August 14, 1978
Page 25852
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if anybody has any urgent request for any more educational statistics, we can provide them. Failing that, I believe the Senator from Maine had hoped to address the issue, and the Senator from Arizona may wish to do so.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has been waiting for some time. I have a request for 5 minutes or less, just for a statement, but I defer to the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would have no objection to the Senate proceeding. I would like to make my statement in plenty of time to let the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) have his time. Other than that, I am under no pressure. If the Senator wishes to proceed and that accommodates other Senators, that is fine with me. Then I would like to follow the Senator.
Mr. DECONCINI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Tuition Tax Relief Act of 1978. In my estimation, passage of this measure will help insure the continuance of the vital non-governmental components of our educational system.
Perhaps no other nation in the history of the world has placed such great emphasis on unimpeded access to educational opportunity for all its citizenry as has the United States. From the earliest colonial settlements, Americans have recognized, albeit imperfectly at times, that the advantages of education could not be confined to a privileged elite, if the ideals of liberty, equality, and individualism were to have anything more than symbolic significance. The history of this country and, in fact, of the Western World, amply demonstrates the indissoluble link between the dispersion of educational opportunity to ever wider segments of the population and the growth and vitality of democratic political and social institutions.
At every level American education is characterized by remarkable heterogenity. Thus, private preparatory schools have coexisted with both public and parochial institutions in providing elementary and secondary instruction to the Nation's children. And, post-secondary education is, if anything, even more richly variegated — ranging from 2-year vocational and technical schools through small State colleges and private liberal arts institutions to world renowned centers of advanced learning, some of which are maintained by private endowment and some by public funds. This diversity is one of the major strengths of the American approach to education; it both reflects and reinforces the social-cultural pluralism from which our country draws so much of its dynamism and vitality and makes it possible for those of varying tastes, interests, and needs to find the kind of institution and/or curricular offering that best meets their particular requirements.
Unfortunately, recent developments threaten to reverse the historic trend toward both wider accessibility and diversity in American education. The crux of the problem is quite simple: schools and colleges across the country — public and private — are facing a devastating combination of declining enrollment and sharply escalating costs.
For example, tuition and fees in public and private colleges increased more than 93 percent between 1967 and 1976, while the median after-tax income of the families with college-age children rose just 66.8 percent. The average annual total cost of a private university will be $5,110 for 1978-79, with the cost of attendance at a public university averaging $3,054. Further, the cost of private elementary and secondary schools has increased substantially in recent years and enrollment in these schools has dropped sharply — from 6.3 million in 1965 to 4.5 million in 1975.
Mr. President, one of the criticisms being levied against this proposed legislation is that the benefits will go primarily to the well-to-do. I respectfully disagree with those who make this charge. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 78 percent of the benefits of tuition tax credits would go to families earning less than $30,000 a year. The bulk of the benefits (55 percent) would go to middle-income families earning between $10,000 and $30,000 a year.
Another argument being used by those opposing H.R. 12050 is that it is unconstitutional, particularly the elementary and secondary tax credit provision. Mr. President, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of a Federal tax credit for tuition paid to college, vocational, elementary and secondary schools. Many who say that this legislation is unconstitutional base their opinion, at least, in part on the Nyquist decision. In this decision, the Supreme Court overturned a State statute which gave almost 100 percent of its benefits to parochial school students. The Court said in its opinion that a bill with a broader class of beneficiaries may be constitutional. H.R. 12050 of course meets that test. Only 24 percent of the benefits go to students attending church-sponsored elementary and secondary schools.
Mr. President, I also want to compliment the Senate Finance Committee for its willingness to try and meet the objections of those who contended that the originally reported bill, H.R. 3646, was too costly. The committee responded by reporting H.R. 12050 which would reduce the cost of the bill when fully implemented by approximately 45 percent.
Mr. President, I believe that H.R. 12050 is consistent with the principles that have guided American educational philosophy and policy. In my view, pluralism is at the center of all we Americans do — it is as central to our educational system as it is to our politics and our culture. Unlike repressive societies we support and encourage diversity of all sorts. To the extent that this legislation will assist an ailing nonpublic educational sector, it will also directly contribute to a continuation of this vital tradition. I, personally, would be greatly saddened if the ravages of inflation and other economic woes forced the closing of private educational institutions.
Certainly we cannot deny that our public schools are among the best in the world, but we are better off as a people and a Nation as the result of diversity in our educational system.
