April 24, 1979
Page 8408
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, first of all, I would like to say to my good friend from South Dakota that he has been a staunch supporter of the budget process. That does not mean he agrees with every item that the Budget Committee recommends or even necessarily that the Senate adopts. But he understands fully the mood of the country and our economic circumstances.
I would like to express my appreciation to him for that support. I appreciate the kind things he has had to say about the Budget Committee.
I would like to say that the Budget Committee is a collection of 20 individuals, each with his own political philosophies and set of priorities. It is important, as I think Senator McGOVERN indicated, for the Budget Committee to try to achieve a consensus in order to produce a report that the committee can stand behind in the Senate. We understand, of course, that the Senate is made up of individuals with their own sets of priorities, and that is the nature of the process.
It is entirely appropriate that Senator McGOVERN should give voice to his priorities in the form of the amendment that is before us. I do not question that at all, and it is an appropriate way to raise the issues which he raises.
What I would like to do is to explain the position of the Senate Budget Committee.
First of all, with respect to the overall budget for 1980, the Senator made reference to the fact that to some of the programs where he seeks to add funds, the Budget Committee's proposal has been to reduce these programs. It is asserted that the committee did this by not taking the inflation affecting these programs into account.
Well, there was a day, may I say to the Senator, that we did just that. We started with what we called budget policy and we cranked into our numbers allowances for inflation, whether or not it was required by law. That was called current policy.
We found we had very little success holding down spending or reducing spending by automatically allowing for inflation — whether required or not.
So, 2 or 3 years ago, we began to look at inflation on a selective basis, in order to exert downward pressure upon agencies to force them to find ways to accommodate inflation in places of real need. I think this effort has served a useful purpose.
If we were to have fully allowed for inflation in the 1980 budget which we have presented to the Senate, the committee would have added some $11.7 billion to overall outlays. This would have provided an outlay total of $544.1 billion. The deficit resulting from those outlays would be roughly $40 billion.
If we had allowed the full level of inflation for fiscal year 1981, we would have added $21.6 billion to outlays. This, of course, would throw that balanced budget in fiscal year 1981 — which we presented to the Senate — over $21 billion into the red. In fiscal year 1982, we would have to add $35 billion in outlays which would, in effect, cut more than half of what would be either a surplus or funds available for a tax cut.
The point is that automatically conceding inflation to programs is not goingto permit the Congress to achieve a balanced budget: Avoiding the consequences of inflation in the budget is a very practical way of holding down spending and gradually squeezing out the fat.
What the McGovern amendment is really about is reduction in defense spending. It proposes a reduction of $1.7 billion in budget authority and $900 million in outlays in fiscal year 1980.
I trust that those figures coincide with those of Senator McGOVERN. I gather that the outlay figure should be $1.1 billion.
Mr. McGOVERN. Yes, the Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then, in fiscal 1981 it is $1.7 billion in budget authority and $1.2 billion in outlays; in fiscal year 1982, $1.8 billion in budget authority and $1.5 billion in outlays.
Mr. McGOVERN. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is really the heart of the McGovern amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HEFLIN) . The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself an additional 5 minutes.
The programs to which he would transfer those funds have great merit, and this was recognized by the Senate Budget Committee.
If there were a way to reduce the deficit projected by the Budget Committee by an additional half-billion dollars, Senator McGOVERN would propose that, too, as a desirable objective. But any other Senator might propose a transfer amendment from the national defense function to a different set of priorities.
So I am not going to focus on the particular functions to which Senator McGOVERN would transfer the defense savings. I am sure there are a number of other functions, a number of other programs, which could be justified on their merits to absorb these savings from defense, and I cannot argue all of them.
I simply want to take a few minutes to explain the national defense function as presented by the Budget Committee. Senator BELLMON has done it already. I will do it in a little different way.
The SBC targets for national defense were based on general agreement with the President's budget request level with a few modifications aimed at greater efficiency within the Department of Defense. These included: First, a 3-year phaseout of the commissary subsidy; second, efficiencies in non-readiness O. &M. activities; third, 25 percent absorption of the fiscal year 1980 pay raise for civilian and military personnel of the DOD and reallocation of the savings from this pay absorption to the tactical forces — where, of course, the bulk of the increase for NATO programs is contained; and fourth, revision of the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees from a semi-annual to annual basis.
The main points about the SBC Defense mark in defending it against Senator McGOVERN's position are: First, the mark gives the President only 0.9 percentreal growth in total budget authority; second, the mark represents a reduction of $0.5 billion in budget authority and $1.1 billion in outlays from the President's level; and third, in the face of our commitment to NATO and the force improvements of the Warsaw Pact, the mark represents a reasonable compromise between the need to conserve fundsand the need to improve U.S. capabilities.
Mr. President, there will be other proposals to reduce the defense mark, and proposals are pending before us to increase the defense mark.
So I conclude from this that the mark which the Senate Budget Committee has proposed is a reasonable balance between them.
At this point, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI).