April 25, 1979
Page 8581
Mr. SCHWEIKER. I have just a few more things and I will be glad to.
Mr. President, I would like to respond for just a few minutes to some of the arguments the distinguished Senator has made.
I still have not heard an argument against the main thrust of my amendment. Why are we unwilling to live under the same standard that we impose on our people?
I did not hear one word answering that in the Senator's argument. This is the issue. Why will we not take in our belt and say, "If it's good enough for the American blue collar workers to sacrifice to slow inflation, why is it not right for the Federal Government to do the same?"
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. I have not heard one answer or one argument. We have heard a lot of figures, but not one argument on that score.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Yes; I will.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Well, for one thing, the Budget Committee and the Armed Services Committee, and I think this Senate, are not willing to say that we treat national defense the same as the ceiling on wage and price stability; that we are aware full inflation produces 3 percent.
Now, that is the biggest increase in this budget and that exceeds the wage and price stability ceilings.
Is the Senator suggesting we ought to cut back national defense to the ceilings of wage and price stability?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Again, the Senator did not hear what I said. I said in my opening remarks that there would be some functions that obviously we wouldwant to set above the inflation spending rate and some below the rate.
That is exactly what the Budget Committee did for 1980. You did that. That was your procedure. I accepted it. You did it for 1980, but you did not do it for 1981 and 1982.
You have recommended to us that some functions grow faster than the inflation rate and some less, but the average growth rate was the same as you expect inflation to increase.
I say, if you do it in 1980, why can you not do it for 1981 and 1982 in terms of specified cuts?
I am a little confused about that argument.
My cuts are very modest. One percent is all I am talking. Five billion dollars 1 year, $6 billion another year, 1 percent.
Now, the Budget Committee's responsibilities include reporting to the Senate a budget resolution next year as well as for this year. That is your job. So, why throw the ball here?
My goodness, I have to believe the Budget Committee can locate 1 percent in this budget to cut by next year.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Not yet.
A 1 percent cut should not cause anyone difficulty.
What is wrong with everybody taking in their belt in the same way? Why will we not say that the Federal Government has to do the same thing everybody else has to do? That is how we got into our present mess. Twenty years ago we decided we could increase spending faster than the housewife. And we could increase spending more than an average person or company.
All I am saying is that we should be consistent. What better rule is there to follow? We ask our people to do more than the Federal Government is willing to do. If we cannot control our own bureaucratic growth, how can we ask other people to control their private spending? That is all the issue is.
I would like to challenge the Senator's figures when he says that my budget is out of balance $300 million. If it is, that is still quite a record, to be out of balance $300 million, compared to $29 billion that he is out of balance this year. I would like to challenge the figures, because I gave the Senator a revised copy of my amendment and it uses his inflation and outlay figures.
So I would like to know specifically why the figures in 1981 and 1982 are wrong, when I have used his assumptions.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I understand what the Senator is saying so vociferously, it is this: 1 percent is a large number when you look at our figures and a small number when you look at your proposal.
Why can we not take 1 percent? Yet, as I look at our budget numbers for fiscal year 1980, we are one-tenth of 1 percent less than inflation; in fiscal year 1981, 1 percent above inflation.
If 1 percent is small to the Senator when he talks about his proposal, it is not any bigger when you look at the Budget Committee's figure. For 1982, outlay growth is one-tenth of 1 percent above inflation. It is the Senator who is making a great deal out of figures of that size, not the Budget Committee. That is the first point.
Second, the Senator has not taken our figures. He has reduced spending by an additional $5 billion, he says. Those are not our figures. Also, he figures in no reflows.
I have made the same point with the two previous amendments. The CBO methodology is that you take reflows into account, and that methodology shows that your budget would be $300 million in deficit in 1981, when our mandate, I say to the Senator — he is trying to impose another mandate — our mandate was to balance in 1981.
The Senator's amendment would put us out of balance and breach our mandate; $300 million may not be much to the Senator, but $300 million is as much to me as the 1 percent the Senator talks about.
