exercise budgetary strength overall.
I compliment him for serving his duty in that way.
The second point I make in response to the Senator from Texas is this: The recommendations we have received from the Armed Services Committee and Appropriations Committee did not address the Trident submarine or pay raise issues which the Budget Committee addressed.
If we are to adjust the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees' recommendations with the Budget Committee views on the pay raise and what our numbers take into account, we provided, in effect, $700 million more than the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee recommended in their March 15 reports.
The Senator criticizes us for not providing more than the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee recommended. That is not the case.
May I remind the Senator that the Budget Committee cut the recommendations of authorizing committees by $36 billion and not a penny of that $36 billion came out of the Armed Services Committee's recommendation for defense. That is the reverse of what the Senator accuses us of having done. We have cut domestic programs without cutting the defense program as submitted to us. That is the fact of the matter.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. TOWER. I did not accuse the committee of anything. I commended the committee for raising the defense amounts. I simply suggested that in my view it should be more.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator was saying and I think these are the Senator's words, and he did say what he just said, but he said this in addition.
The Senator stated that if we have reached the point where we are going to sacrifice defense requirements in order to feed — I do not know if he used the word "feed" — but in order to promote spending in domestic areas, then we are in a sad situation.
The fact is we did the reverse, and I think the record ought to be straight on that point.
With respect to the functions which the Senator would propose to reduce — and this amendment, may I say to the Senator, is the McGovern amendment of the right. Senator McGovern proposed a transfer amendment to move funds from the defense function to domestic purposes. The Senator from Texas does the reverse. He would move funds from domestic programs to the defense program. They are both so-called transfer amendments.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Six hundred million dollars is out of foreign assistance not out of domestic spending.
Mr. MUSKIE. All right, I accept that as an accurate fact. But the Senator also includes a combined $1 billion reduction in the health and income security functions. The Senator's amendment, if I understand it, adds $1.6 billion in budget authority and $400 million in outlays to the defense function. It takes out $600 million in budget authority and $200 million in outlays from the international affairs function, cuts $200 million in both budget authority and outlays from the health function, and cuts $800 million in both budget authority and outlays from the income security function. So it is the reverse of the McGovern transfer amendment.
Now, I make this comparison for no purpose other than to restate my very great reservation about this method of amending the budget resolution. If there are savings that can be made, legitimate savings that can be made, and judgments can differ on that, in any function, in my judgment the savings ought to be applied to the budget deficit and not to increased spending in another function.
The Budget Committee operates by going through the budget function-by-function. There are 19 of them as a whole. There are Senators in the Budget Committee, as there are on the floor, concerned primarily with defense. Other committee members are concerned with social service programs. The committee members represent a pretty good cross-section of the Senate, maybe more on the conservative side than on the liberal side as a whole, if one looks over the entire committee. But each budget function's needs are evaluated on merits, and the final judgment of
the committee is on the needs of each function.
We do not engage in swapping dollars between functions. Once we have gone through the 19 functions, we look at the totals, determine whether or not the total spending proposed is excessive and whether or not there are some needs that have been overlooked. In the last 2 years the chairman has proposed cuts in the 19 functions on a selective basis in order to reduce total spending and in order to reduce the deficit.
This year I did the same thing, without success. I lost on a motion which would have cut $4.7 billion in budget authority and $4 billion in outlays from the committee's recommendation by a vote of 9 to 7. There were some who thought it was too great a cut. I invited counteroffers. I received none.
So the committee, in effect, endorsed the numbers that are now in this budget resolution, even though I had recommended and was willing to take the heat for some cuts. And my cuts were not just in defense but in foreign affairs and in domestic programs. I recommended cuts in 17 functions, and I was rejected, which, to me, emphasized the soundness of the Budget Committee's first round of decisions on functional totals. That was the committee's consensus of judgment as to the soundness of those functional totals.
