September 19, 1979
Page 25238
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 1 minute.
Mr. JAVITS. As a senior member of the Human Resources Committee and having been its ranking member for many years, I want to identify myself with the points made by Senator WILLIAMS and to endorse and support them. I point out, for example, in the CETA program, which is one element, we have already cut it 20 percent. This would propose yet another cut over the 20 percent we have already cut. And we are running into a recession. I deeply feel that it is very ill-advised.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. HART. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, it is unfortunate, I think, that the sponsors of the proposal to increase the defense function by 3 percent are not here on this amendment, because I think it is their responsibility and, to a certain degree, all of us who voted for that.
I want to say to my colleague from Colorado that he is to be complimented when he does propose a tax cut. He identifies specifically programs where that money can be saved.
The Senator from Arkansas deserves a great deal of credit attempting to reconcile two contradictory actions this body took in the last day or two. I think it is unfortunate we are now in this position. But if we let the situation remain the way it is, without making some cuts, then it is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to move to a balanced budget in 1981.
The Senator from Nebraska earlier said that this is the only way he can see the cuts offered by the Senator from Arkansas, the only way to solve this problem.
I think he is, unfortunately, wrong. There were some weeks of deliberations of the committee. There are some specific areas much more clearly identified than the Senator from Arkansas has proposed, specific functions and specific programs in those functions where cuts could be made of about $2.5 billion, not quite as much as the Senator from Arkansas, but getting close to reconciling the increase in defense spending with an effort to keep the deficit down.
If we had more time, I would offer those proposed reductions as an alternative to the Senator from Arkansas. I think, unfortunately, the proposed list he has is too arbitrary, does not cut into programs, but necessary programs to run this country.
I think it is terribly unfortunate we did vote the increase in deficit spending without identifying the areas to make up the difference.
I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have only 5 minutes and I have not spoken on the amendment yet.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, how much time have I left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes and 10 seconds remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not believe I will need to use the 5 minutes, because I think most of what I could say I have said in the course of this debate.
First, may I say that I share the frustrations of the Senator from Arkansas. He is an able, intelligent, committed Senator, and has supported the budget process consistently.
I understand the frustrations which prompt him to depart from his long-standing policy of opposing across-the-board cuts to propose this one.
That previous inclination has even operated to reshape this proposal, to make it a somewhat selective cut. Nevertheless, I cannot support his amendment, and why?
The first reason is this, Mr. President. This budget process will not survive unless it is perceived as being fair and just in its results.
Yesterday morning, we proposed a reconciliation which cut $2.4 billion in Appropriations Committee outlays for domestic programs. We cut more than that in budget authority.
Yesterday afternoon we spent what wehad saved. We spent what we had saved by voting an increase in defense outlays for fiscal year 1980.
What is being proposed today is to make up or to offset the consequences of that increase in defense spending by cutting more from domestic programs with the result that Senator MAGNUSON of the Appropriations Committee will not have a $2.4 billion task, but a $4.9 billion task of finding savings in domestic programs.
At the same time, we have increased defense by $3.2 billion.
That is such a shift in the equities of the budget process that I cannot bring myself to accept it. I am not talking about my own consistency in voting against the Hollings amendment and voting for the reconciliation, and all that. I am just talking about the perception in the country of what we are doing.
Senator BUMPERS correctly quoted me in pointing out that in the caucus I said that if we want to raise defense spending, there are two ways to do it, raise the deficit or raise taxes. I did not suggest this third way.
We were just as parsimonious during the budget markup in screening domestic programs as we were in defense. We undertook to make the results as equitable a distribution of Federal resources as we could make it.
I would like to see the deficit come down. That has been the whole burden of my argument for 3 days. Yesterday I voted with 18 other Senators as testimony to that commitment.
But I cannot bring myself to be driven by my concern with that to a budget that will be perceived as unfair, inequitable, and unjust.
I can just see the reaction of the House conferees when I tell them, "Gentlemen, the Senate voted $3.2 billion more in defense, the Senate voted to cut domestic programs by $3.6 billion, including committees other than appropriations, and on top of that the Senate decided to pay for the military increases by cutting domestic programs by an additional.$2.5 billion."
