June 26, 1976
Page 20857
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Budget Committee, of course, is not a line item committee. This is a line item. But I think we have to put it in context of the overall budgetary limits and pressures.
In the first place, if the budget process is to work we must proceed and we must follow the procedures which enable us to take issues in their proper sequence. Otherwise, the budget process would be wholly without control.
We had some discussion earlier today on the Interior appropriations bill on this point. This amendment would add $800 million to this bill. It would do so, as I understand it without the authorizing legislation which is necessary if it is to be implemented.
Earlier, this morning, on this HUD bill, I pointed out that we anticipate a number of supplementals for VA benefit increases. These increases, which could total as much as $2.2 billion, would provide added benefits to pensioners, the disabled, students, and patients in VA hospitals. These possible increases are for bills the Committee on Veterans' Affairs intends to consider or has considered.
If we approve this amendment now to fund something the Veterans' Committee is yet to authorize, we will be putting this initiative for veterans against the initiatives we expect from the authorizing committee. There are not enough funds to cover all of the possibilities, as I indicated in my previous statement on the pending legislation.
The budget process leaves it up to the authorizing committees to decide on how the budget authority allocated to them should be divided up among the programs under their jurisdiction. In this case, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs should choose which of the programs they legislate should get the funds that are available for entitlement programs.
If we do not do it that way, what may happen is that high priority programs which have had the support of Congress for years and which today still have a claim upon the compassion of Congress may be squeezed out as we get to the ceilings on the allocations which have been provided. We ought not to take that risk. We ought not to take that risk until we get to the point with the advice of the Veterans Committee of making our priority choices. If at that point, Senators would prefer this over some of the other programs that might otherwise be squeezed out, benefits for pensioners, disabled, students, and patients in VA hospitals, then Senators can make that choice. But they should not be asked to make that choice now before they have had an opportunity to consider the recommendations in those areas of the Veterans Committee against this one against the amount of money, and we are talking about a possible $2.2 billion overall, that may be available. I just think this is out of order, not in terms of a point of order. I am not going to raise a point of order. I do not know whether it is applicable. It may well be. I am simply making the point that in terms of the budget process the whole intention of that process is to enable Senators to choose their priorities when they have all the facts before them and all the claims on priorities before them. If we do not do it that way, then Senators can come to the Chamber one by one pushing an attractive program for first consideration, Senators will act on it because it is attractive, and then when we come to the ceiling we find high priority programs squeezed out inadvertently without the intention of any Senator to do so.
Mr. DURKIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course, I yield.
Mr. DURKIN. If we wait, then when we come back at the end, the statement may very well be that this exceeds the budget. Then instead of the Senator from Maine being the budget buster, it would be the Senator from neighboring New Hampshire the budget buster. That is the catch-22 situation.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I respond to that?
Mr. DURKIN. Sure.
Mr. MUSKIE. The argument the Senator has just made is an argument against the budget process because the budget process requires us to wait, it requires us to make a beginning in the spring, then it requires us to make our spending decisions in terms of priorities. I mean if we all act in accordance with our individual intention let me make a parallel comparison. I have a very strong commitment to the waste treatment program, and the budget resolution includes $5 billion for the continuation of that program because 22 States are running out. This bill where that $5 billion ought to be included does not include it. I did not offer an amendment to include it. Why? Because the authorization legislation has not yet been approved, and Senator PROXMIRE and his committee properly in my judgment said to me:
Senator, you ought to take your place in line. When the authorizing legislation comes then we will consider appropriations to implement it.
I have exercised that restraint in a field where I had a high priority for 15 years. So I was strongly tempted to do this, and there may be those criticizing me for not doing it.
Mr. DURKIN. Will the Senator yield for one other question?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. DURKIN. I will admit that I am not that familiar with all the rules. But what do I tell the veterans that are contacting me? Can the Senator give me one paragraph to tell them? Is it the Veterans' Committee; is it the Budget Committee? Who is going to surface, stand up, and tell those people that there are no benefits for them, to stop calling? I do not think the Budget Committee was to be a shield.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not a shield. It is a shield for the taxpayer.
But when I first came to the Senate, there was no Veterans' Committee, and for years veterans organizations pressured us to create a Veterans' Committee on the Senate side to act as their voice. There was resistance to that from some quarters in the Senate. But finally, the Senate created a Veterans' Committee within the last 5 years.
What the Budget Committee did in the spring is to provide, I think, close to $2.5 billion in the President's budget for veterans. When we considered that resolution, we had provided almost $1.5 billion more than the House of Representatives. The House ultimately came up. So we provided the same amount. We provided more money in dollars than we did last year. The Budget Committee does not divide up that money. The Veterans Committee then takes over, and we created the Veterans Committee for that purpose. The Veterans Committee has not yet acted upon all these programs which can total as much as $2.2 billion. I repeat, which would provide added benefits to pensioners, disabled students, and patients in VA hospitals.
Until we get the whole picture presented to us, how are we to decide whether there is being an equitable distribution of the money provided in the first concurrent resolution? I do not want to vote against the Senator's proposal. But I do not see how I can vote for it until I get all of the facts. So, a vote today conceivably could prejudice his objective because of the other considerations; whereas proceeding through the process in an orderly fashion could well advance the Senator's objectives. I do not know. I am not a member of the Veterans Committee. I do not need any more committees, I say to the Senator. I am not sure that I want all I have at this point.
In any event, that is the situation as I see it, as was the case with the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Maryland.
I believe in the GI bill of rights. I did not take full advantage of it. Unless the law is changed, the money that the Senator is advocating cannot be spent; and he is risking, it seems to me, a vote, from his own point of view, at a premature time. I do not like to say this. We all like to vote "yes" on programs of this kind.
Mr. DURKIN. Does the Senator from Maine have any suggestions so far as the proper time is concerned?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has expired.