April 8, 1976
Page 10178
Mr. CRANSTON. What we have on this chart is critical and prudent spending needs totaling $20.4 billion. We are asking for $20.1 billion in our amendment because we believe we should and must dig and squeeze to get expenditures down. But we cannot work miracles. And the Budget Committee $19.3 billion outlay level would require either a miracle, or major surgery to cut out either pension reform or health care improvement or make drastic reductions in cost-of-living increases. These are cruel and unfair choices for the Nation's 29 million veterans and their 70 million dependents.
I urge the adoption of our amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require to discuss this amendment.
First of all, I express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from California for his dedicated and hard work in the committee over the past year. He announced his own commitment to the process; I will reaffirm his commitment. He has been responsible, he is hard working, he has done his homework, and when he pursues an objective, as he does in connection with this amendment, he does it objectively, without recrimination of any kind, and with dedication to the objective he seeks. So it is a pleasure to work with him. That is my private judgment.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to this amendment, let me put it in some perspective, Mr. President. First of all, let me repeat what has been said on this floor several times this evening: this is not a line item budget. We undertake, as required by law, to set an overall ceiling on spending, and then we are required by law this year to break this overall spending limit down into the 17 functions of the budget.
In the case of this function, which includes veterans' programs, we settled on $20 billion in budget authority and $19.3 billion in outlays for fiscal 1977. We do not say what programs shall make up that total. It is for the authorizing committees and the Appropriations Committee to decide how those funds will be split up among the various programs, activities, and objectives in that function.
We are not, I repeat, a line item committee. It is true that in our discussions we discuss the principal components of these functions, so that we may have an understanding of what kinds of priorities we ought to have in mind when we set the overall figure; but the appropriate committees and then the Congress itself will fill in the details in the course of this legislation, the details under those overall numbers, $20 billion and $19.3 billion.
So we do not exclude the programs that the distinguished Senator from California has expressed concern about. We have said nothing or mandated nothing specifically about pension reform legislation or the GI bill and the benefit entitlement period. We have not specified what the law should say with respect to those program objectives. We have set overall dollar limits, and it is for the Congress subsequently to tell us what shall be the details.
With respect to these overall dollar limits, let me put this in perspective. First of all, those limits are current policy. In other words, they represent the cost in 1977 of continuing the programs and policies in this function. They do not cut back. There is a technical adjustment downward of about $400 million that does not represent any cut in current services. I shall be glad to explain that in more detail later. But what we have with the overall numbers is current policy, no cuts.
Those numbers, on the outlay side, are $2.1 billion higher than the President's budget for this function. Two point one billion dollars higher. The outlay number is $1.1 billion higher than the House number for this same function, and it is $1.7 billion higher than the Senate Appropriations Committee recommendation for veterans' benefits and services.
Those are substantial additional sums. May I say this in addition about our overall level: veterans' compensation, veterans' pensions, and readjustment benefit levels are not indexed for price increases as are some Federal programs; but current policy, as we have identified it and defined it in our budget, nevertheless includes estimated increases related to the consumer price index for each of these programs. In other words, there is a substantial inflation factor built into these programs, even though we are not required to do so by current law.
Inflation adjustments were also made in current policy estimates for other existing programs. All of the inflation adjustments in the committee mark reflect economic assumptions made by the Congressional Budget Office early this year. If we accept the latest CBO economic assumptions, an inflation cushion of $350 million has been provided for the function; and if in addition we accept a technical adjustment assumed by the President, the accelerated collection of readjustment benefit overpayments, there is an additional cushion of $100 million provided by the committee mark. The Veterans' Committee has discretion in the allocation of these sums.
Those cushions add up to about $450 million. We do not suggest in this budget resolution how that should be allocated. Surely, it is available for allocation, as the Veterans' Committee chooses, for the purposes that the distinguished Senator from California is interested in. But that is a decision for that committee to recommend to the Senate, it is a decision for the Senate to make, and then it is a decision for Congress to make. But there is this kind of cushion in these overall dollar totals.
The Budget Committee has considered the fact that Congress is considering legislation for both needed reform and long term savings in pension and readjustment benefit programs. The Senate passed a pension reform bill last year. It is pending in the House of Representatives. There is no clear indication at the moment as to what its fate will be. If in fact it is enacted by the House, and if its cost is similar to that which is reflected in the Senate bill, the cushions I have spoken of — and perhaps there are others in the function — are available for application to that legislation.
