September 18, 1979
Page 24959
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the distinguished Senator from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) in sponsoring the amendment now before the Senate. Before I talk about the amendment, I want to commend my good friend (Mr. MUSKIE) for the stand he has taken on the reconciliation provisions included in this budget resolution. I am sure that without his leadership, reconciliation would have been dead, if not forgotten, by now. So I hope our fine chairman will understand the concerns which lead me and a number of my colleagues to propose an amendment to the compromise Senator MUSKIE has developed.
The concern which prompts my amendment relates to only one part of Senator MUSKIE's compromise. The difficulty some of us have is with the fact that there would be no final determination until sometime next year of whether enacted appropriations would have to be rescinded to avoid breaching the appropriations committee's allocation. It appears that it will be the spring supplemental bill, rather than any of the regular bills, which would cause the appropriations committee to exceed its allocation. By that time, many of the possibilities for rescinding appropriations will be gone. Many contracts will have been awarded, many grants will have been processed, and lots of benefits will have been paid out, so that there will be a much smaller range of opportunities for achieving savings.
This amendment would remedy this problem by moving the time of reckoning to the remaining weeks of this session. Let me explain briefly how action on appropriations bills would proceed if my amendment is adopted:
First, the amendment would specify the same budget authority and outlay allocations for the Appropriations Committee as are specified in Senator MUSKIE's amendment;
Second, my amendment proposes that all appropriations bills not enacted or enrolled by the date the second budget resolution is adopted shall not be enrolled, but rather held until all of the regular appropriations bills are ready for enrollment. This will preserve maximum flexibility for Congress to reduce spending under appropriations bills that have not yet become law.
Let me comment at this point that I think it would be much better if we held up enrollment of all appropriations bills as of today, instead of after Congress takes final action on the budget resolution. To this end, if this amendment is approved, I shall offer a separate resolution, after we complete action on the budget resolution, directing that Senate enrollment of appropriations bills be suspended immediately, thus preserving maximum flexibility to take money out of the full array of appropriations bills, and not next spring, when we shall have this supplemental before us.
Third, under my amendment the Budget Committee will be required to submit a special report to the Senate as soon as all 13 regular appropriations bills are ready for enrollment. This report will inform the Senate of the latest Congressional Budget Office estimates of budget authority and outlays under each fiscal year 1980 appropriations bill, whether enacted or ready for enrollment.
This special report to the Senate will also provide CBO's estimates of the costs of all foreseeable supplemental appropriations requirements;
Fourth, if the information reported to the Senate indicates that the spending under all foreseeable appropriations bills will exceed the total sums allocated to the Appropriations Committee, the Appropriations Committee will then be required to report a bill or resolution, as appropriate, rescinding or reconciling appropriations provided for in enacted bills or bills ready for enrollment.
Finally, this amendment will make out of order a motion to adjourn, until the Congress has acted on the bill or resolution reported by the Appropriations Committee to bring spending into conformity with the second budget resolution.
Mr. President, I believe the procedure I have outlined, and which this amendment would establish, is superior to the procedure that we shall have otherwise. I urge the Senate's approval of my amendment.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 559
(Purpose: Technical amendment to clarify reconciliation instruction to Governmental Affairs Committee)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that consideration of the pending amendment be set aside for 2 minutes so that we may take up a technical amendment which has been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PRYOR) . Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator charge that to his time on the amendment?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I am glad to charge it to my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 559.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 4, line '7, insert the following: after the word "Operations": "and the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service"
On page 4, line 15, between the words "the" and "jurisdictions" insert the word "legislative"
On page 4, line 15, between the words "committees" and "sufficient" insert the words: "which would require reductions in spending or appropriations and which are"
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment to the instruction to the Governmental Affairs Committee. This amendment is necessary to clarify the jurisdiction of that committee and the corresponding House committees, of which there are two, over the savings intended by the resolution.
It has been cleared with Senators RIBICOFF and PERCY of Governmental Affairs, and Senator BELLMON and I see no objection to it.
It is a clarification. It does not change the substantive objective of the reconciliation instruction.
I support it and ask for its enactment.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to voice my appreciation to the Budget Committee for being understanding to our plight in the Governmental Affairs Committee. Despite the wide latitude of legislative jurisdiction held by the Governmental Affairs Committee, remarkably, we only hold direct budgetary control over the sizable program — that is, civil service retirement.
