May 7, 1980
Page 10321
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, Mr. TALMADGE will call up an amendment, which I understand is ready to be called up. I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limit not to exceed 10 minutes, to be equally divided.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not think I will object, but I want to make sure I understand what the amendment does before I consent to it, because there is an amendment I heard the Senator was going to offer that I do wish to speak on.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, it is agriculture price support and section 16 of the budget resolution.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Only Commodity Credit Corporation and nothing else?
Mr. TALMADGE. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. CHILES follow Mr. TALMADGE and that there be a time limitation on the amendment of Mr. CHILES not to exceed 40 minutes, to be equally divided in accordance with the usual form.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators PRYOR and SASSER be recognized to call up their amendment after the Chiles amendment and that there be a time limitation on their amendment of 20 minutes, to be equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to my colleagues that the only roll call vote I would anticipate for the remainder of this evening would be a possible roll call vote on the amendment by Mr. CHILES.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Georgia.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 1068
(Purpose: To exempt new agricultural loan programs which are funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation from the requirement in section 16 that all new loan and loan guarantee programs be subject to the appropriations process)
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators HELMS, DOLE, BELLMON, BOSCHWITZ, CULVER, and HART, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. TALMADGE. 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 20, line 25, insert the following: after "Acts," the following:
"This section shall not apply to agricultural price support and related programs of the type in operation on January 1, 1980, which are funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation.".
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the distinguished floor managers of the bill, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma. They are agreeable to it. It is an amendment that has much merit and should be adopted.
Under the resolution reported by the Budget Committee—
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend for a moment? The point is well made. The Senate is not in order. Will Members please take their seats?
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, under the budget resolution submitted by the distinguished committee, the agriculture price support program of agricultural commodities would be administratively impossible. The amendment would exempt from the provisions of section 16 agricultural price support programs administered by the Commodity Credit Corporation.
My amendment would amend section 16 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 86, a section that would have the effect of permanently amending the rules of the Senate. Section 16 provides that it shall not be in order in the House or the Senate to consider any legislation authorizing new direct loans or new loan guarantees unless that legislation also provides that the authority to make or guarantee such loans shall be effective only to such extent or in such amounts as are contained in Appropriation Acts.
As reported by the Senate Budget Committee, Senate Concurrent Resolution 86 contains three sections that would place procedural restrictions on floor consideration of appropriations, entitlement programs, loans or loan guarantees, and tax reductions. These are sections 16, 17, and 18 of the resolution. In addition, the Budget Committee indicated in its report an intent to propose three other amendments to the budget resolution that would place even more severe restrictions on floor consideration of these matters. The resolution, together with the committee amendments proposed by the Senate Budget Committee, would substantially change the congressional budget process.
Since these dramatic changes would substantially affect the programs under my committee's jurisdiction, I wrote Senator MUSKIE on April 21, 1980, expressing my concerns. In that letter I stated that while I wholeheartedly support a balanced budget and have introduced a bill to mandate that the President do so for fiscal year 1981, I believe that the dramatic changes proposed in the resolution should be considered as amendments to the Congressional Budget Act with appropriate hearings by the Committee on the Budget, the Committee on Rules and Administration, and the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letter to Senator MUSKIE and his reply be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. TALMADGE. The Senate Budget Committee is unwilling to accept my suggestion to have these changes go through the normal legislative process, and I am compelled to offer this amendment to section 16 of the resolution.
Under current budget procedures, some funds for loan and loan guarantee programs are not subject to the appropriations process. Under section 16 of the proposed budget resolution, legislative committees could continue to enact new loan and loan guarantee programs, but the money to fund these new programs would have to be authorized in a separate appropriations bill. Any legislation not in conformity with section 16 would be subject to a point of order.
This change would have a significant effect on the price support programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. This would include commodity loans that may be authorized in the 1981 farm bill.
Section 16 would cause a fundamental shift in our agricultural price support programs and result in an administrative nightmare. If the Appropriations Committee appropriated less money than needed to carry out commodity price support loans at the authorized levels, a number of questions would immediately arise: Who receives the loans and who does not? Do wheat farmers receive price support loans while corn producers do not? Would the Secretary of Agriculture be required to prorate the funds available for making loans? In addition, above average production or an embargo could also result in the appropriated levels being less than the amount that normally would be required.
