March 29, 1979
Page 6720
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. It is my intention to proceed to the consideration of the bill S. 349, a bill to increase the authorization for the Council on Wage and Price Stability, and to extend the duration of such Council.
I do not think the Senate will complete action on that today. There may be some opening statements or some Senators may want to offer amendments. My intention would be to go over until Monday, in keeping with my previous promise through April, and on Monday, hopefully, we can get a time agreement to complete action on the bill that day, or even Tuesday.
In answer to the first question of the distinguished minority leader, we will vote on the present budget resolution. A motion to proceed is not debatable. We will vote on it after 1 hour. So far as I am concerned, it can be a voice vote.
Mr. BAKER. I thank the majority leader. I find no difficulty on our side with that arrangement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the resolution?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Budget Committee has reported Senate Resolution 105 to the Senate and recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Senate Resolution 105 provides for the waiver of section 402(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 with respect to the consideration of S. 349, a bill to increase and extend the authorization for the Council on Wage and Price Stability.
Section 402(a) requires that all authorizing legislation be reported in the Senate by May 15 preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which it is effective.
Mr. President, the Budget Committee is reluctant to recommend the adoption of resolutions waiving section 402(a) of the Budget Act. This section is intended to assure that, as far as legislative needs can be foreseen, all authorizing legislation is reported in time to be considered in the course of the regular appropriations process.
This procedure gives the Appropriations Committee adequate notice of legislative committees' views of the appropriations needed for the coming fiscal year so that the committee can meet the appropriations timetable spelled out in the Budget Act. Major authorizing legislation reported after May 15 could delay the enactment of appropriations bills past the Budget Act deadline of 7 days after Labor Day for the completion of the appropriations process.
The legislative history of the Budget Act indicates that the May 15 reporting deadline is not to be waived lightly. In deciding whether to report 402 waiver resolutions favorably, the Budget Committee considers such factors as: The reporting committee's effort to meet the May 15 deadline, whether enactment of the authorization would delay the regular appropriations process or significantly affect the priorities established in the congressional budget, whether an authorization of the kind was contemplated in the second budget resolution, and the possible effects of failing to consider the authorization.
Mr. President, according to the Banking Committee, failure to consider S. 349 this year will hinder the ability of the Council on Wage and Price Stability to administer the President's anti-inflation program.
As the Senators know, COWPS was established in 1974 to monitor inflationary wage and price developments in the private sector and the Federal Government's contribution to inflation. Last October, President Carter announced a voluntary anti-inflation program combining explicit wage and price standards with prudent fiscal and monetary restraint and measures to insure that Government actions are accomplished efficiently and that economic regulations do not impede fair competition. COWPS was designated to monitor the wage and price standards, in addition to its existing responsibilities to monitor generally wage and price developments, and to review and recommend actions to reduce the potentially inflationary effects of the programs and policies of Federal agencies and departments.
To satisfy its expanded responsibilities, it is necessary to expand the agency's staff. Because of the highly technical nature of the work, borrowing people from other agencies means constant and costly training that interrupts progress and efficiency. It is therefore reasonable that the Council have a permanent, highly skilled staff.
In sum, the Banking Committee could not meet the May 15, 1978 deadline for this authorization because it could not have foreseen the October 1978 expansion of the Council's responsibilities which prompted the President's request for an increased fiscal year 1979 authorization.
Mr. President, under these circumstances, to permit orderly consideration of S. 349, the Budget Committee has favorably reported Senate Resolution 105 and recommends that it be adopted.
Mr. President, let me say in closing that in reporting favorably on Senate Resolution 105, the Budget Committee is recommending that the Senate proceed to consideration of S. 349, but is not prejudging the merits of the bill.
There is no doubt that inflation is our No. 1 problem. The American people demand that inflation be brought under control. The President has initiated a thoughtful multifaceted approach to the problem of inflation. That program should be given a chance to work. Opponents of that program claim that something must be done about inflation, but they do not want to give the Council on Wage and Price Stability the necessary funding to implement the President's program. It would be irresponsible for the Senate to deny this waiver and deny the opportunity for full Senate consideration of this legislation.