Mr. President, I hope, that my colleagues will not view this legislation as a narrow, sectarian measure. Because, in truth, its purposes are broad, and its effects will be positive for all of us. We cannot here say for sure what the Supreme Court may decide about the constitutionality of this legislation. However, as I read our Constitution, tuition tax credits in no way involve the "establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I hope, therefore, that we will act favorably on the measure, and I commend the distinguished sponsors of the legislation for their efforts.
Mr. President, I also offer my support for the amendment of my colleague from Arizona to be taken up at 6 p.m.
I thank the Senator from New York and the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. METZENBAUM) . The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if the Senator from Maine will allow me one-half moment of comment, I express on behalf of the Finance Committee, and I am sure I speak for my colleague, Senator PACKWOOD, in conveying our appreciation for the generous remarks made by the Senator from Arizona and tell him that we are more than sensible of the honor that he does us by supporting this legislation. He has been a distinguished legal officer in his own State. He is an admired and valued Member of the Senate, and we very much appreciate his remarks.
I thank the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the pending legislation has stimulated a wide range of discussion of a fascinating complex of issues from educational opportunity, to diversity of education, to its economic costs, the role of Government providing various kinds of education, performance of education; and all of these are relevant issues that should be discussed and debated at length.
In 20 years in the Senate I have found that when legislation of this kind is introduced, it often stimulates a change in our institutions that by and large is unanticipated at the time the policy is established.
It is not a simple matter to predict the flow of mercury when pressure is applied at any point. So I suspect that what we are debating here if the proposed changes are implemented will produce changes in the pattern of education in this country and its impact upon our youngsters that we probably will not identify with very great precision in the course of this debate.
But I shall confine my remarks this afternoon to what I have come to regard as my prime responsibility in the Senate since the adoption of the Budget Act, and that is the budgetary implications that may flow from this legislation if enacted into law.
Mr. President, 2 weeks ago tonight the Senated voted 59 to 28 to balance the budget by 1981.
Soon the Senate will consider two bills which will guarantee that a balanced budget cannot be achieved by 1981 — or even anytime in the foreseeable future.
One of these bills alone could add $14 billion to the deficit by 1983. And it would add more than $5 billion a year after that.
The other bill will add $6 billion to the deficit by 1983. And more than another billion and a half every year after that.
If Congress wants both bills — and the House has already passed both in some form — the total 5-year addition to the deficit could be more than $20 billion.
And the annual cost of these two programs would be nearly $7 billion, even if neither program is never expanded. But we all know both will be enlarged as time goes on.
I refer, of course, to the so-called tuition assistance bills reported by the Committee on Finance and the somewhat less expensive alternative offered by President Carter.
And last Friday the Finance Committee reported a new addition to the family of tuition tax credit bills.
This new addition is a strapping little brother to the somewhat more expensive tax credit bills recently rejected by the Budget and Appropriations Committees.
The apparent reason for this off-spring's birth is to avoid the budget process and the appropriations process.
But while Junior's legitimacy may be in some doubt, his parentage is not. He looks a lot like his older brother. Junior will cost more than $8½ billion during the next 5 years. And it is a good bet his parents intend junior to grow to be just as big as his brother before long.
I understand that before I arrived in the Chamber this afternoon some explicit indications of that prediction were started.
As chairman of your Budget Committee, I must warn the Senate that there is no way any of these bills can be enacted, if we are to come near a balanced budget by 1981 — or even within the next 5 years.
Therefore, much as I would like to vote for some of these attractive bills, I will vote against all of them and urge my fellow Senators to vote likewise.
And we must watch with interest how the 59 Senators who voted last Monday to balance the budget by 1981 vote on these multibillion dollar additions to the deficit.
Because 32 of these 59 are cosponsors of one or another of these budget-busters.
Mr. President, I can understand why Senators who want a balanced budget would also like to vote for these deficit deepening tuition aid bills.
I know the pressure which exists to pass these bills.
The citizens of my State are just as anxious for relief from tuition costs as anyone else.
I know what it is to pay to put children through parochial schools, college, and even graduate school, because I had all three of those experiences.
I have 5 children of my own. I have paid my share of tuition bills. But our responsibility, Mr. President, goes beyond responding to the popular causes of the moment. We are talking here about enacting a tax credit bill which would add more than $5 billion a year to the deficit within 5 years. Even little junior would cost nearly $3 billion every year within 5 years, and that assumes we can stunt his growth.
