April 25, 1979
Page 8621
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am beginning to understand more today the high political risks I assumed when I took over the job as chairman of the Budget Committee, and I would be delighted to accept the rationale for this amendment, as it would make it possible for me to accept it. But I simply cannot, and I can only give the Senate my frank and honest evaluation of what it means.
We are led to believe that this amendment would restore 60 percent of the social security reductions assumed by the Budget Committee in this function. While in fiscal year 1980 this would be the case, since this amendment would restore $300 million of the $500 million in reductions assumed in the budget in fiscal year 1980, this amendment would restore only 25 percent of the cumulative savings assumed in the budget over the next 3 years. In other words, this amendment does not restore most savings. It merely postpones them 1 year.
While this amendment contemplates benefit cutbacks of only $200 million in fiscal year 1980, these reductions would quadruple in fiscal year 1981, an election year, and double again in fiscal year 1982.
I do not have to remind Senators how unlikely it is that Congress will vote to quadruple social security cutbacks in an election year.
For this reason, this amendment is, in all candor, a Trojan horse. It promises to preserve budget balance in fiscal year 1981 on the premise that Congress will do what we know it will not do, enact greater benefit cuts in an election year.
And if it will not do that, the effect of this amendment is to threaten the budget balance that the Budget Committee has reported to the Senate for fiscal year 1981.
Furthermore, this amendment would not even achieve the level of savings recommended by the Finance Committee. In its March 15 recommendation to the Budget Committee, the Finance Committee recommended savings for income security programs within its jurisdiction of $700 million in fiscal year 1980. If this amendment is adopted this budget would call for savings in these programs of only $600 million, $100 million less than recommended by the Finance Committee.
The practical effect of this amendment would be to eliminate practically all of the social security savings assumed by the Budget Committee. Given the House Budget Committee version of the first budget resolution, the House assumes only about $60 million in savings in social security programs as compared to the $500 million assumed by the Senate Budget Committee.
So this amendment is likely to lead to an even greater addition to the deficit than just $300 million by compromising the Senate conference position in advance.
So, to repeat, the adoption of this amendment would threaten the spending pattern recommended by the Budget Committee to balance the budget in fiscalyear 1981 and fiscal year 1982.
May I say this in addition: that none of the reductions assumed by the Budget Committee would affect the fundamental protections the social security system was designed to provide.
In a program in the magnitude of social security, about $117 billion in fiscal year 1980, the savings assumed by the Budget Committee are relatively small, less than one-half of 1 percent of the program.
No program is sacred and above receiving regular legislative review from Congress.
The assumed reductions are reasonable in the light of the important competing concerns over the status of the national economy.
May I remind Senators that inflation impacts upon elderly citizens as severely as any other element of our population, and we have learned, I would hope, in the 3 days that we have been considering this budget that there is no way to balance this budget by finding some universally unpopular program to assume all of the cuts that must be taken in order to achieve balance.
I hope we have learned that in order to balance the budget we have to take relatively small cuts in a lot of popular, worthy, meritorious programs in order not to impose too heavy a burden on any single program but to share the burden of reductions among a lot of meritorious programs.
I could have voted in terms of my heart and my feelings of compassion and my reaction to the merits of a lot of the programs that Members would like to increase. But it simply is not possible and at the same time meet the mandate that the Senate imposed on us, and may I remind Senators that when the Debt Ceiling Act was before us there were a lot of Senators who argued that the approach of going through the Budget Committee to achieve balance was too moderate.
It was necessary to mandate a balance then and there before we could see the impact upon specific programs. We were soft on a balanced budget by adopting the formula that we finally adopted, which said to the Budget Committee, "You produce balance in each of 2 years,and let us look at it."
Well, we have done what you told us to do. We have done exactly what you told us to do. We provided a balance for 1981. We produced one for 1982, and we took the tougher of the two, 1981 instead of 1982.
Now we are beginning to get amendments to whittle away the small surplus we had provided for 1981.
