106 It was not intended by very many people to be carried out. I think you have heard that today from a number of people who worked very hard on it. It was meant to be used only if the leadership of Congress and the White House could not find an alternative. I think that is the way you just described it, Dr. Penner. At least now there is a serious penalty that will be imposed, if we do not get our heads together and exercise the leadership and get rid of the gridlock that has existed around here. Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have always been opposed to the death penalty. Chairman DOMENICI. And I have been kind of for it so I guess I should stick with Gramm-Rudman. PRIORITIES BEING AVOIDED Senator LAUTENBERG. Seriously, in response, exactly what you attribute to be a primary asset of the Gramm-Rudman technique, I think is the weakness. We avoid setting priorities. We had a reconciliation bill. You worked very hard in this committee to get it. It was a proposal that would have saved some important funds out there. There are two sides to any financial statement-you have expenditures and you have revenue. No one's putting forth a tax increase, at least here, as the way to solve the problem, but we ought to get the money that is owed us. The Gramm-Rudman cut makes that more difficult. And to me that is the essential oil that keeps this machinery going. You can not have an external defense system operating unless you have the resources to attract, recruit and train people, and to buy up-to-date equipment. So, to me, a terrible result of this legislation is that we avoid the need to prioritize. Perhaps, the cold shower will awaken some other approach, but the one that we have taken so far, I think, Mr. Chairman-with all due respect to my colleagues who voted for it-I think it was the wrong way to go. I see it as an abdication of responsibility. That is one Senator's opinion; that is all. Chairman DOMENICI. Let me again thank both of you, and your staff, and particularly the staff of CBO. As we went through the conference we needed your assistance and I do not think I have had a chance, publicly, to thank you and them for all their work. We stand in recess until the Chair calls another meeting. [Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the committee was recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.] 107 WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS TO OMB DIRECTOR MILLER AND THE RESPONSES RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS OF JAMES C. MILLER III BEFORE THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE JANUARY 22, 1986 Question 1. Gramm-Rudman exempts certain programs, including Social Security and many poverty programs. Clearly, by exempting these, the rest of the budget will be forced to make up the difference when the Answer 108 sequestering order is given. What is the difference between the percentage of across the board cuts needed with these exemptions, as opposed to without them? The Act exempts a large number of programs from the sequestration process. For illustrative purposes, we have attempted to add the estimated FY 1986 outlays for Social Security and the major exempt domestic programs to the sequestrable base, and have assumed that the programs subject to special sequestration rules remain subject to those rules. As a rough approximation, this approach produces a domestic base (current base plus the exempted programs) of $412 billion, and thus the sequestration percentage necessary to realize one-half of the outlay reductions from domestic programs would be 1.2 percent. 109 Question 2. Gramm-Rudman will not effect every state and region of the country identically. Because of different economic, geographic, demographic and other factors, each state depends to a different degree on each of the Federal programs which are to be cut (assuming a which are exempted from cuts, and rely to a greater degree on those programs which will be cut (programs in the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and Transportation Departments, for instance). Taking this into account, and considering the large number - of Federally-owned acres in Idaho and other Western states, how much of a difference will there be between Gramm-Rudman's effect on Idaho and the West and its effect on the more populous eastern states? 110 Answer We are unable to answer this question. There are approximately 850 budget accounts subject to sequestration and several thousand "programs, projects and activities" from which the outlay reductions must be taken in a uniform manner. In order to answer the qustion, we would have to have a breakdown of the impact of the reductions by State for each account and PPA. We do not have such information. Question 3. Answer How will this difference be affected by the re-inclusion of Social Security and the other exempted programs in the Gramm-Rudman sequestering procedure? As noted in response to Question 2, we do not have |