Mr. President, I cannot buy or support that act of injustice, and I do not think if the Senate votes it that I can sell it, let alone the hard compromise we worked out with Senator MAGNUSON and other committee chairmen as a result of the Senate Democratic Caucus concerned with this budget.
The Budget Committee asked for $4 billion savings in the reconciliation instrument. We were told that was not possible. So we adjusted it downward in order to make this process not just a Budget Committee process, but a Senate process.Having made that commitment to Senator MAGNUSON and the Appropriations Committee; I do not feel it fair now to turn around and say, "Gentlemen, you have to find the additional money to pay for this defense increase yesterday."
So, Mr. President, I think, in all honesty, what the Senate did in voting more money for defense was to vote to increase the deficit. That is it. We cannot wiggle out of that consequence of the vote yesterday. That is it.
I do not like it. I opposed it.
Now, there are other Senators who will have to rationalize their position as best they can.
It may be this amendment will carry. But if it does, I do not believe I can sell it to the House, so I do not think it will survive.
I think the result is going to be increased defense levels and a deliberately increased deficit to cover it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BUMPERS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I do not think that the cut of $3 billion from the $543 billion budget is an injustice, or any of those other things referred to by my distinguished colleague, the chairman of our Budget Committee.
I worked for the budget process since its inception. And I have always worked for a balanced budget. I worked as a member of the ways and means committee at the State level 30 years ago. I worked as chairman of a budget and control board and obtained a balanced budget in South Carolina — the first southern State in America to do so. And I have worked on these things on the Appropriations Committee as well as on the Budget Committee.
I commend the Senator from Arkansas for a very deliberate and studied and conscientious effort to reconcile what we did yesterday. I feel keenly the responsibility for what we did yesterday with respect to the reconciliation.
The distinguished Senator from Arkansas has left the veterans alone. He has left alone the uncontrollables, such as interest. The staff of my Appropriations Subcommittee has already come to me and said, "We can't afford it. It will be tough." Well, we just have to afford it.We will have to work.
I do not accept the idea that this is a meat-ax approach. I will be in the conference and we will take four or flve figures in the conference with the House and we will split. Many times there is $100 million or $300 million or $400 million, and when we split it, we do not call it a meat ax. But when we have a deliberate effort by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas, it suddenly becomes meat ax, irresponsible, and injustice.
I commend the Senator from Arkansas.I am a cosponsor of his amendment, and I wish I had more time to speak in support of it.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr. DECONCINI) be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina for his very eloquent remarks on a very difficult and delicate subject for all of us.
In designing this amendment, I tried to eliminate all the essential human resource programs for two reasons.
First, some of them are sacred to me as well as to other Members of the Senate.
Second, I know the political realities when you include them..
My amendment takes about one-half of 1 percent of the national budget and cuts it out.
One-half of 1 percent: If you do not think there is that much waste in your office, then vote against my amendment. If you think every other office is run a lot better than yours, then vote against my amendment. We could cut one-half of 1 percent of the Federal budget and get our deficit for 1980 below what it was in 1979. This would, at least, hold up our heads with some degree of pride when we go home and say, "We are trying to exercise a little discipline. We are trying to show that we can discipline ourselves and get this budget deficit down." Tell me how we are going to balance the budget in 1981 and cut $30 billion out of it.
You would think the world is coming to an end because a couple of human resource functions are included in this amendment.
Mr. President, this is not even a dramatic amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it. I promise them that next year, when we come here, they will find that nothing really has changed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me one-half minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have a half-minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have no time remaining.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I do not want to set a precedent, but—
Mr. MAGNUSON. I want 10 seconds to correct the RECORD.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Washington may have 10 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from Arkansas talks about one-half of 1 per-cent. It actually amounts to 3 percent or more, because we are dealing, as I said before, with about 70 percent uncontrollables. That is the difference. It amounts to more than 3 percent, not one-half of 1 percent.
Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 10 seconds for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. He set the precedent of extending the time under the budget resolution.
Mr. NUNN. I withdraw it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.