So I say to the Senator, if there are supportable cuts in the functions he has chosen for cuts, supportable cuts, that is, that the Senate as a whole can support, then what I would prefer is to see those cuts applied to the deficit in order to reduce it.
I see no justification to move the savings from the cuts to defense when the Budget Committee has already provided more than the President asked for defense, more than the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee have asked for defense, and as much as the Budget Committee — relying on the judgment of those within its membershipwho have a special background in defense matters — has recommended to the Senate. When we have done that much for defense, we need no more spending for defense. I think defense has to exercise the same kind of budgetary restraint as any other function of the Government,and that is the role, of course, exercised by the Budget Committee in establishing budget targets.
So I do not like transfer amendments whether they come from Senator MCGOVERN or from Senator TOWER or from any other Member of the Senate, because the way amendments ought to be addressed are to functional totals on their merits. Let us vote them up or down. Make the case for amendments, vote them up or down, but not try to tie a justification for a cut in one function to a desire for an increase in another. That is no case, in my judgment, for a cut in any function.
The cut ought to be justified on its merits and not on somebody's desire to increase spending elsewhere. If we engage in that kind of practice and transfer amendments become popular around here, manging this budget is going to be a real circus. It is bad enough as it is, but I can just see people picking their particular scapegoats among the functions and tying them to their particular favorites among the functions, and just overwhelming the Senate with transfer amendments of one kind or another. The effect of shifting funds from unpopular programs to currently popular programs will be to produce one giant Christmas tree.
In any case I have indicated my opposition to this amendment. I do not see any particular reason to belabor points that have already been addressed.
Incidentally, there is another point I want to be sure that we cover. My good friend from Texas talked about a huge increase in public assistance.
If he was referring to this budget resolution, there would be no increase in the public assistance mission if it were not for an accounting change; and that is the accounting change which would now treat the refundable portion of the earned income credit as a spending item in the budget rather than as a revenue loss. Except for that — and I will put the amount in the RECORD—
Mr. BELLMON. It is $900 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. $900 million. Except for that $900 million, which is a bookkeeping change, shifting that particular item from the revenue to the spending side, there is no increase in public assistance in this budget resolution.
If this accounting change is taken into account, there is a net decrease, as a matter of fact, in public assistance of $100 million in budget authority and in outlays.
I think, Mr. President, that covers the points which ought to be made. I can understand Senator TOWER's concern. He has had a long standing concern with respect to defense matters. I do not criticize that at all nor do I challenge his right, and, as he may see it, his duty to offer his amendment. But I have tried to answer it on its merits, and on its merits I would oppose it.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I would like to respond very briefly to some comments made earlier by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS) in discussing this amendment. The Senator referred to some changes in AFDC which need to be made. I think most of us would agree that this is a program that does need careful scrutiny and that some changes are, perhaps, in order. In fact, I have joined in a bill that would propose some changes. But most of the changes in AFDC which the Senator from Nebraska has advocated have already been studied or are now being studied by the Senate Finance Committee. Some of them are included in H.R. 7200, a bill which the Senate Finance Committee has reported.
Unfortunately, the CBO estimate of the net effects of H.R. 7200 on costs is that the bill will actually raise costs by $500 million in fiscal year 1979. Four hundred million dollars of this increase is for fiscal relief which the Senate Budget Committee has not put in its recommendation, in this resolution.
I think it is significant, Mr. President, that the Senator from Nebraska and the Finance Committee have already dealt with a good many of the cost-sharing ideas that have. now been proposed, and that rather than save costs the net result when they are all considered is an increase in costs.
So I think here again the Senate Budget Committee tried to be responsible to the best information we could get, and that the figures we have in our resolution reflect the real life situation we now face. If the situation changes, certainly we will be happy to take into account those changes when we look at the second resolution in September.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I would point out that if we do not increase the budget, when we come in for our shipbuilding, which is undetermined as yet, precisely what we want to authorize in the way of shipbuilding, that shipbuilding money will have to come out of something else in defense, which means there will be cuts in other defense programs if we follow on with what we consider to be an adequate shipbuilding program. I think that should be borne in mind. And I again remind the Senate that the NATO task force reports have not yet been made available to Congress, and they will set a higher target figure, and that, therefore, we should set a higher target figure for 1979, to give flexibility in 1980 and beyond.