In short, under the financing procedure dictated by section 16 of the resolution, commodity price support loan programs would no longer be a guarantee to farmers against unreasonably low commodity prices, and the ability of Congress to respond quickly in an emergency would be eliminated. This section ignores why certain of our agricultural programs are entitlement programs — they are designed and funded in a manner that protects farmers against unpredictable events such as the weather, fluctuating economic conditions, or a grain embargo.
Mr. President, such a permanent and far-reaching provision as section 16 should not be adopted without a full realization of its ramifications. I would like to note that my amendment does not change section 15 of the resolution. Section 15 of the resolution would establish overall loan and loan guarantee levels for fiscal year 1981. Standing alone, section 15 would not appear to adversely affect our Nation's farm programs.
However, section 16 is unique in several ways. First, as I understand it, section 16 is the only provision in the resolution that is permanent — and not just applicable to fiscal year 1981.
Second, section 16 goes way beyond what the President has called for in his credit budget. Realizing that many agricultural price support and related programs — including credit programs — must be entitlements to operate effectively and efficiently, the President's credit budget excludes these programs. Third, section 16 goes much further than what the House has done in its resolution concerning credit. Fourth, section 16 is not necessary for a balanced budget — and my amendment would not increase the 1981 deficit one dollar.
It may be argued, Mr. President, that section 16 would not render our agricultural price support and related programs useless and impractical since if emergencies arise, the Senate could pass an emergency appropriations bill increasing the amount to be used for commodity loans or other related programs. My reply is that this all takes time.
Farmers do not understand involved budget procedures and unnecessary delays — they have to make production and marketing decisions months in advance. They must be assured that the price support loan rates and other related programs are not subject to limitation — since an embargo, good weather, or deteriorating economic conditions affect dramatically the level of loans needed to insure a stable and productive agricultural economy.
For these reasons, Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
EXHIBIT 1
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY,
Washington, D.C.,
April 21, 1980.
Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
Chairman,
Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: The Committee on the Budget recently reported the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1981 (S. Con. Res. 86). The Senate will shortly begin debate on the resolution, and there are a few issues I would like to raise with you.
First, in our March 15 budget report to you, we requested that you inform us what recommendations of major importance contained in our report were or were not incorporated by the Committee on the Budget in the first concurrent resolution, I have not received your response to this request, and I look forward to receiving it before the Senate's debate of the resolution..
Second, I notice that, the resolution you reported contains several provisions that amend the Senate rules, and in fact, have the effect of amending the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The proposed changes would dramatically affect the price support and farm credit programs under my Committee's jurisdiction.
For example, under section 16 of the resolution, it appears that the use of the Commodity Credit Corporation in funding any new price support loans as entitlements might no longer be possible.
A point of order could be made against any legislation authorizing new direct loans or new loan guarantees unless the legislation makes the new loan authority effective only to such extent or in such amounts as are contained in appropriation Acts.
If Commodity Credit Corporation price support loans are to be made subject to the appropriations process, this would be a fundamental shift in our agricultural price support programs and result in an administrative nightmare. It is for these reasons I believe that this change should be considered as an amendment to the Congressional Budget Act and not a part of the first concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1981. Likewise, I think that the other changes in the rules of the Senate should be considered as amendments to the Congressional Budget Act with appropriate hearings by the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Third. the resolution contains so-called "reconciliation" instructions to several committees for fiscal year 1981 — an unprecedented change since the first concurrent resolution is only supposed to establish tentative spending targets. I do not believe that there is any basis in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or its legislative history for converting the spending levels in the first concurrent resolution from targets to fixed ceilings. I would, therefore, appreciate your advising me of the legal authority for inclusion of the "reconciliation" instructions.
While I wholeheartedly support a balanced budget, and have so for years, I am of the view that invoking "reconciliation" in the first step of the Congressional budget process is neither prudent nor appropriate in carrying out the purposes of the Congressional Budget Act. If the instructions are adopted by the Senate and the House, decisions would have to be made on billions of dollars of cuts in programs in an unusually short time (by June 9, 1980, or ten days after Congress completes action on this resolution) — four months before the beginning of the new fiscal year.