We are talking about adding the President's alternative program which will add more than another $1.5 billion a year to the same deficit by 1983.
So we are talking about a combined cost of these bills, and there are those who would like to see all three enacted, which could reach $7 billion a year in deeper deficits by 1983.
All this, Mr. President, at a time when we still have not figured a way to get the deficit down below $40 billion a year. The Budget Committee completed its consideration of the second concurrent budget resolution last Friday. The resulting deficit projected was $42.8 billion, and we thought we had made substantial and significant progress, because that was a reduction from the $60 billion which the President has projected in January of this year. And still we are at $42.8 billion for fiscal year 1979.
Mr. President, this year's budget resolution does contain some allowance for a tuition tax credit. That allowance is $300 million. That allowance covers only one-half of the first year's cost proposed in the Committee on Finance original tuition tax credit bill. It covers only 60 percent of the first year cost of little junior as reported by the Committee on Finance last Friday.
This $300 million allowance covers only about 5 percent of the costs 5 years from now of the original tax credit bill, the bill which the tuition tax credit proponents really preferred and want to pass. It covers only about 10 percent of junior's annual cost after 5 years.
The budget resolution, Mr. President, also allowed up to $700 million for the President's alternative tuition assistance spending program. The first year cost of the bill which the Human Resources Committee has reported is $1.4 billion, twice the amount budgeted. So all these bills in all their forms violate this year's budget, and their $7 billion a year eventual cost will destroy all our efforts to balance future budgets.
Sure, these bills are attractive, and they do have powerful constituencies. But just where is that extra $7 billion to pay for them going to come from? Who is going to pay for these bills? I will tell you who. It is you and I and every American taxpayer and every child of any of us for the rest of our lives. We will pay for these bills in the form of higher taxes, higher tuition, and higher interest on a higher national debt. That is the sum total of it all.
I know the polls show Americans favor proposals of this kind. These polls have shown favorable majorities for such bills for all the 20 years the Senate has considered them, and I have been here all that time.
But those polls also show something else. They show that most Americans know there is no such thing as a free lunch, especially when the Federal Government provides it. According to a recent Harris poll, 7 out of every 10 Americans feel that the trouble with getting something special from Government for your group is that you will end up paying for it four or five times over in higher taxes. How true that is in the case of these tuition bills.
Let us see how the tax credit, which seems to confer such an attractive gift, actually costs most Americans more than they can ever get from it. After all, even if a family gets some money for 4 or 8 or even 12 years under these proposals, they will pay for that gift all their lives in higher taxes. They will pay the bill for the benefits others receive, and their children will pay the bill. They will all pay the bill every year on every tax return all the rest of their lives.
I asked the staff of the Budget Committee recently to estimate the value American families of four would actually get from a $5.3 billion tax credit if they received an average tax credit of $400 a year for 4 years. That would be $1,600 out of the $21 billion the bill will cost during a full 4-year period.
Then I asked the staff to compute how much these different families would have to pay in the form of higher taxes during their working lives for this tax break.
Similar calculations could be made, of course, for other bills like junior, whose costs and benefits are somewhat lower.
Here is what the staff found: First of all, many families will pay higher taxes but get nothing for their money. Every family whose children are beyond college age will pay taxes for the program but never get anything in return. Many senior citizens in our country, who continue working, and every older working American, whose children have finished school, will also pay taxes for this program all the rest of their working lives, but they will get nothing.
Many families of all ages, more than one out of three do not have any children who go to college or to a private grade or high school. These families and their children will get nothing, but they will all pay higher taxes all the rest of their lives for the benefits more fortunate families will get.
Young couples lose as well.
Any 20-year-old married couple whose joint income is more than $15,000 a year will lose from this bill, unless more than one of their children eventually goes to college.
So will any taxpaying family of four, whose parents are about 30 and who have a joint income over $25,000, even if both their children attend 4 years of college a decade later
.
So when all the results are in, many of those families who get something at some time from the tax credit bill will lose over the long run.
There is, after all, no such thing as a free lunch.
The cost to families in increased taxes throughout their working lives to pay for this "tax break" will be greater than many families will ever get in value from it.
In fact, for the most part, only families already eligible for existing direct Federal grants for tuition assistance would, over their taxpaying lifetimes, come out ahead under this bill.
And the existing grant program averages almost $900 per student per year — much more than any of the proposed tax credits would provide.
