July 27, 1979
Page 21066
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I know Senator MUSKIE and Senator RIEGLE both would like to speak as soon as they can.
Mr. MATHIAS. And Senator BAKER.
Mr. PROXMIRE. They all have demands on their time. And Senator BENTSEN wishes to speak, too. Could the Senators indicate how much time they want so we can make it as convenient as possible?
Mr. RIEGLE. Seven minutes in my case.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I can perhaps do mine in 7 minutes or less. This is an opening statement designed to put this bill into context with the budget resolution. I think that, given the nature of that relationship—
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator from Michigan permit the Senator from Maine to go ahead, because I think his comments relate to the overall bill, not to this specific amendment.
Mr. RIEGLE. Yes; I think it makes good sense for him to go ahead.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield whatever time he may require to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished floor manager of the bill and also Senator RIEGLE for their understanding. Senator RIEGLE is, of course, a member of the Budget Committee and Senator PROXMIRE has been very supportive of the objectives of the budget process.
Mr. President, the bill as reported by the Appropriations Committee provides $71.2 billion in new budget authority. Outlays associated with the bill total $48.1 billion.
Under section 302(b) of the Budget Act, the Appropriations Committee divides among its subcommittees the total budget authority and outlays allocated to the committee under the first budget resolution for fiscal year 1980. The Appropriations Committee has allocated $71.4 billion in budget authority and $48.5 billion in outlays to the HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee.
The funds provided by H.R. 4394, plus other action completed or under way, put the subcommittee $0.2 billion under its section 302(b) budget authority allocation and $0.4 billion under its outlay allocation. However, possible later requirements which can be anticipated, could boost the subcommittee above its 302(b) allocation by $0.9 billion in budget authority and $0.6 billion in outlays. This outcome would seriously threaten the targets in the first budget resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the relationship of this bill and possible later requirements be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD as follows:
[Table omitted]
(Mr. FORD assumed the chair.)
Mr. MUSKIE. The details are spelled out in that table, Mr. President, and I shall be glad to go over them specifically, if Members wish.
Because of the potential threat of this bill to the budget targets, I must oppose it as reported by the Appropriations Committee. I will vote for it only if amendments are adopted by the Senate which reduce the bill's cost enough to eliminate the subcommittee's potential overage.
I understand that the distinguished floor manager of this bill (Mr. PROXMIRE) will sponsor an amendment to reduce the funding for assisted housing by $0.7 billion — to the level assumed in the first budget resolution.
While this amendment will not completely eliminate the HUD Subcommittee's potential budget overage, it will substantially reduce it. Therefore, I support this amendment and urge all Senators to do the same.
Furthermore, Mr. President, I urge Senators to join me in opposing any amendments to increase funding for any program in this bill unless such amendments include compensating reductions in other programs.
The likelihood that the HUD/Independent Agencies Subcommittee will exceed its section 302(b) allocation leads me to point out, as I have in connection with previous appropriations bills, that we now have several appropriations subcommittees that are likely to exceed their 302(b) allocations.
Further, it is likely that other subcommittees will exceed their allocations.And it appears very unlikely that the remaining subcommittees will have sufficient surpluses within their 302(b) allocations to compensate for these excesses.
It now appears that the Appropriations Committee may exceed the amount allocated to it in the first budget resolution by $6 billion in budget authority and almost $5 billion in outlays when all the regular appropriations bills and the fiscal year 1980 supplemental requirements are taken into account. As a result of these appropriations excesses, the fiscal year 1980 deficit may increase by almost $3 billion.
I recognize that this situation is to a large degree caused by the failure of other committees to realize savings assumed in the first budget resolution.
For example, $0.2 billion of the potential HUD Subcommittee overage is due to the failure of the Veterans Affairs Committee to report legislation reforming veterans entitlement programs. The first budget resolution assumed savings of this magnitude from such legislation.
As a result, the Appropriations Committee must provide $0.2 billion in funding that was not included in its crosswalk under the first budget resolution.
Mr. President, I have sent letters to other committees reminding them of their responsibility to report legislation reducing the cost of programs in their jurisdiction.
However, the Appropriations Committee cannot be held harmless for the failure of authorizing committees to achieve savings in entitlement programs.
I can understand the reluctance of the Appropriations Committee to act as the fall guy when other committees do not do the job called for by the budget resolution. But the Appropriations Committee alone has the power to do the job shirked by other committees.