This amendment, in all candor, and I have gone over it with staff and tried to see it the way of the sponsors who convinced themselves that it would not bust the budget in 1981, and my evaluation of it is as I have described it, and for me to support this amendment would be for me to vote to undercut and to threaten the balanced budget in 1981 to which I committed myself to the Senate to provide and to offer to this body, and that I will not do. So I will not support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Who yields time?
Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. President, will theSenator yield 5 minutes?
Mr. CHILES. Can I take just a couple of minutes, and then I will be delighted to yield.
I listened with interest to the chairman of the Budget Committee, and I do not want to dispute his assumptions. But the Budget Committee and the assumptions they made and the assumptions he is making are on the basis of the $600 million cut, that we have savings of $600 million in 1980, and those savings wouldgrow to $1.2 billion in 1981, and that would grow to $2.1 billion in 1982, so he is assuming a growth or the committee was assuming a growth from 1980 to 1981 to 1982.
We are making the same kind of path. We are asuming $300 million in savings, a cut of $300 million, in 1980; $900 million in 1981, and $1.8 billion in 1982, and a lesser figure with exactly the same pattern.
So the arguments as to whether the committee is going to do something in an election year on savings are just as valid really to our amendment as they are to what the committee has done to start with.
What we are saying is we hope the Committee or, Finance will come out with savings and we hope Congress will adopt those savings. We hope it will do it this year. But we think many of those savings, even if they put them in this year, some of them will not go into effect until 1981.
I am just not sure and I do not know whether you think we will cut out college benefits for children over 18 in the year in which they are ready to enroll in college, and I think it will just be tough to do. I hope they pass it. I intend to vote for it, and if Congress passes it we will have more savings. I am not sure it is a realistic thing to do, but I am sure the same cost savings we are talking about can work just as we are talking about in the kind of cut I am producing.
As to what the Committee on Finance said, the Committee on Finance in its letter to the Budget Committee said that they think they can make savings of $700 million, and they included the social security, and they also included all the welfare programs. It was a total of what they expect.
Now the Budget Committee took those figures of what the Committee on Finance said they hoped they would be able to do, and we have taken $400 million out of the welfare program. We have effected some cost savings in that. So that is $400 million of what the Committee on Finance said they thought they could save. If you take another $300 million — and that is what I am talking about in my amendment — 4 and 3 make 7, and that is what the Committee on Finance said they felt was the savings total. Four hundred million dollars we have already taken in welfare, and I am saying we take $300 million out of this, not $600 million, because I do not think the Committee on Finance said to us that we are going to take $600 million out of this.
I think they said $700 million out of the total program. So I think that is what we have done.
I will be glad to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Florida has explained very well both the intent and the impact of this particular amendment. In it, we restore outlays of $300 million in each of the 3 fiscal years,1980, 1981 and 1982 for social security programs. The point I would like to raise is that we have heard argued here that there should be no sacred cows. But we are not talking about sacred cows, only about proceeding cautiously in this area.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, that we are talking about the most vulnerable groups in our society. We are talking about the disabled, we are talking about the elderly, we are talking about the orphans who are covered by the social security system.
But there has not been much in hearings that I know about, either by the Committee on Finance or any other committee, on the ramifications of cuts in any of these particular programs. There have not been hearings on the various aspects of the programs, eligibility or benefits.
If we do not mitigate these cuts we risk playing Russian roulette with the people who are entitled to protection. The fact is that the Finance Committee, in its recommendaion to the Budget Committee, did not specify where cuts in the social security program should be made or even if cuts should be made in the social security program.
Nor did the Budget Committee say where the cuts should be made. During discussion, some suggestions were madeabout where they should not be made, but no positive warning was sounded.
The Commission on Social Security, which Congress set up in 1977, has not yet reported on their study of financing and benefits.
Mr. President, sudden and unguided changes should be avoided, where possible. It is possible to do it here. When the livelihood of the elderly, disabled, and orphaned is at stake, we should study the options first, make only the cuts which are least harmful and give the most time possible for adjustment.
Mr. President, under the social security system, there is a sense of reliance by people paying into the program over a long period of time.