Hence, reconciliation instructions to the Governmental Affairs Committee that require cuts in outlays automatically force changes in the civil service retirement program. Now, while I support the Budget Committee's use of the reconciliation process to restrain Government spending, I oppose any intrusions by the budget process into specific policy areas. Therefore, I appreciate their willingness to make a technical amendment to the Governmental Affairs Committee reconciliation instruction which authorizes us to find comparable cuts in other legislative areas under our jurisdiction.
I do, however, continue to oppose their assumption of savings with regard to the civil service retirement program. In both the first and now the second budget resolutions, $100 million was cut from the income security function of the budget. The Budget Committee specifically recommended that the savings be realized by changing the twice a year cost-of-living adjustments for Federal annuities to a once a year adjustment. I strongly oppose any such effort.
In 1976, the so-called 1 percent kicker was eliminated from Federal annuities over my objections and a few other Members' objections. To compensate for that significant loss of income, the twice-a-year cost-of-living adjustment arrangement was to be a substitute. The Budget Committee's recommendations, if adopted, would breach the good faith compromise made in 1976.
In addition, following the first budget resolution this year, we held oversight hearings on the retirement system to: First, calculate the effect of changing from twice a year to once a year adjustments; and, second, determine areas where cost savings could be achieved to the overall benefit of the retirement system. We learned a number of things. For example: First, the average Federal annuity is $654 per month. Second, 123,000 of the retirees only receive an average of
$223 per month or approximately $2,500 per year. Third, changing the semiannual cost-of-living adjustment to an annual adjustment would cost individual retirees approximately $250 per year in the first year. Fourth, the period of lag between price increases and annuity adjustments would increase from 3 to 9 months to as much as 15 months.
Retirees, as well as those tied to fixed incomes, are the ones least able to cope with inflation. In many cases, reducing the cost-of-living adjustment to once a year would harm retired Federal employees, who, though they worked for the Government for many years, retired long ago on low wages. They simply could not take such a pay cut.
Mr. President, I again thank the Budget Committee for its willingness to compromise with us. However, I urge that committee to make sure that its specific recommendations do not transpose into binding policy changes.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, there is no objection on this side. We are happy to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators yield back their time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (UP No. 559) was agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 437
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time on the Domenici amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes at this point.
Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman (Mr. MUSKIE) not only for his leadership in bringing out a true reconciliation proposal under the resolution reported by the Senate Budget Committee, but also for his valiant efforts to preserve most of that in his amendment, which he offered as a Senator here on the floor of the Senate, because, indeed, it is fair to say that most of the reconciliation is preserved.
As my good friend from Oklahoma indicated in his remarks, we in no way want to change the numbers or the substantive impact of the Muskie amendment. We think that is a tremendous precedent for the U.S. Senate to establish.
But, rather, the amendment that we offer, that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma and I, and others, offer, is our effort to see to it that, to the maximum extent possible, this institution and the Congress end up living by the marks set in the Muskie amendment.
We have now developed a history of not passing the appropriation bills by the time the second concurrent resolution comes to the floor. That is No. 1.
Second, we have developed a history of taking up supplemental appropriations well into the fiscal year.
I, personally, think it would be an excellent approach for the U.S. Senate to help our Appropriations Committee rid themselves of that approach to budgeting. Most of that is not their fault. They are tied up, almost tied in knots, with authorizing legislation being introduced on appropriation bills and then taking weeks in conference. For instance, the HEW appropriation is tied up because of an abortion issue, not because of dollar figures.
We never seem to be able to end up knowing all the money we want to spend,so they are forced to bring up supplementals well into the year.
What we say is that the chance of the Muskie amendment ending up with the cuts proposed as prescribed to the Appropriations Committee are minimal because of the very late time that the appropriation bills will get in, and even next year on supplementals, which means two things.
First, the chance of rescission is minimal because it will be late in the year. There will not be the unified opportunity to vote on a whole, but rather, we will cut and chop the Senate into pieces on appropriations issues, rather than a budget issue.
So we say three things in this amendment. We accept the Muskie amendment to the Budget Committee reconciliation, but we say that all appropriation bills will be held at the desk and not finalized until they are all here. That is No. 1.
Second, the U.S. Senate will not adjourn until that has happened and until an estimate of the supplementals is presented to the Senate, and if at that point the reconciliation is breached, a proposal must be submitted to the Senate, before it adjourns, to reconcile.