Fourth, the "reconciliation" instructions require that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry reduce its budget authority and outlays by $2 billion — $1.5 billion of which is targeted to be saved from the food stamp and special milk programs. If these programs, however, are not entitlements, as you state in your report, and are not allocated to my Committee for purposes of a "cross-walk", why is my Committee expected to come up with the $1.5 billion in savings? Food stamp spending can clearly be held down by the Committee on Appropriations, and current law provides a way for the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce food stamp payments to recipients according to the money that is appropriated. Therefore, since my Committee does not have direct spending jurisdiction in the case of the food stamp and special milk programs, what budget authority and outlays would we be expected to cut if the instructions are adopted in their present form by the Senate and the House?
In conclusion, I believe that the inclusion in the resolution of the "reconciliation" instructions infringes on the roles of the authorizing and appropriations committees and is not required in achieving a balanced budget.
With every good wish, I am
Sincerely,
HERMAN E. TALMADGE,
Chairman.
COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET,
Washington, D.C.,
April 29, 1980.
Hon. HERMAN TALMADGE,
Chairman,
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am happy to respond to your letter of April 21, 1980, in which you inquire about various aspects of S. Con. Res. 86, the First Budget Resolution for FY 1981.
While the Budget Committee does not "line-item" funds in the Budget Resolution, the Committee has to make certain assumptions in reaching the functional totals contained in a Budget Resolution. Thus, the Committee assumed several of the major recommendations of the Committee on Agriculture in the First Budget Resolution for FY 1981, including:
All of the recommended legislative savings in the food stamp program; (plus additional savings of $900 million)
All of the recommended savings in the child nutrition and special milk programs; and
Most of the recommended increases for agriculture research programs.
With respect to other major recommendations, the Committee assumed:
Funding at current levels of Commodity Credit Corporation farm price support programs;
$.1 billion less than recommended by the Agriculture Committee for the WIC program;
$1.1 billion for P.L. 480, Food for Peace;
$.2 billion less than the Committee recommendation for agriculture conservation and forest management; and
No funding for new energy biomass programs.
With regard to Section 16 of the First Resolution, we have been contacted by your staff and understand your concerns. We have indicated to them our desire to accommodate your Committee's needs with regard to the Commodity Credit Corporation price support programs.
These programs, while not annually funded through the regular appropriations process, receive periodic appropriations review, since budget authority for the Commodity Credit Corporation is provided by its permanent borrowing authority, any increase in which must be appropriated.
You raised several questions regarding the reconciliation instructions in S. Con. Res. 86. First, it is clear that such instructions may be contained in the First Budget Resolution. Section 301 of the Act (which relates to the contents of the First Budget Resolution) specifically authorizes the inclusion of "such other matters relating to the budget as may be appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act." Section 301(b) (2) authorizes the First Budget Resolution to require "any other procedure which is considered appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act."
Specifically, the Budget Act does not preclude a First Budget Resolution from containing "reconciliation" instructions, or any other matter which related to achieving the purposes of the budget process.
This broad grant of authority was intended to give the Budget Committee flexibility to recommend the Senate consider such additional procedures as are needed to facilitate implementation of the budget decisions contained in the First Budget Resolution.
The reconciliation instructions in S. Con. Res. 86 are such procedures. They are an appropriate and necessary means of implementing the First Resolution budget plan, the goal of which is to achieve a balanced federal budget in fiscal year 1981.
With regard to the instructions to the Committee on Agriculture, you note correctly that the Budget Committee has suggested that savings be achieved in the food stamp program, which technically has not been an "entitlement" program since enactment of the Food Stamp Act Amendments of 1977.
With those revisions, Congress has continued to treat the Food Stamp Program as if it were an entitlement. Appropriations have been provided each year up to the maximum authorized levels. In fact, the "cap" on appropriations was lifted in 1979, in order to provide the full level of food stamp benefits contemplated by the Act.
In this light, Budget Committee thought it appropriate to suggest to the Senate that the only Committee with any real control over the program be asked to consider such changes in the substantive law as may be necessary to reduce food stamp spending. The current "cap" on appropriations does nothing more than suggest to the Appropriations Committee the minimum level of spending for this program, rather than imposing the outside limit. Clearly, any real savings in the Food Stamp Program will have to be made by changes in the substantive law.
With respect to the special milk program, we believe that it is an "entitlement" program, and as such, the appropriate amount of direct spending authority will be cross-walked to the Committee on Agriculture under the First Budget Resolution.
I hope this letter answers the questions you raised. I would be happy to provide any additional information you might need.
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.