So for the families this bill would mainly aid, it is unnecessary.
And for the rest of us, this bill is really a kind of Trojan horse — an apparent gift which in fact will cost us all dearly.
Let us take a minute to remind ourselves of the story of the Trojan horse.
Remember how the Greeks, the enemies of the people of the city of Troy, presented a beautiful gift to the Trojan people? It was a giant carved horse allegedly given to enrich their city.
Too late the Trojans learned that the horse was hollow. It contained their most feared enemies. And when darkness fell, out these enemies came and ravaged the city.
The warning the Trojan king gave his fellow citizens about the horse — to "beware of Greeks bearing gifts" — echoes down the ages to us now as we consider this "gift" of tuition paid for with tax dollars.
For as surely as the Trojan horse contained the feared foreign enemies, these multibillion dollar tuition bills will unleash our worst domestic enemies — more deficit spending, more inflation, and more unbalanced budgets.
Let us just examine how expensive these bills really are.
Let us look at each bill we are seriously asked to consider in these days of $40 and $50 billion deficits.
Most expensive is H.R. 3946, the tuition tax credit bill originally reported earlier this year by the Committee on Finance.
It provides credits to taxpayers for tuition for college, for graduate school, for grade school, for high school, and even for part-time students.
It also provides direct payments to those same taxpayers, if their credit is larger than the tax they owe.
It even provides payments to people who owe no taxes at all.
And it provides this aid equally to rich and poor alike.
It will add at least $5.3 billion t3 the deficit each year by 1983 — for a total of. $14 billion by that time. And if the level reached at that time — $5.3 billion — is continued for the next 5 years without any increase in the grant or in the amount available, or in the number of eligibles, the next 5 years would add to the deficit by $26 billion — or $40 billion over a 10-year period.
This is the bill both the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee have voted to urge the Senate to reject.
So the proponents of the tax credit have created little junior.
They gave birth to junior to avoid someof the objections to the cost of the original bill which have been lodged by the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee.
But even junior will cost almost $3 billion a year by 1983 and a total of more than $8½ billion in new deficit by that time.
At the same time, the proponents of the original bill may take some of the most costly provisions deleted from big brother and offer them as amendments in the Senate to beef junior up.
And no matter how we come out on these amendments, we know that we have not seen the last of big brother, even if only junior is enacted.
The proponents of the original, more expensive bill will soon be back to help junior grow.
Now the President has proposed an alternative program, which is better targeted on those in need and restricted to college education.
No payments to millionaires here.
No deficit financed private grade and high school tuition payments.
But still an average annual cost of more than $1.2 billion a year during the next 5 years.
And a total addition to the deficit by 1983 of more than $6 billion.
So the combined deficit-financed cost of the tax credit and the President's bill could be as large as $20 billion within 5 years and $7 billion more a year after that.
And these two deficit-financed proposals are offered at the same time as theFederal Government is already spending nearly $8 billion a year to support higher education, and almost $21 billion a year to support education at all levels.
So before we plunge forward and add another $20 billion to the deficit for education aid, let us take a look at the more than $7 billion in Federal aid for tuition costs which is already available to college students without our writing in the law.
First is the basic educational opportunity grants program. Under this program, a student from a low- or moderate-income family may obtain a grant of up to $1,800 a year for attending college.
Last year more than 2.4 million students received basic educational opportunity grants, which averaged $895 each.
Congress appropriated $2.2 billion for this tuition grant program last year alone.
Students who need even more Federal aid to finish their education can get up to another $1,500 a year under the supplemental educational opportunity grants program. Congress appropriated $220 million for this student-aid program last year.
The Federal Government also helps fund the State incentive grant program, which makes college grants of up to $1,500 a year to eligible students.
Last year Congress provided $64 million for the State incentive grants program and the State provided another $64 million.
In addition to these grants, loans are also available through the Federal Government for college costs.
A college student can obtain a loan of up to $5,000 for undergraduate school and another $10,000 for graduate school from the national direct student loan program.
Repayment of these loans, which bear only 3 percent interest, is made over a 10-year period after graduation.
Congress has appropriated $3.6 billion for this revolving fund program during its 20-year existence. We appropriated $311 million just last year.
Loan aid is also available through the guaranteed student loan program. Under this program, a college student can obtain a Government guaranteed loan of up to $7,500 during undergraduate years and up to $2,500 a year more for every year of graduate school.
In many cases the Government will pay the 7 percent interest on these loans during the student's school years.