In simple language, that is what this four- or five-paragraph amendment does.
I would say that this is not unique. This is not unheard of. In fact, the Budget Act itself prescribes it. Because those drawing the Budget Act knew that the Senate and the House had a history of stretching out appropriation bills into the following year and well beyond the deadline set in the act, there is a provision that in the first concurrent resolution the Budget Committee could recommend that no appropriation bills leave the Senate until they are all there and that they all will be there before the second concurrent resolution is considered.
That is actually found in the Budget Act. We have never done that. I am not suggesting that we can do that now, because, obviously, we are well into the second concurrent resolution.
But the point I am making is that those who spent so many months, in fact I think it spanned years bringing a Budget Reform Act together, clearly understood that we could make the second concurrent resolution meaningless by bringing up supplementals and appropriations well after it is passed and then say, "What are we going to do about it? We breached it. Now, do you want to cut these wonderful bills?"
The last ones we pass are generally military.
What those framers of the Reform Actwere saying is, "If you don't shape up and do it differently, then the Budget Committee perhaps ought to recommend in the first concurrent resolution that no appropriation bills become law until they are all out, all held at the desk, added up, to see where they fit in terms of the budget."
We did not do this because historically that has never been done.
I submit, if we keep on with supplementals well into the year, appropriations well beyond the time of the second concurrent, we will give the Senate a chance next year in the first concurrent resolution to vote on whether they want to hold all the appropriations until we have them all there and added, and measured against the resolution and its targets.
We did not do it, but we are doing the best we can.
So I want to repeat, we are giving the U.S. Senate here today a couple of rare opportunities, as I see it. One, stay with Senator MUSKIE's proposal for forcing cuts of about $3.6 billion in those areas where the Appropriations Committee has jurisdiction. It amounts to $2.5 billion. Force that.
That is No. 1. Stay with that.
Second, send a message, not only to the Appropriations Committee, because it is not their fault, but to the institution, that we are going to have the appropriations finished and make some sense and order out of the budget process by holding all appropriations measures at the desk until they are added up and reconciled before we adjourn and go home at the end of this calendar year and this Congress.
That is the amendment.
Let me say this. Senator BELLMON made a very good point that everyone ought to understand. He made it very quickly. He understood what he was saying. I want to repeat it.
This amendment is part of the second concurrent resolution and thus it may be 2 or 3 weeks before we get through conference with the House.
In the meantime, we have only two appropriations bills that are out and not yet signed by the President, but five or six more could be out.
He said we are going to offer a Senate resolution — not a budget resolution but merely a Senate resolution — immediately after this, if this passes, saying that it is the sense of the Senate that the appropriations bills will be held at the desk until they are all there for purposes of reconciling as provided in this amendment. Otherwise, this will be part of the budget resolution and will not be operative until it comes back out of conference. But the resolution would bind the Senate to hold them at the desk until they are all there, thus measuring them against the targets or marks that we will agree upon under the Muskie amendment, which I am sure the Senate is going to adopt.
I urge that we adopt this amendment to it. It really will make it meaningful and add a significant timetable to the Senate, so that we can have some budgetary discipline as prescribed by reconciliation.
Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining, and the proponents have 9 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. How could that be? We had 45 minutes, equally divided, and we have used only a total of 20.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 25½ minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. And how much do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield at this point, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I commend the Budget Committee for being instrumental in holding down appropriations. The amount would be several billion dollars higher than it is now, if it had not been for their efforts. However, I do not agree with all their conclusions or their methods of procedure.
Mr. President, the Bellmon-Domenici amendment would modify the Muskie compromise amendment that pertains to the Appropriations Committee.
This amendment would prohibit enrollment of fiscal year 1980 appropriations bills that have not been enacted until certain conditions are met. The conditions required under this amendment are as follows:
First. All remaining appropriations bills would be reported by the committee and ready for enrollment. This, in effect, would cause the committee to complete action on the remaining six appropriations bills and then hold them pending action by the Budget Committee;
Second. The Budget Committee would then estimate the budget authority and outlays attributable to each of the appropriations bills which has been previously enacted or which is awaiting enrollment; and
Third. The Committee on the Budget would also provide the Senate with a detailed estimate of the foreseeable supplemental requirements including permanent appropriations.