The Banking Committee could not have reported this bill before last May 15, as it could not have anticipated the President's move in October to expand the role of the Council. The Banking Committee did report, on a timely basis,an authorization for 1979 at a level consistent with the prior role of the Council. With the expansion in October,it was clearly evident that increased expenditures would be necessary to allow the Council to undertake the significantly greater effort with which it was charged.The Banking Committee has acted responsibly in reporting the legislation as expeditiously as possible, and reporting a waiver resolution.
The Budget Committee is now recommending that the Senate adopt the waiver resolution so that this important legislation may be considered. I urge Senators to support the waiver.
Mr. President, that concludes my statement on the resolution.
Mr. GARN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the budget waiver which would allow S. 349 to be considered. I rise as the ranking minority member of the Banking Committee, which the distinguished Senator from Maine has continually referred to. I think the Senate should be aware that, unanimously, all six minority members of the Banking Committee opposed S. 349.
One of the first reasons we oppose it at this time and rushing to take it up today despite the objections, is that we have simply been ignored in the scheduling of this bill, all six members of the minority of the Committee on Banking. Because the authority of the Council on Wage and Price Stability does not expire until September 30, there is simply no rush to consider this today.
Whether Senators are for or against COWPS is not the point. It does not expire until September 30. Why it was necessary to override the wishes of the minority, to run a steamroller through here today, I do not really understand, when there are months between now and September 30 when this could be considered.
The second major reason that we did not want it brought up is that it is now a matter of litigation in the courts whether or not the President has the authority to do what he is doing in the way of sanctions in so-called voluntary controls. Most of the President's program is to be implemented by a vastly expanded Council on Wage and Price Stability. S. 349 requests a 500-percent personnel increase and a 300-percent budget authorization increase for fiscal year 1980 COWPS operations.
Of particular concern to the minority is the administration's direct and implied threats to have COWPS impose Federal sanctions to force adherence to the President's wage and price guidelines. We happen to feel that what he is doing is unconstitutional. It is rather interesting just to give a few examples of what some Federal agencies say about it.
GAO, which has significant expertise in procurement policy, explicitly states that the President does not now have the power to impose mandatory controls on Government procurement. GAO reached this conclusion after an exhaustive analysis of the legislative history of the 1949 Federal Procurement Act. In the GAO's opinion:
We would say the President is not authorized to implement his program of applying wage and price standards on a mandatory basis to companies involved in Government procurement.
The Library of Congress concurs.
It leads inexorably to the conclusion that the President lacks the power to establish the anti-inflationary program without congressional authorization; that the (1949) Procurement Act did not give him that authorization; and that the President's action is in conflict with the manner in which the Congress has historically dealt with the matter of wage and price control.
There are many others. That is why it is the subject of litigation. The AFL-CIO, joined by some of my colleagues in the Senate, is now challenging his authority indirectly to make these mandatory controls through the use of Government procurement policies. One of the things that we were particularly concerned about is that we happen to think that the President has clearly overstepped his authority in using Government sanctions to obtain wage and price controls.
Clearly, the President overstepped his authority in using Government sanctions to obtain wage and price controls. Clearly, COWPS' new powers exceed those given it by statute. Clearly, the President's program is ill conceived.
Several members of this committee were prepared to offer amendments which would curtail efforts by the administration to impose wage and price controls of any kind. We deferred, however, because it became so obvious that Federal courts would soon rule against the use of such controls. This issue is now under litigation. The importance of the issue requires that the legality and merits of the program should not be decided in an atmosphere of partisan politics. It was the general consensus of the committee not to take action pending a review and final decision by the courts.
So, again I repeat, with the September 30 deadline, with it in court, why do we have to consider it at all today?
Why could we not wait and see what the outcome of the court decisions are, whether or not then we could operate much more intelligently and on a much more convenient basis?
But again, representing the minority of the committee, I am offended that we could not even get the majority of the Banking Committee to allow us to hold 1 day of additional hearings. All we asked for, all six of us, was 1 day of hearings.
We were concerned that a majority of the members would not allow this additional day to receive testimony from the Library of Congress, the General Accounting Office, the American Bar Association, and other groups, who feel that the use of sanctions in this so-called voluntary control effort is illegal and unconstitutional.
I do not understand why we could not have an opportunity just to hear them, to hear their testimony. We certainly heard all of the witnesses in favor of this procedure.