The social security program is one in which people make contributions for their own coverage. In return, they are entitled to a fair set of benefits, which will fairly protect them from a loss of wages and the consequences of such a loss. This is an essential principle of this system. Changes and reductions in social security programs should be undertaken as cautiously as possible, creating the least harm to the recipients who had been counting on these benefits and giving as much notice as possible of cuts that may be made so that people may try to prepare for them.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will give me just 1 more minute, then I will yield.
A good example of the changes under consideration is one in which people would not begin getting old age benefits until the beginning of the next month after they hit the age of eligibility.
That is all well and good for people who are executives who can pick to retireat the end of the month in which they hit the right age, but for the neediest people it will create a real hardship. It seems to me such a proposal should be given the kind of attention and the kind of study it deserves.
Under the amendment offered by Senator CHILES, myself and others, we still see a reduction of $200 million from current law. The Senator from Florida has pointed out it is still going to be possible to balance the budget in the 1981 and 1982 years even with the acceptance of this amendment. But we willgive the committees, the Committee on Finance and the other committees that have an interest in these matters, a better chance to review these programs so as not to make particularly hurtful cuts, and to choose cuts with the least traumatic effect.
I yield for a question.
Mr. STONE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator will yield 1 more minute.
Mr. STONE. Has the Senator from Massachusetts noticed the cover of the current issue of U.S. News & World Report, dated April 30, on which thequestion is asked, which the Senator from Florida has heard all over his State,"Social Security — Will It Be There When You Need It?"
Is it not a fact that there are two feelings of uncertainty that people who are about to retire or have already retired have? One is that we will not properly fund social security, but the other is that we will legislate the benefits out of existence.
Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is quite correct and the Board of Trustees of the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Funds has reported that the fund is actuarially sound, so there is no crisis requiring many benefits out of existence.
There are a series of programs that have benefited people for a number of years. Those should not be scrapped, without understanding the ramifications.
Mr. STONE. What will that do to the confidence of the beneficiaries of the remaining parts of social security, when they see something like that?
Mr. KENNEDY. I think it will shake their confidence. I think an argument can be made that people have a sense of entitlement when they have paid in, and when altering the system the people's expectations are entitled to at least thoughtful consideration.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I am glad to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is aware, I am sure, that under the Budget Act we were careful to write provisions into the act, and even to change the dates of the fiscal year, to make it possible for the authorizing committees to prepare their programs by March 15.
The fact is that the committee held several days of hearings before markup, and the Finance Committee has recommended $700 million of savings before reporting to us.
We do not, as the Senator knows, hold markup hearings before the Budget Committee. That is the job of the authorizing committees. The Senator's argument is that before we can consider the First Budget Resolution, we must give all committees the opportunity to conduct extensive hearings on programs of the kind that are held year round, which would mean we would have to delay the first budget resolution until—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Florida has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will take the time I have just used on my time, and continue to use my time, and not erode the Senator's time.
That would put us exactly where we were before the budget process. If we did not consider overall spending, or limitations on it, until every committee has had a chance to pass its authorization bills, or justify their cases, or the reverse of that, the Budget Committee would never recommend a change in the law as a way of reducing spending.
The fact is that 75 percent of the budget is uncontrollable. Because of contractual obligations and existing requirements of law, 75 percent of it is uncontrollable, as the distinguished Senator from Florida knows. So in order to get a balanced budget in 1981 we had to recommend changes in the law.
I do not know how we can have it both ways. Either we just drift along with the present division of 75 percent or more uncontrollable, with the Budget Committee powerless to recommend changes, and the Budget Committee will not be allowed to recommend changes until the authorizing committees have taken the weeks and months necessary to hold comprehensive hearings on all programs, or we continue the present system, in which the authorizing committees have until March 15 to give us their recommendations.
It seems to me that if the authorizing committees have given us their recommendations, we ought to have a right to rely upon those as thoughtful, considered recommendations. So I am puzzled as to what route the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts would want us to follow.