After the above conditions have been met, if the total of all of the appropriations bills exceeds the total ceilings allocated in the second concurrent resolution, the Congress would be restricted from sine die adjournment until the Committee on Appropriations of each House has rescinded or reconciled appropriations provided in the already enacted bills or the bills awaiting enrollment. Further, the Congress would have to complete action on such bills before it adjourns.
If a difference exists when all the bills are ready to be passed between the estimates of the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee as to the money which should be spent, we would be in a pretty mixed-up mess between the two Budget Committees of the House and Senate and two Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate trying to reconcile differences that might exist at that late date.
No one can foresee or even guess at this time what inflation will do to appropriations 3 months from now or 6 months from now.
One thing that bothers me is a great deficiency in the defense appropriation bill due to inflation. I understand that the Department of Defense has set over a request for $2.7 billion. All this has to do with inflation.
I will read a few of the items included in the request.
Fuel prices, operations, and maintenance, $888.5 million.
Currency exchange, rates, operations, and maintenance, $470 million.
Supply costs, operations, and maintenance, $68 million.
Purchased utilities, operations, and maintenance, $113.3 million.
The value of our dollar is dropping every day and the price of gold is going up, so that the deficit figure is bound to increase.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the total list of items requested by Defense be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
The following list is a breakout of the Department of Defense FY1980 budget amendment. The items below affect the operating accounts, as indicated and therefore no authorization is required.
These amounts fund price increases which are designed to restore the 3% growth in outlays described in the January budget submission.
ITEM, FUNCTION, AND AMOUNT
[Dollars in millions]
Fuel prices, operations and maintenance, $888.5.
Currency exchange rates, operations andmaintenance, $470.
Supply costs, operations and maintenance, $68.
Purchased utilities, operations and maintenance, $113.3.
Movement of household goods, military personnel, $175.
Recruiting costs, military personnel, operations and maintenance, $51.9.
Purchased services, operations and maintenance, $488.6.
Overseas station allowances, military personnel, $20.3.
Industrial fund purchases, operations and maintenance, $227.2.
Depot maintenance (contractual), operations and maintenance, $197.5.
Total increase over January fiscal year 1980 budget, $2,700.3.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, if I knew that the Budget Committee would accept the pending budget amendment to include this $2.7 billion for the deficit in the defense budget, it would be easier to vote for this amendment. But I see no way in which the $2.7 billion could be absorbed within the existing totals without seriously injuring our national security. I understand the defense amendment will be coming up shortly.
I am concerned about the future of the Budget Committee and the future of the Appropriations Committee. If we continue our present trend, there will not be much need for the Appropriations Committee. We might have a few clerks here to divide the money previously allotted by the Budget Committee.
There must be a closer working relationship between the two. I think additional rules and procedures may be necessary.
For example, the Senate raised appropriations on the floor by about $860 million all together. We have no control over that. That is the will of the Senate. The Appropriations Committee can present these issues for another vote. The committee may be voted down again. So we are placed in the position of having to balance the budget without having the votes.
Half of our expenditures are by entitlements enacted by the legislative committees, over which the Appropriations Committee has no jurisdiction whatever.
Mr. President, I regret having to oppose this amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a list of the money items increased by the Senate over the appropriations money and the reductions, a total increase of about $860 million.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SENATE FLOOR AMENDMENTS TO APPROPRIATIONS BILLS
AMENDMENTS ADDING FUNDS
[Dollars in millions]
Title, bill, and amount
Health planning, Labor-HEW, $200.
National Health Service Corps, Labor-HEW, $12.
Primary health care, Labor-HEW, $7.5.
Adult education for immigrants, Labor-HEW, $10.
Alcohol and drug abuse education, Labor-HEW, $3.
Title VI— Older American Indians, Labor-HEW, $12.
Community Services Administration local initiative, Labor-HEW, $12.
Population education, Labor-HEW, $2.
Community Services Administration, Inspector General, Labor-HEW, $0.4.
Revenue sharing, State share, HUD, $684.
Elderly and handicapped housing, HUD, $30.
Veterans medical care, HUD, $30.
Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture, $17.9.
Human nutrition research (Letterman Army Institute of Research), Agriculture, $1.8.
Hart Building, Energy and Water, $57.
Federal Communications Commission, State-Justice, $0.4.
Census promotion plan, State-Justice. $1.