Moreover, Congress ought not put its implicit imprimatur on a program which has no lawful basis and is nothing more than a Presidential grab for power constitutionally denied him. We do not believe the committee is acting responsibly by permitting the Council to simply pursue its course without either competent questioning or direction by Congress. The enormous potential inequities from partial enforcement, acted upon without any authorization from the Congress, are deeply troubling to our sense of fairness.
It is our responsibility to determine what the law should be, and the Executive's to carry out our expressed and delegated will. We regret the committee did not choose to exercise this responsibility in this instance, and hope that others of our colleagues will give the legal and policy implications due weight in considering this matter.
I have nothing more to say about it at this time except, once again, why the rush? Why the denial of the opportunity to hear these agencies, administration agencies, for the most part, who are concerned about the legalities of the sanctions?
If we had it to do over again, we would go back in committee, offer our amendments to S. 349.
But we withdrew because we did not in any way want to prejudice any of the court decisions. We did not want legislative language at the time. But here we are on the floor. We are going to do it, without the willingness to wait for the courts.
Now, if our authority expired next week, or the end of April, all right. But, again, September 30.
I do not know why the Budget Committee felt they had to go along so rapidlyand allow this waiver or why we have to rush in, again, when September 30 is the date, and we are not willing to wait for a court determination.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GARN. I am happy to.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will be glad to answer the question which the Senator has asked.
I have also read the minority views in the report of the Budget Committee on this waiver. Those views and the argument of my good friend from Utah, all three, reflect an unawareness of the nature of the process which produces a waiver resolution.
We have no choice but to act on waiver resolutions within 10 days of the time that they are referred to us, or we are discharged.
I do not like to be discharged of something that has been referred to me with an implicit accusation that I have neglected my duty.
So we attempted to report it within the 10-day period.
If we had not acted, the 10-day period would have expired on the 24th of March and the matter would be before the Senate anyway.
So, the Senator generates the rhetoric that the Budget Committee has rushed to bring legislation with which he is unhappy to the floor, when all we have done is what the Budget Act requires us to do, within the time frame beyond which the Senate could have discharged us for failing to do our job.
I do not mind if the Senator argues the merits of the bill; that is his prerogative.He is a member of the committee.
It is not the Budget Committee's function under section 402 to render a second judgment on the merits or the substance of the bill.
Mr. GARN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Our only function under section 402 is to determine whether or not there was a reasonable justification for the authorizing committee to report out a bill after May 15, not whether that bill is justified.
We are not a rules committee or a House rules committee. All we are is a watchdog of the timetable of the Budget Act in connection with section 402.
I tried to explain that to members of the minority in the Budget Committee who are new this year. They apparently failed to understand.
All they have to do is to read section 402 and maybe that is clearer and more lucid than any explanation I make of it.
But we had to report out a waiver resolution or be discharged. We chose to meet our responsibility and to report it out.
The second point I would make to the Senator is that the Senate is not bound to follow the recommendations of the Budget Committee, even on that limited procedural question. It is for the Senate as a whole to decide whether or not this is a proper time to consider the substantive bill, and that is all there is to it.
So I am not going to get into an argument with the Senator about the merits of the bill. I have my views as an individual Senator, but that has nothing to do with the waiver resolution which is before us. That resolution was adopted by a sizable margin, I think 13 to 4, in the Budget Committee.
So I take it we have done our job. We have done what the Budget Committee requires us to do.
We have done it within the 10-day time frame the Budget Act provides for us to do it, and we did what I would expect the Senate would expect us to do. So here we are.
I really do not think we are subject to the accusation, in any sense of fairness at all, of rushing something because we got it done within a 10-day time frame, beyond which we had no further authority, in any case.
Mr. GARN. Mr. President, I am sorry I was able to get the Senator so defensive about this committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not defensive about this committee.
Mr. GARN. I have the floor.
Mr. MUSKIE. I suggest the Senator is being defensive about his argument.
Mr. GARN. I have the floor. I have not yielded again.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not need to say anything further.
Mr. GARN. I did not interrupt the Senator.
What I am trying to say is that he is absolutely correct. My major irritation is with my own committee, and with the Senate for rushing to this, and that I gratuitously threw in the Budget Committee. I am sorry, because the Senator is correct.