I do not know what scale the Senator uses. He uses one for the Budget Committee and a different one for himself.
I repeat the point that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana made effectively a short time ago. We had a specific mandate — a balanced budget in1981 and another in 1982. We met that mandate.
If it is the wish of the Senate to spell out all details of the budget and offer all guidelines, we will try to follow them. But we met those two, and those are two we were never required to do under the budget system as it was established in 1974, but we did it.
If the Senator thinks it is a simple matter, in a week or 10 days of labor, to put together specific budget resolutions for 3 years running, in addition to revising the current one — in other words, we have had to deal with four yearly budgets in this resolution — it is not.
I will not agree to let my committee take any back seat to a commitment to budgetary austerity.
The difference is minus one-tenth of 1 percent in 1 year, plus one-tenth of 1 percent in another, and the minor 1 percent that the Senator uses to describe his own proposal. That kind of rhethoric may be persuasive on some point but certainly not on substance.
I repeat what the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has said: We have had the same arguments on three successive amendments. The difference is that the numbers for reduction in tax cuts are reduced with each successive amendment. I do not know whether there will be another one, but the basic arguments would be the same.
As I look at what we did with the 1981 budget in order to balance it, we had to cut $9 billion after the first run; and what the Senator wants us to do is to cut another $5 billion on top of that. If he thinks that is as simple as uttering the words "1 percent," he should try to sit through a budget markup for a week, until 11 or 12 o'clock at night, and see for himself.
It is not quite that simple.
We have met our mandate. With respect to the 1981 budget, it is not finally in place when we vote for this. It is a commitment. It will be embodied as the first year in a first budget resolution a year from now. That is the time for the Senator to argue to the Budget Committee to meet the standard he seeks to impose on us now.
What is the good of having a Budget Committee, if every Senator is going to impose his own standard about this, that, and the other? Why not write the budget on the floor of the Senate in total, and see how you can do it? I think the Budget Committee has done a job that I did not expect it to be able to do in meeting the mandate of the budget debt ceiling.
I do not disagree with the Senator's right to offer an amendment. However, when he does it with the kind of rhetoric he has used, to suggest that the Budget Committee has come out of this exercise as a wild and spending committee, I object to it.
I urge the Senate to reject the amendment.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I will take only a minute.
I invite the attention of the Senator from Pennsylvania to the chart on page 14 of the report, which shows that the outlay growth, under the terms f the Budget Committee recommendations, is a reduction of 0.1 in 1980. It is an increase of 1 percent in 1981 and a small increase in 1982 of 0.1, and reductions in 1983 and 1984 of 0.5 and 0.6.
I also refer to the point made by Senator JOHNSTON, that the reason for the increase in 1981 is that defense is up almost 3 percent.
The Budget Committee has done the very thing the Senator from Pennsylvania wants us to do, except the 1 year when we have a slight increase, because of the funds made available for the defense budget.
I believe we have reached the objective, and to go further would be a great mistake and would upset the balance we have achieved in this resolution.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. I say to the Senator from Oklahoma that I have page 14. Is the Senator from Oklahoma talking about the alternate budget? I was not discussing the alternate budget. That is on page 14.
I submit that he is citing incorrect figures. I go to page 12 of the report and I read the figures: The Budget Committee has come out with recommendations that set spending 8.1 percent higher for 1 year and 15.4 percent higher for 2 years.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the alternate budget.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. On page 12.
Mr. BELLMON. On page 14, the chart I read refers to the committee recommendation which is for balance in 1981. It is not the alternate budget.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. It is the alternate budget in 1982, and we are arguing about fiscal year 1982. That is where he says it is one-tenth of 1 percent.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will look at page 14, at the bottom of the page, it says "Committee recommendation, balance in 1981." That is the budget that is before us.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Which year is that?