AMENDMENTS REDUCING FUNDS
[Dollars in millions]
Title, bill, and amount
Special home ownership assistance program, Agriculture, $200.
Yatesville Lake, Kentucky (water project), Energy and Water, $4.
Bayou Bodcau, Louisiana (water project), Energy and Water, $2.
Department of Energy operating expenses, Energy and Water, $6.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I, of course, am opposed to this particular amendment.
In the first place, it was an unprinted amendment and we did not even see a copy until this morning.
In the second place, it never has been discussed by the Budget Committee. In the third place, it seems to be an end run to diminish the authority of the Appropriations Committee to make the cuts within the ceiling.
It would force an appropriations rescission based on the Budget Committee's assumptions and would force immediate rescission of discretionary programs in order to pay for the estimated mandatory supplementals that might come up next spring. It would hold the Appropriations Committee responsible, even if the authorizing committees failed to make the cuts required of them.
I wish the Senator from New Mexico had brought this up in the Budget Committee for discussion. It is an unwritten amendment. I just received it this morning and took a look at it. It is hard to understand exactly what the Senator is driving at and how it could work.
The Senator from Oklahoma and I — and all of us in the Appropriations Committee — are holding down Federal expenditures. We have a ceiling and we are well below it. The compromise suggested by the Senator from Maine allows the Appropriations Committee to come within that ceiling, and we are going to try to do just that. I believe we will do it, on the 13 regular appropriation bills.
As the Senator from North Dakota said, only about 30 percent of the total budget — 25 percent would be a better figure — are actually controllable in the normal way by the Congress. The remainder are uncontrollables. How do we know what the uncontrollables are going to be, the entitlements?
Let us take unemployment insurance, for example. If unemployment goes up, that is not putting a nickel into the Treasury. It will cut revenues and take out additional funds to cover those benefits.
Entitlement programs, like unemployment, pensions, disability, and others make up about 55 percent of the total budget outlays in fiscal 1980.
Apparently entitlement programs are going to go up, and the Budget Committee has to realize that and probably haveanother meeting on the uncontrollables to determine whether or not you should increase the ceiling a certain amount, not a large amount, but just to take care of the uncontrollables.
And how do we know? Let me get the attention of the Senator from New Mexico. How do we know what the assumptions are going to be in 3 months or 6 months? We have a rough idea and we consider them in both appropriations and the Budget Committee, but to nail us down on this is very unfair to the Appropriations Committee when we are trying to do the best we can.
I must oppose the amendment because it requires the Budget Committee and the entire Congress to engage in far too much guesswork. The amendment requires the Budget Committee to give the Senate, "A detailed estimate of the foreseeable supplemental requirements" for the entire fiscal year.
How does the Senator from New Mexico know what those requirements are going to be? Has he any idea?
I am asking the Senator from New Mexico. Has he any idea what they are going to be?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me respond in this manner.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Let me ask. Why did he not bring this amendment up in the Budget Committee?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me put it this way.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Why does he bring it up as an unprinted amendment which, as the Senator from North Dakota said, fouls up a decent relationship that wehave now tried to achieve between the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee? Why does he do this? Does he do it for publicity sake or for what?
Mr. DOMENICI. Wait. Let me say this is not my amendment. This is an amendment of a number of Senators.
Mr. MAGNUSON. If it is a number, why did they not bring it up in the Budget Committee?
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Wait a minute. I will respond.
Senator BELLMON is part of the amendment.
The Senator from Washington might say I offer things for publicity, but I do not think I do. I do not think Senator BELLMON does. Let me tell the Senator that Senator MUSKIE's amendment was not presented to the Budget Committee either. It was an effort to change so that certain Senators could support the Budget Committee's approach, and I laud him for it. But I believe since he offered an amendment that drastically changed the mandatory aspects of the reconciliation, not the dollar figures, then we say, Good, Senator MUSKIE; that is what we want you to do, but we just want to make sure that your amendment is carried out."
We could not have offered it in the Budget Committee because we had a tougher amendment in the Budget Committee. The budget reconciliation was tougher than the Bellmon-Domenici amendment.
Mr. MAGNUSON. There are cosponsors to the Muskie compromise and Senator BELLMON is one.