Mr. KENNEDY. I find, Mr. President, if the Senator will be good enough — since he is the only one with time left — to yield me 3 minutes, it does seem to me, Mr. President, that there is considerable difference between those programs which are authorized and appropriated for, and entitlement programs, in which individuals pay in over a period of years and have a sense that, because of law, they are entitled to certain benefits. Perhaps the Senator from Maine has a different view on that than I do.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. KENNEDY. If I can just finish, I do think there is an important distinction between these matters. On the question of delaying the eligibility for social security for 1 month, for example, I think the American people have felt that they should be able to receive that benefit when they reach the age of eligibility; it has been in the law.
I certainly do not say that social security laws and benefits should not be changed. There may be outmoded benefits, there may be benefits that do not reach the right people.
But I am saying that this is an area in which benefits go to the elderly, the disabled, and the orphaned. This is an area in which people have paid contributions and have expectations.
And our amendment allows room for continuation of some more of the programs, and allows more time to decide which of the programs should be modified and for people to adjust.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Massachusetts has expired.
Mr. KENNEDY. If I could finish my thought, just for 2 minutes, then I will be glad to—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has no time remaining. The Senator from Maine has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I had promised to yield to the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. If I can use 1 minute, what the Senator from Massachusetts is saying—
Mr. KENNEDY. Could I have 1 more minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, I only have 3 minutes left.
Mr. KENNEDY. Well, I think I did agree to a consent agreement requested by the majority leader for a 40-minute time limitation, but I cut my previous amendment down from 2 hours to 30 minutes, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to be able to continue for 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts be permitted to continue for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can yield time off the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will be happy to yield the Senator 2 minutes off the bill, if that is permissible.
Mr. KENNEDY. The final point that I would make quotes the Senator himself,Senator MUSKIE, in introducing S. 2 on January 10, 1977. He stated:
By applying the sunset concept to all programs, Mr. President, we have tried to insure that the process is neutral to all sides. The only exceptions we have made are for interest on the national debt and a handful of programs like social security, into which people have paid with the expectation of later benefits from the Government.
I do think this a somewhat special program. I appreciate the effort made by the Budget Committee. But it does seem to me that the more responsible course of action would be by voting for the amendment of the .Senator from Florida.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
What the Senator is really saying to me is that no change should be made in social security, even though the children of the wealthy receive the same benefits as children of the poor in the case of a parent's death, and even though wealthy retirees draw higher social security benefits than low and moderate income individuals.
In other words, the assumption is that these benefits all go to the poor, for real needs that cannot otherwise be met and that we should not look at it, and that the Budget Committee ought not to take any action at all that would press the appropriate committees of the Senate and Senators themselves to look at such situations.
I have been chairman of the Budget Committee long enough to know that rooting out all of the inequities, trying to make a program more equitable and more sharply targeted and focused upon the beneficiaries that we seek to benefit, is a difficult thing to do.
But I also think we have to try.
Mr. President, politically I am not really stupid. I understand that what I am saying here, the position I am taking, is not going to make many friends for me across the country. It would be much easier for me to accept the rationalization of the Senator from Florida. He is a good member of the Budget Committee. He is committed to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will take 1 minute from the bill.
He is committed to it.
It would be easy to convince myself that probably he is right. Why do I not accept his argument?
I cannot. If I do not say to the Senate, "Look, there are places you ought to look at even in what appear to be the most sacred corners of this budget for savings, because the stakeof the elderly in the fight against inflation is as high as that of anyone else, and if you do not think it is necessary for all of us to swallow some inflation in order to deal with it, you are not living in a real world."
If all of us, if every American, finds the way to offset last year's losses to inflation, we automatically build into this year's economy the same amount of inflation. Until we learn that, we are not going to wipe it away. And if we do not, the people who are hurt are the people the Senator is trying to help with this amendment.
Let us not fool ourselves with our own rhetoric. I would like to take the politically easy course on this amendment. You bet your boots I would. But I will not.
I yield back the remainder of my time, of which I suspect there is none.