Mr. MUSKIE. 1981.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. That is not at issue.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, it is at issue.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. The year at issue is 1982.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will look at that table, the 1982 projections are there, the 1983 projections are there, and the 1984 projections are there for outlays. They show reductions in 1983 and 1984, which is what Senator BELLMON read from, and the Senator from Pennsylvania challenged him by saying that is the alternate budget. It is not. It is the budget before us.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. If the Senator reads that, he will find that the inflation rate is different from the growth rate by 1 percentage point. That is the point. Inflation goes up 7.1 percent, and spending goes up a full point above that, at 8.1 percent. The figure is there, on page 12.
Mr. MUSKIE. The table says "Outlay Growth Less Inflation (percent) , minus 0.1." That is for 1980. For 1981, it is plus 1.0; 1982, plus 0.1; 1983, minus 0.5; 1984, minus 0.6.
That, I take it, is the point the Senator's amendment is driving at, and as the Senator from Oklahoma has said we have achieved in 3 of those 5 years what the Senator is driving at. In 1982 we come to one-tenth of 1 percent from it and in 1981, because of the defense budget we come above it. That is what that table says.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. The Senator did not hear me initially. I commended the Senator for reaching a balance in 1981. He somehow assumed I had not said that. I did commend the Senator and commend him for reaching a balance in 1981. I did take issue and still do with the 1981 and 1982 recommendations. We could argue figures all day, but it is clear to me that we are getting back off the track in 1981 and 1982. I will not pursue it here in the Chamber anymore, because it is obvious the committee has the position that the Senate is not entitled to work its will, that we have no input into this thing, and that only the Budget Committee sets budgetary policy.
I understood that the Senate had a right to propose amendments and had a right to offer objections.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. For the second time today I have heard this argument that we of the committee think the Senate does not have a right to work its will. I have never said that. Senator BELLMON has never said that. Of course, the Senate can work its will. But if I cannot defend the product of the committee, being chairman of it, then I should yield the chairmanship to someone else.
When the product of that committee is not accurately portrayed in my judgment in the Chamber it is my job to defend it.
Apparently the Senator believes that he should be able to argue for an amendment and we should be silent. That is as unfair a statement to make of the Senator's position as it is of him to say that we do not think the Senate has a right to work its will. Of course, it has.
If the Senate chooses to adopt the Senator's amendment that is the Senate's prerogative.
I have been here 21 years. I am not stupid enough to think the Senate has not the right to do anything it wishes.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. President, I wish to ask the chairman how many amendments has the committee accepted today or yesterday.
Mr. MUSKIE. It has not accepted any.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. How many amendments has the committee accepted from the floor today or yesterday?
Mr. MUSKIE. What kind of test is that, may I ask the Senator.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. It is the test of give and take.
Mr. MUSKIE. When the Senator proposes legislation in his committee does he do it with the assumption that he is going to compromise what he thinks is right in that legislation just to accept amendments? I mean is that the test of good legislation, that you just adopt amendments, because they are offered? Or do you look at the merits?
I never heard that kind of a rationale given as a test for the soundness of legislation. I never heard it in all my life. I have seen bills passed in this Chamber before without amendment and not just mine. Were they unsound bills, because no amendments were accepted? And I have seen bills on which amendments were accepted by floor managers with everyone knowing they were going to be dumped in conference. Is that sound legislation? What kind of a test is that?
Mr. SCHWEIKER. I think, Mr. President, it is a fair test and if you are going to have give and take in the Chamber there should be some give and take in the committee position and they should be willing to acknowledge that some one of us here has an idea or two that maybe should be incorporated in the Budget Committee's recommendation.
I do not believe any committee is 100 percent right. I do not see very many committees come out here and take the position they are 100 percent right and there is no give here and no give there and no give here.
I think that is the point and that is the issue, but we have prolonged it, and I am willing to yield back whatever time I have remaining, Mr. President, if the other side is or if they wish to speak again before we vote.
I ask, though, that there be a rollcall vote on my amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. SCHWEIKER. I yield back the remainder of my time.