Mr. DOMENICI. It is not inconsistent with it. It is just making sure that it will be carried out.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Why spoil this relationship that we are now getting with the Appropriations Committee and the Budget Committee? Why? Why nail us down on supplementals and future assumptions that none of us can predict with accuracy?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I just want to—
Mr. MAGNUSON. Another thing. The amendment says that all appropriations bills shall lie at the desk. Is that correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes. All right. Why are some of the appropriations bills now being held up? It is because of legislation on appropriations bills which the Senator from New Mexico has voted for.
Mr. DOMENICI. All Senators have voted for it. They have to vote. We bring them to the floor.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I say all Senators. I have deplored that idea.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not want to be absent if I am here.
Mr. MAGNUSON. For instance, we have Labor-HEW. We are all finished with the money items, and we are going to be well under the President's budget except for the abortion issue — everything else, and the House of Representatives is lagging. The Defense appropriations they have not even authorized yet. We are about to finish Interior, I think, this week, and we have Foreign Operations and Transportation. Those are the big ones remaining.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator wishes time on our side?
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator has the floor.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I expect we will complete all 13 bills in the next 30 to 60 days. It may be that the abortion issue might hold up HEW. And the House of Representatives is voting on the continuing resolution tomorrow which we are going to meet on Thursday and try to approve it.
On all the appropriations bills the amendment will require the Budget Committee to predict future events over a 10- to 11-month period. How are you going to do that? Unemployment is one thing. And we only have about 25 percent as controllable and much of that is in the field of human needs, which involves the most sensitive arguments about priorities that go on around here.
I do not understand why the Senator from New Mexico brings up this last-minute amendment, and at the proper time I am going to move to table it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I ask the distinguished Senator from Maine if he could assist me with some time problems that I have? Time got away from us, and I have some Senators who wish a couple minutes. I wonder if we might agree to vote at 10 instead of a quarter of?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator means 11?
Mr. DOMENICI. Eleven. Excuse me. And split the 15 minutes equally.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection to that. I know there are other Senators who wish to speak. I do not need much time myself, but I want to be sure Senator MAGNUSON and Senator YOUNG have adequate time, and I wish about a minute to explain my reaction.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time for voting be advanced by 15 minutes so that the vote on the Domenici amendment will occur at 11 o'clock and the vote on the Muskie amendment at 11:15 a.m., with the time from now until 11 a.m., equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am told that we have a Member on this side who cannot agree to this extension of time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Then, Mr. President, lest we use up what time remains in arguing about an extension of time, I am willing to yield whatever time remains to me except 1 minute, if Senator MAGNUSON has no objection, to the other side.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I merely wish to say I understand a motion to table is not in order because we have to vote it up or down.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for accommodating the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield all but 1 minute of my time to the proponents, and I reserve that minute for the close of the debate.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I shall take 1 minute and yield the remaining time to three Senators who need part of the time.
I say to my good friend, Senator MAGNUSON, I truly regret that he has indicated that perhaps I am doing this for publicity's sake. I wish to say to him that this is about as tough an amendment as I have offered and it is about as tough for anyone to understand as any that I have offered, and I truly did not intend it to do anything but permit the Appropriations Committee to do what it has been saying it wants to do, and that is live within the budget.
I am trying to come up with an approach that will make it easier for them to do it rather than more difficult.
The Senator has told the Senator from Maine he wants to live within this reconciliation, and my amendment and the intention of the Senator from Oklahoma in offering it was merely to say, "If you are going to, then let us make it certain that you can, not that we doubt you, but that you can and that you will not be led off into delays that make it difficult for you." That is why we offer it.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator from New Mexico should leave that up to the discretion of the Appropriations Committee rather than to come in and tell us what to do.
Mr. DOMENICI. I respect the Senator's judgment but I have to disagree.
I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Kansas.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, asa member of the Budget Committee I wish to address the fact that we did in the Budget Committee vote for reconciliation, and the attempt to put some meaning and teeth into that process is not designed as an end run because I certainly believe we are all concerned with the desire of the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the great obligation he has to come up at a certain time with the necessary appropriations. It is not an easy task and we all agree with that.
But the mood of the country at this point is one of asking us and urging us to address fiscal responsibility, and it is through this attempt, I think, that we feel putting some heat on the reconciliation process is important to us as showing a sense of responsibility, and showing that the budget process here works.
The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, who has been the father of the budget process, has certainly tried very hard not only to lead us responsibly on the committee, but to come up with a compromise, and I respect him for that; but I thoroughly endorse this as an attempt to put some heat into the reconciliation process.