After graduation, the student has up to 10 years to repay these loans.
Last year these two loan programs generated $2.4 million in additional tuition assistance for 1.9 million college students.
In addition, the federally funded college work study program pays for work by students on campus for up to 15 hours a week. Last year Congress appropriated $435 million for college students participating in the work study program.
And let us not forget the GI bill, under which more than 1,300,000 college students are receiving benefits today. Any of the 5.5 million veterans now eligible for this program can obtain up to $311 per month for as long as 45 months for college and post graduate studies.
Last year the Federal Government provided $2.1 billion to pay for this college education through the GI bill.
So the Federal budget is not stingy about education. Last year alone we appropriated almost 21 billion Federal dollars to support education in this country. And more than $7 billion of that amount was directed solely to these tuition aid programs, which directly benefitted more than 52 percent of all college students in this country.
And now some Senators — yes, including many who voted the other night to balance the budget by 1981 — are asking us to add another $7 billion a year to these programs and to the Federal deficit.
Even if we could afford these new subsidies, they would provide little tuition relief to those who receive them.
First of all, the effect of dumping another $7 billion a year in spending into the economy will itself be inflationary for everyone.
And what college board of trustees — and I am a member of one — will be able to withstand the temptation to raise tuition by exactly the amount of the tax credit, since it goes to every single student in equal shares?
What State school which now charges a tuition fee less than these proposed payments will not raise fees to soak up this new free money?
I recognize that poll after poll seems to suggest a great demand for these tax credits.
But what would the average taxpayer say if the pollsters pointed out that much of the money distributed under these programs will simply be lost to inflation?
That the richest millionaire would receive the same benefits as the poorest citizen?
That many taxpayers whose children leave public high school and go to work will get nothing?
That the taxes paid to finance benefits to others will in many cases vastly exceed any benefit a family will ever get?
That all these bills will have to be financed from the deficit?
Fortunately, we do have the answers to some of these questions, because the pollsters have asked them.
According to the Harris poll released on May 18 of this year, Americans want Federal aid for tuition.
But 3 out of 5 of these same people oppose any plan — like the tax credit proposals before us — which give rich and poor the same benefit.
A recent Roper poll reports that the public rejects, by more than 2 to 1, proposals like this tax credit which extend Federal aid to elementary and secondary schools.
And there is one finding in the polls which should rivet our attention. The Harris poll, just 90 days ago, revealed what we should have known all along: That the public does not want new tuition aid which — like these bills — would add to the deficit.
So I think we underestimate the citizens we represent if we believe that what they really want is another big dose of deficit in the name of tuition assistance.
And so I must return to the 59 Senators who voted the other night to balance the budget by 1981.
Sure we want to balance the budget. I hope we can.
But let me tell you this:
The enactment of any of these multibillion dollar tuition bills absolutely guarantees that we will be deep in deficit for years to come.
Mr. President, I think our response to all these bills must be clear.
If we were presiding over the distribution of a $5 or $6 billion surplus we might decide that these bills should be enacted.
Because, like the Trojan horse, they are powerfully attractive, despite their multibillion dollar cost.
But the truth — and we all know it — is that we cannot afford them.
Our citizens cannot afford the deficit and inflation this Trojan horse releases into our midst.
And it is our duty — even though we may take some political heat for it — to eliminate the unprecedented continuing deficit we already have, before we add these new multibillion dollar budget-busters.
So for me the choice is clear.
And I hope it is for you.
And I hope it is for the 59 Senators who voted last Monday night to balance the budget by 1981.
I would like to add a word about the Goldwater amendment, not in itself, because I understand, I think, what motivates my good friend from Arizona to offer it, but because I think it illustrates a point about this kind of legislation and what will happen to it if it goes on the books.
The Goldwater amendment is an excellent example of the major revenue losing amendments that inevitably will increase the long term budgetary costs of the tuition tax credit bill because somebody will be trying to straighten out what he sees to be the inequities of the resulting policy unless changes are made and those changes will inevitably involve cost.
The tax credit for elementary and secondary school tuition in H.R. 12050 would constitute a substantial shift in Federal education aid policies toward private schools, and away from public schools. As a result, it is very likely that an amendment such as the Goldwater amendment would be offered to give some comparable additional tax relief to tax-payers supporting the public school system and not otherwise benefitting from the tuition credit.
According to the best estimates now available, the Goldwater amendment will cost $1.5 billion annually after it first becomes effective in fiscal year 1981.