That is all I wanted to say to the Senator. He did have to discharge it.
I could have saved the Senator all that talk, but I did not want to interrupt.
What I am trying to say is that he is correct and I agree, so do not get all over me again.
It is simply a matter that the Senator is correct.
I may argue with the Senator about whether he should have done it, or not, approved a 300-percent increase, and I will not do that.
But precisely, yes, the Senator from Maine, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, is correct, he had to discharge it in 10 days and let it come out.
So I will extract that and go back and talk about my irritation with having to consider the matter now when it does not expire until September 30, when we are in litigation, when a Banking Committee majority ignores the entire minority and not even gives us 2 or 3 hours of hearings.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GARN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate and realize now that we are in agreement about the procedure of requirements of section 402.
I had to stand and make my case without knowing that the Senator had in mind that I was right all along. I could not be sure the Senator himself was correct, so I had to make sure the record was clear, because there is a lot of misunderstanding among Senators. I am glad there is not on the part of the Senator from Utah.
Mr. GARN. The Senator is procedurally correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. As to the nature of section 402, now, with respect to the Senator's argument on the merits, not being a member of the Banking and Currency Committee, although I was years ago, I am not really in a position to engage the Senator, either on his side or against his position, on what he is saying.
I wish that members of the Banking Committee were here for that purpose. The Senator is making what he obviously believes to be a serious argument, and it is deserving of debate and of response, in my judgment. I am sorry that I am not in a position to give him that kind of forum at the moment.
I only suggest, without implying criticism, that the sooner we can get through the budget resolution, the sooner we can get to the issues which the Senator is raising about the bill itself. I say that without pressing the Senator. There is only an hour, in any case, on the waiver resolution. But I do wish someone was on the floor now in a position to engage the Senator in a discussion of the issues he is raising.
Mr. GARN. I say to the distinguished Senator from Maine that it is not my intent to get into a full-scale debate with him or anyone else in the hour on the budget waiver. I did want to make the point about the lack of necessity for having the whole process coming up at this time, and my irritation with my own committee and the majority of that committee for not being willing. As chairman of the committee and the leader of the majority in the Budget Committee, I would not expect that he would deny 2 or 3 hours more of hearing.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, willthe Senator yield?
Mr. GARN. I yield the floor at this time.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, I just want to compliment the Senator from Utah for his statement and to join in expressing concern about the substance of this bill.
I also say to my friend, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, on which I am privileged to serve, that, while I do not favor the granting of the waiver that is now before us, I am pleased to note that the chairman and the committee staff have followed through on their representation that the committee report would reflect the fact that by granting the waiver, we are not prejudging the merits of the bill. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy and the follow through on that.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am delighted that the point has been made, I say to my good friend, who I welcome as a new member of the Budget Committee. We did have an extensive discussion of the process, and I think it is well that we did so.
I understand that this hour on the waiver resolution is available for discussion of the substance of the bill, even though the issue is not before the Senate at that point. I do not challenge either of my colleagues on that question.
The language to which the Senator refers in the Budget Committees report will appear in the report on all waiver resolutions.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. President, I appreciate the distinguished chairman's explanation.
I am not going to speak at length about this matter until the bill is before us. I serve on the Budget Committee, and I also serve with the Senator from Utah on the Banking Committee. I have had occasion to look at this bill extensively in the last several weeks.
Prior to that time, during my service in the other body, I served on the appropriations subcommittee that had some jurisdiction over the operation; and it is my conviction based on watching it for some time — not just the acts which have been called into question as to their legality over the past few months, but over a substantial period of time — that this an ill-advised bill. The amount of money is too large, the example it sets is a poor one, and the Council on Wage and Price Stability is making inflation worse, rather than helping correct the problem.
However, it seems to me that the appropriate time to engage in that debate will be when the bill is actually before us.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I take it that there is no need for further time under the 1-hour limitation. I see no particular reason for a roll call vote. Would my good friend on the other side be willing to have a voice vote on this?
Mr. GARN. I know of no request on this side for a roll call vote.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time under the rule.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Utah yield back his time?
Mr. GARN. I do not know that I have had any time, but I will yield it back, if I did.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back.
The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 105) was agreed to.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.