Recognizing the responsibility of the Appropriations Committee, I think all of us should show some responsibility here on the floor in doing what we can to sustain both the budget and the appropriations process.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. I appreciate the Senator's yielding me time.
Mr. President, I would urge that the Senate consider the pending amendment in the context of the original Budget Control Act of 1974. During the years preceding the enactment of the Budget Act, it was the custom to simply appropriate with no overall plan. Increasingly, as the subcommittees of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees brought larger and larger bills to the floor, spending got farther and farther out of control. Eventually, about 15 or 20 years ago, an unwritten provision of our national constitution somehow got repealed, and we began to enact deficits year after year after year.
As a reaction to that, about 5 years ago, Congress decided we had to have some way of drawing together, with accountability, the issue of how much we should spend, what level of revenues we should appropriate, should we have a deficit, and if so, how big should it be. The Budget Act sought to accomplish that.
The amendment offered by Senator MUSKIE seriously undermines that process, because it permits the members to vote for the budget itself, and then slip off the tough decision of the rescission, which is postponed for at least several weeks and possibly for several months.
The efforts by Senators DOMENICI and BELLMON in the amendment which is pending is, again, simply to draw all the decisions together, so that at one time and one place there will be a single vote on the questions of how much we should spend, how does it compare with revenues, should there be a deficit, and how much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield that 1 minute to the Senator from Utah.
I wonder if we might try to strike a balance here to get a little additional time. I know of one Senator who wants to catch both votes. Could we start the vote at 10 of?
Mr. MUSKIE. I have no objection.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that the roll call begin at 10:50.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I support the Domenici amendment to the Muskie "compromise" to the reconciliation language in the budget resolution. I believe that the Muskie language is no compromise at all concerning the Appropriations Committee. If the Senate does not require reconciliation of the overspending by the Appropriations Committee this fall, the Appropriations Committee will effectively be "off the hook" of controlling its spending levels. The Domenici amendment corrects that flaw by prohibiting enrollment of the remaining 11 appropriations bills this fall until the second concurrent resolution has been passed, requires reconciliation or rescission of these appropriations bills to fit within the ceilings of the budget resolution, with sufficient room left for the supplemental, before the beginning of November, and prevents the Congress from adjourning sine die until this reconciliation or rescission is finalized.
This provision is very similar to one I offered to the first concurrent resolution in the spring. At that time, I proposed that all appropriations bills be held at the desk and not enrolled until passage of the second concurrent resolution and any necessary reconciliation. I argued that this provision would give the Congress the flexibility to reduce spending in the second resolution if economic circumstance so warranted. As it turned out, the Budget Committee needs this flexibility to merely hold down the size of the spending increase over the first resolution to $10.7 billion.
When I offered this amendment to the first resolution, I was vehemently opposed by the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations and Budget Committees. The distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee made the following argument:
There is no justification in our experience since the Budget Act was created to trigger this procedure . . . This provision was put in the Budget Act as a failsafe device in the event the system envisioned by the Budget Act did not work. In other words in the event Congress ran wild with appropriations bills and spending bills between the first and second budget resolutions, the Budget Committee could recommend that this procedure be followed in order to have a handle on the budget process before it was finished.
But we have had the reverse experience with the appropriations bills . . . The Appropriations Committee could not have been more responsible.
Mr. President, that is the reason we asked for this then, and that is the reason we ask for it now, because what we predicted then has occurred now.
All I can say to my good friend from Maine is that there is a first time for everything. This year the Appropriations Committee has not acted so responsibly and has exceeded its targets in the first resolution. I can envision only two outcomes from letting the Appropriations Committee off the hook until the spring supplemental in controlling its spending.
The first possibility is that, next spring, when the supplemental appropriations bill might send spending above its ceiling, the Congress would merely "revise" the fiscal year 1980 spending levels to accommodate the increased spending. At this time, as with the revisions of the fiscal year 1979 spending levels earlier this year, everyone will be focusing on the next fiscal year's budget and will not pay much attention to the increase in spending in the revisions.