For example, if the budget resolution calls for savings in an entitlement program which are not reported by the authorizing committee, the Appropriations Committee has two choices.
First, it can find compensating reductions in more directly controllable programs by including legislative language in appropriation bills.
The committee took this latter course of action in this bill in reducing the cost of the general revenue sharing program. While I generally oppose such action because it invades the prerogatives of authorizing committees, I regretfully come to the conclusion that no other course of action is available if authorizing committees refuse to carry out their responsibilities to enforce the Congressional Budget.
Mr. President, I wish to point out that two programs which I sponsored and I have strongly supported over the years would be funded in this bill at levels which I consider undesirably low.
The first of these programs is the general revenue sharing program, which the full committee cut by $0.7 billion. In my mind such a reduction amounts to reneging on a Federal commitment to the States.
The second program is the EPA wastewater treatment construction grant program. This bill funds this program at a level $0.4 billion less than was requested by the President and assumed in the first budget resolution, and $1.6 billion less than the estimated need when we last reauthorized the program in 1978. This level of funding could seriously slow our national commitment to clean up our Nation's waterways.
However, Mr. President, my strong concern over the proposed appropriation level in this bill for these programs is offset by my even stronger concern over the tight budgetary situation in which the Congress finds itself. While I regret that important and needed programs such as State revenue sharing and wastewater treatment plants should fall victim to spending excesses elsewhere in the budget, I will not attempt to add to the already too high fiscal year 1980 budget deficit by proposing an amendment to increase the funding for these programs.
As I have said time and time again, bringing Federal spending under control and balancing the Federal budget will not be easy. It is not simply a matter of cutting out a few programs that are clearly unnecessary or wasteful.
It means making deep and painful sacrifices in each and every area of Federal activity. Each of us here must accept such sacrifices in programs which we hold near and dear, or we will never get this budget under control.
One closing observation, Mr. President. Next week the Budget Committee begins markup of the second budget resolution. CBO's estimates indicate already that budget authority will be $9 billion in excess of the first budget resolution, not counting these excesses which I have been talking about here this morning.
It looks as though the deficits of the second budget resolution will approach $35 billion to $40 billion. The Senate will remember that after the conference on the first budget resolution we had reduced the deficit to $23 billion. We are unlikely to be able to reduce the deficit to a figure below that of 1979, the way we are going, and the way the economy is headed.
So, Mr. President, I want Senators to understand, they may challenge my numbers, they may challenge the assumptions, they may disagree with my conclusions, but I would find myself remiss if I waited until after the fact, after markup of the second budget resolution, to inform the Senate our deficit had climbed $10 billion to $12 billion.
Mr. President, I think the Senate would find that unacceptable. I think they would hold me responsible for not warning them in advance.
This constitutes such a warning, and if it means I must sacrifice my vote on two programs to which I have made a deep commitment over many years, so be it.
I must not only warn the Senate, but I must also set an example. I am going to do my best in the consideration of this bill before us today.
What I have had to say is not denigration of the position of Senator PROXMIRE. He is as unhappy with aspects of this pending bill as I am, I take it, and he is going to offer an amendment to reduce the housing by $700 million. That is an expression of his concern which parallels mine.
I simply want to indicate my support for that amendment and my effort, wherever my vote can make a difference, to hold down any increases in the present bill and to support decreases.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I warmly commend the Senator from Maine for doing what he has done so often. I hope and pray what he is saying will be heeded by Members of the Senate.
What he is telling us, as I understand it, is that unless we hold down spending in this bill, unless we find ways to reduce it, in fact, we are going to be about a billion dollars over the budget resolution which we passed only a couple of months ago.
Furthermore, that means we are going to deepen the deficit for the coming year. That means, far from being in any position to balance the budget or fight inflation by holding down spending, we will feed the fires of inflation, contradicting what we have done.
It is very painful, as the Senator points out, to make these reductions. All of us favor the programs in this bill. But I think what the Senator from Maine is telling us is right on target.
I hope Members recognize that however important it is for us to provide assistance for our cities, assistance for States and localities, and so forth, that our No. 1 priority is to find a way of fighting inflation, of holding down spending reasonably, and coming in with a fiscally responsible bill.
Nobody in the Senate, nobody in my knowledge, certainly, in the recent history of the Senate, has contributed more to this debate in a responsible way than the Senator from Maine. I think we are all in his debt for the statement he has just made.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from Wisconsin.