We can be certain that unless the tuition tax credit bill is defeated completely, its provisions inevitably will be expanded in numerous ways comparable to the Goldwater amendment — both in this bill as well as in future legislation.
For example, other Senators will be likely to offer amendments to make the credit refundable. That subject has been raised this afternoon. After all they will say, why limit the credit benefits to taxpayers? They will offer that to the Goldwater amendment if it becomes law.
Others will offer to make the maximum credit $500 for elementary and secondary school tuition — the same maximum credit as for college tuition. After all, they will say, why should not the maximum elementary and secondary school credit be the same?
Others will want to extend the credit to graduate students, and others to part-time students.
And finally, in time, others will want to expand the maximum college credit to $1,000 and even higher levels. And all these amendments each would cost billions of dollars — just like the Goldwater amendment.
Just like the application of the tuition credit to elementary and secondary tuition, the Goldwater amendment first becomes effective in fiscal year 1981. These deferred effective dates avoid the discipline of the budget process, and avoid competition with other budgetary decisions Congress will be making in the future for fiscal year 1981 and later years. The Goldwater amendment will serve as a blueprint for other revenue losing amendments to the tuition credit bill which also are likely to be made prospective to fiscal year 1981, thereby reducing the ability of Congress to cut future year budget deficits.
The Goldwater amendment and the entire tuition tax credit bill, H.R. 12050, must be defeated if we are to meet our goal of balancing the budget a few short years from now.
I have been saying over and over again in the last 4 years that probably the most difficult problem we face if we are to get a handle on the budget is to control uncontrollables. We are now considering one of the biggest uncontrollables to come before the Senate in my 20 years in the Senate.
(Mr. PELL assumed the chair.)
Mr. DECONCINI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I am happy to yield.
Mr. DECONCINI. Early in his remarks, the Senator from Maine talked about inability to balance the budget if this particular legislation were passed and if the Goldwater amendment were passed. Is that not fraught with some contradiction? Really, is it not a matter of where we place our priorities and whether or not we reduce spending in some other areas; that if truly, we are to meet our responsibility in this body, we are to set those priorities, and if this is where we are to give the taxpayer a reduction, then we should meet the responsibility somewhere else?
How does the Senator respond to that?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the rationale with which other Senators and I comforted ourselves for 16 years in my Senate career. We all made our individual priorities, we all said' that we were carrying around in our heads a balanced budget of our own that made room for our priorities, but not necessarily everybody else's. The result was no discipline with respect to priorities. We approved every priority so that we could get the votes for our own priority.
The second most important point, I say to my good friend from Arizona, is the point I have just completed: The biggest problem in the budget is uncontrollables. By that, I mean spending that can be reduced or controlled only by changing existing law.
When we enact these tuition tax credit bills into law — this includes the Goldwater amendment — we add to the uncontrollables. Uncontrollables have grown from 59 percent of the budget just 10 or 12 years ago to 73 percent, close to 75 percent, this year.
The Senator says, well, balance the budget elsewhere. Out of the remaining 25 percent? What does 25 percent of today's budget amount to? Figure it out. $125 billion. That is what we have available to us, that $125 billion of controllable spending, with which to balance a budget that is $42 billion out of whack. That means we would have to cut every other program of the Government by 40 percent, including these direct programs of student assistance. Those are not uncontrollables. We would have to cut them and every other function of the Government, from national defense, which is pretty much the result of annual authorization bills, we would have to cut every other function in the Government in order to get balance.
So we say, let us add to these uncontrollables and take that out of the present controllables. We cannot do it.
Mr. DECONCINI. Will the Senator admit to the fact that it is a matter of priorities, and that this body is to set those priorities? They may be different from what the Senator's priorities are, but is that not the process?
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator wants my candid opinion, yes, the Budget Act makes priorities of equal importance to the balancing of the budget and so on. But let me say, I have been in charge of the process on this side for 4 years. The big problem we face right now is inflation, the declining value of the dollar. For me, there is only one priority at the present moment in time: That is, controlling inflation and holding Government spending down to the bare minimum. That is my one priority.
The Senator is entitled to his own. But I have a special responsibility as chairman of the Budget Committee and I am making that statement in that capacity, not as an individual Senator.
Mr. DECONCINI. I understand.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator from Arizona has the floor.
Mr. GOLDWATER. A parliamentary inquiry. Mr President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.