The second possibility may be the more likely. Because of the nature of other types of spending, the rescissions would most likely be directed at defense spending. Since we would be 6 to 8 months into the fiscal year at the time of the supplemental when the rescissions would have to be reported, I believe the Congress would hesitate to cut categorical grants to the States, or revenue sharing, or other types of programs where the spending levels would have already been figured into State and local government budgets. And since a very large portion of spending, which is considered to be "controllable" is found in the defense budget, it would become a prime target for rescissions, even if it had remained within the functional total allowed it in the budget resolution.
Mr. President, I think either of these possible outcomes of allowing the Appropriations Committee to delay until spring in dealing with its overspending is undesirable, and I believe that any of my colleagues who truly believe in fiscal control or in the need to increase our commitment to the defense budget will agree with me. The Domenici amendment is the solution to this problem because it makes the Appropriations Committee deal with the issue of its overspending before the end of this session of Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining? The Senator from Maine has the last minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute and 34 seconds remaining. The Senator from Maine has 3 more minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield all but 1 minute. I hope I am not squeezed out of that minute; I would like to say something on this matter.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. BOSCHWITZ. Mr. President, I will only take a minute, and not squeeze the time too much.
I support the Bellmon-Domenici amendment, and I am a cosponsor of it. I really believe in the budget process, and have become even more a believer asa member of the Budget Committee. I agreed with the first concurrent budget resolution; I voted for it in the committee and on the floor. I disagreed with the second budget resolution, because the spending increases were not 7.6 percent over last year as provided in the first concurrent budget resolution, but instead are now 10 percent. I think that is too rapid growth.
I also believe in the reconciliation process. If the Budget Committee is to be in any way effective, we have to have a reconciliation process. I simply do not believe one can rescind funds after the money is appropriated and spent, and certainly not 6 or 7 months down the line.
I am sorry to disagree with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Rescinding funds after they are appropriated is somewhat like going through a divorce. Breaking off an engagement at this earlier stage, before the money is obligated, is much easier to do now rather than 6 months down the line.
I support the position of my fellow Republicans, and yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield a minute to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I am troubled with how you reach a final figure of a balanced budget the last day of the session. I pointed out a little while ago that Senators themselves on the floor of the Senate raised the Appropriations Committee figures by an amount of $860million. Many of the same Senators who voted for this balanced budget in1980 yesterday may vote again to increase the figure by that amount. Will they change their votes and vote for a balanced budget then? The Appropriations Committee may well seek to bring back that $860 million that was increased, and see how they vote then.
I think it is much better to try to reach a reconciliation this way, rather than at the end of the session.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, drastic measures are needed. We have a situation in our country which demands more fiscal control. I regret that the only way to do it is to change some traditions and habits, even if people feel uncomfortable with the changes.
It is in that context that I offer my amendment, to make sure that the Muskie reconciliation becomes the level of expenditures. I believe that otherwise it is apt not to. I regret if it causes some anguish. If it makes it necessary for some people to change the way they do things, I am sorry for that.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment. I would like to take a moment or two to say why.
First, I would like to express appreciation to our Republican colleagues for their support of the Muskie amendment. I explained to them its contents and the reasons for the compromise. They understood my explanation, but they wanted to press this amendment, which is, of course, their prerogative.
The procedures they seek to use are recognized in the Budget Act, though we have never had occasion to use them before. I am reluctant to use them now, because the budget process is not just the Budget Committee. The budget process is the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, every authorizing committee, the Senate as a whole, and the Congress as a whole.
Mr. President, it is a very sensitive relationship which we face between the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, other Senate committees, and the Congress as a whole. There is a strong tendency to look upon the Budget Committee as a new intruder that seeks power for its own sake, that is insensitive to the powers and responsibilities of other committees. That tendency is very strong, and we have seen that over, the years. So we must be involved in a constant effort to accommodate the responsibilities of the Budget Committee and the responsibilities of the other committees. That will require great sensitivity on all sides.
With respect to the Muskie amendment, this was worked out after 2 or 3 days of very difficult negotiations and talks. It imposes a heavy responsibility on the Appropriations Committee as well as the authorizing committees.
Senator MAGNUSON, as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, has given us his commitment that he will do his best, that the Appropriations Committee will do its best, to live within the constraints of this second budget resolution. I am willing to accept that commitment and to rest on it.
In saying that, I do not question the motivations of the sponsors of the Bellmon-Domenici amendment whatsoever. I appreciate the basic support that they have given to the Muskie amendment. But, Mr. President, I shall vote against the pending amendment.