Mr. President, I think we can have a reasonable debate here without escalating the rhetoric. I have not accused anyone of anything. I am certain the Budget Committee acted in good faith, and perhaps on the best available information that they had. But I see nothing wrong with coming to the floor subsequent to committee action and suggesting that there might be a constructive change to be made in it.
I understood that that was what we were all about in this place, that from time to time, after a committee has acted, it is perfectly reasonable and legitimate for Members to propose amendments on the floor, that no committee is possessed of all the knowledge in this world, that committees are not always totally infallible, and that perhaps sometimes suggestions can be made from the floor that improve legislation. It has been done time and again.
I think we ought to have a right to debate the question of budget priorities on the floor of the Senate. I do not accept the notion that the Budget Committee alone can determine what our spending priorities are, and then come to the floor and say, "We should not be questioned; we and we alone, in our omniscience"
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER [continuing]. "Shall determine what the priorities should be, and we should not be challenged."
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I think it is perfectly legitimate to challenge them, as long as we do it in good faith and put forth a reasonable argument.
I am not suggesting that the committee acted in anything but good faith, but I also reserve the right, as a Member of the U.S. Senate, to suggest that changes be made on the floor, and call my colleagues' attention to such changes and make arguments for them.
I reserve the remainder of my time; the Senator from Maine can speak on his own time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not think I have suggested at any time that the Budget Committee's judgment is unchallengeable. If I have said so, I have been peculiarly unpersuasive. Over the last year, and prior to this budget resolution, there have been 13 issues, I think, that have been raised in connection with the budget resolution. I have lost 11 of those 13. So I have been persuaded lately, I say to my good friend, that the Budget Committee is not regarded as unchallengeable. I have a sufficient sense of humility to believe that the Senate is probably right, that we are not unchallengeable.
I certainly recognize the right of any Senator to raise any amendment that he wishes. But does that means that that amendment itself is unchallengeable?
I gather that the Senator's rhetoric expressed considerable indignation because I challenged his amendment. Why should his amendment be beyond challenge, any more than the budget resolution itself should be beyond challenge? Obviously we have differences. All I say to the Senator is that we have provided everything and more that the Appropriations Committee and the Armed Services Committee have requested. Senator BELLMON has confirmed that, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee has literally confirmed it, and the Senator from Texas says, in response, that there are some new reports, some NATO task force reports that ought to be taken into account.
Well, they can be taken into account. But those reports, ordered by General Haig as I understand it, have not yet been approved. I understand that the NATO defense ministers will meet in May in Brussels to consider those reports. I take it in due course there may well be policy decisions agreed to by the members of NATO with respect to those reports.
I cannot imagine the process will moveso rapidly as to have a budgetary impact in fiscal year 1979. I would expect that it would have an impact in fiscal year 1980. Surely we have all the procedures, the committees, and the agencies in the executive branch and the Congress itself, to take the reports into account in time to make appropriate decisions for fiscal year1980. I see no reason for the Senate to act on incomplete information, on reports that have not yet been approved or disapproved, for that matter, by the appropriate authorities. The Senate should not act arbitrarily, because of the existence of reports which may at some point result in policy decisions calling for more spending. The Senate cannot be asked to justify an increase in this year's budget resolution due to these reports at this time.
If we were to act on that kind of information, this whole budget would be larger. The Senator will find in the Budget Committee report analyses of future choices that Congress may have to face involving huge sums of spending in the future. They may or may not materialize. Some of them will in some form. But this budget resolution is not the place to provide for them. We are going to have subsequent budget years in which to do so.
If I understand the Senator's case for his amendment, all there is to it rests not on other committee's recommendations but on reports. NATO Task Force reports .that may not yet be completed, that have not yet been acted upon, and that have not yet been implemented. Further, the reports have not yet been subscribed to by the President, the State Department, or our foreign policy decision making institutions. I do not think that is a sufficient basis upon which to change the budget resolution for 1979.
I applaud the Senator's initiative in bringing them to our attention, and I do not resent it or object to it, or object to his offering the amendment; and if he has other amendments I will be glad to discuss those also.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, as a practical matter, it has been recommended by many that we increase our military spending in real terms, over and above the inflationary factor, in a magnitude of 3 percent a year, if we are to stay abreast — not to maintain superiority, but to stay abreast — of the military spending of the Soviet Union, which is 40 percent greater than ours, and in investment terms 75 percent greater than ours, if we are going to continue to be able to meet the threat.
The President submitted a budget that was $4 billion below that recommended by his own Department of Defense. A lot of it was achieved by sliding aircraft procurement and procurement of other systems into a subsequent fiscal year.
What I fear we are going to do is to come up later on having to make up for that fact, plus having to refund some additional NATO endeavors which I think are likely to be determined necessary.
It is true that the reports of the task forces have not been acted upon, but, in fact, what I am proposing here is enough flexibility to allow us to act upon them should we need to do so. The fact that we increase the budgetary ceiling for defense, of course, does not mean that we have to spend the money. But it is there for a contingency.
I hope we will seriously consider this.
It may be we are going to hit a big bulge in defense next year. I suggest it is better to go ahead and spend the money now in the interest of preventing large increases from time to time. In fact, by stretching out the production lines on aircraft we save money for this budget year. We can reduce the budget by reducing our aircraft procurement. What we do in the process is pay more money in the long run because, by stretching out the production lines, we increase the per unit cost.
That is a kind of budgetary hanky-panky. I do not blame this on the BudgetCommittee at all. They have nothing to do with this. They do not look at line items. They look at what we request in total terms. So I do not want to convey the impression that I am sticking this on the Budget Committee. But, in fact, because the executive branch wants to get its budget all in apple pie order they recommend stretching out these production lines, increasing the per unit cost on the aircraft we buy just for the sake of showing some budgetary restraint this year.
I do not think we can continue to do this very long and get the biggest bang for our defense buck, get the best value possible for our military outlays, which I insist we must get when we consider the fact that in investment terms, that is to say in R. & D., test and evaluation, production and procurement, the Soviet Union is outspending the United States 75 percent per annum. I think the American people are concerned about it. If they had a chance to vote on what our priorities should be, the defense of the United States would come right at the top.
I believe we do have to make value judgments about what our spending priorities are. I cannot accept that one Government expenditure is equal to another in importance. It is simply not so.
I think it is high time that we gave some thought — and I am not talking about the Budget Committee but I am talking about the entire Congress of the United States — to what our national priorities should be, and that we start cutting spending on those matters which turn up low on the priority list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The Senator from Maine has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I make three points. One, the Senator made his argument before the Armed Services Committee and was unable to persuade that committee to accept his recommendations. He lost his case there.
The Budget Committee has responded to recommendations of both the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees.
Second, our recommendation already provides for a 5.8 percent real growth in the tactical warfare forces mission. This is the mission which contains NATO forces.
The third point I would make concerns the Army's budget, which is the great bulk of the force modernization required for NATO. The Budget Committee's recommendation provides for 18 percent real growth in the Army procurement account and roughly 7 percent real growth in the Army R. & D. account.
When we say the ceiling ought to be the sky, I can never satisfy that kind of requirement. If we were to give every committee the kind of flexibility we have already given to the defense committees in this budget, the budget would be $36 billion higher.
Mr. TOWER. Will the Senator yield for one brief comment?
Actually, the committee on a tie vote rejected $1 billion more in expenditure than I am recommending here on a 6 to 6 tie. So the Budget Committee was evenly divided on the question of whether or not it should be $132.6 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Some committees divide.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. TOWER: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. 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 21, nays 74, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]