I might point out, Mr. President, that if the effective date of the pension reform bill is deferred until next January 1, the cost of the pension reform bill will be reduced by $150. Next January 1 might not be too far from the date that the House and Congress, as a whole, finally acts upon it; therefore, we might save another $150 million. So there is plenty of flexibility in these numbers to include something other than the specific programs that have been benefitting veterans up to this time. The Budget Committee has not said no to any of the program objectives that Senator CRANSTON has outlined here today. Rather, we have said that we are providing an overall number as to both budget authority and outlays that will accommodate current services, an inflation factor, and provide some cushion beyond that for the consideration of additional legislation.
I think that the Senator's amendment provides also for the expansion of medical care for veterans.
Am I correct in that?
Mr. CRANSTON. It provides for improvements in medical care, not really expansion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Some improvement.
Mr. CRANSTON. One of the bills thatwe have been working on and which I believe will be enacted before too long would place greater stress on outpatient care of veterans. That can lead to savings if we get veterans out of the hospitals and into methods of care which avoid the great expense of unnecessary hospitalization.
Mr. MUSKIE. On that point, may I say that the Budget Committee did not allow anywhere in this budget for the growth or expansion of medical care in other functional areas, recognizing the need to control costs and to make major changes in the Nation's health care delivery system. It is a problem with which we have got to deal. And I hope we will continue to work on it, but we have not made budget accommodations for it.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield to the Senator from California.
Mr. CRANSTON. If the Senator will yield, I would just like to expand a little bit on the medical care aspect. The pending legislation, which our amendment would permit to be funded to some extent at least, represents 3 years of oversight, planning, and intensive work by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and its staff. I believe that it amounts to an extremely important attempt to focus resources on service-connected care and to correct certain rigid statutory eligibility standards impairing effective patient care in VA hospitals. The VA needs authority to provide care for seriously disabled veterans. In the long run, obviously that can be a savings even though it does cause some additional expense. The VA needs authority for readjustment counseling for young veterans, family counseling in certain areas, and outpatient and halfway house, alcoholism and drug abuse rehabilitation programs. The bill meets those needs. Those are steps that can lead to very substantial savings not only in terms of dollars but also in terms of human tragedy.
If this pending amendment is not adopted, we may have great difficulty, I am afraid, in achieving these needed reforms.
Further in the medical care area, the bulk of our appropriations recommendation deals with providing necessary staff to meet minimal staffing levels to provide care for increased inpatient and outpatient workloads that are already being realized in the current fiscal year — right now.
Mr. MUSKIE. In closing, Mr. President, may I repeat that what we have done with respect to all functions, including this one function, 700, is to set as required by law overall ceilings for budget authority and for outlays. With respect to this function we have set those ceilings at current policy which means a continuation of present policies, programs, and activities, including an inflation factor, even when we are not required to do so under current law.
In addition, I have pointed out flexibility in these numbers and possible cushions that are available for the consideration of policy initiatives that Congress may wish to take.
Mr. President, may I remind the Senate the purpose of these ceilings is to exert pressure on Congress to live within them. The setting of these ceilings does not mean that somewhere down the road in this legislative session Congress cannot change a ceiling for good and sufficient reason. But if the ceilings are not such as to exert pressure for savings, we will never achieve control of the budget, and we will never achieve a balanced budget.
Every one of these functions can come to the Senate and argue that the ceilings are unrealistic or too low. Let me remind the Senate that the committees of the Senate recommended to us programs totaling $439.7 billion in outlays for this year. I am sure that they felt just as strongly about those recommendations as the Senator and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs do about this function. But if we are to adopt a policy of granting everything that can be justified in terms of merits at this point, then we will have not an outlay ceiling of $412.6billion but an outlay ceiling of $439.7 billion.
I think we have an obligation to try to live under these functional totals, realizing that we have the option under the Budget Reform Act to make specific spending decisions that will depart from those ceilings if we choose to do so.
And if we choose to do so, when we get to the second concurrent resolution next fall, we can adjust these targets to accommodate the changes that we have mandated. But if we make no effort at all in this first concurrent resolution to generate pressure for savings, weeding out lower priority programs, and eliminating waste, then we are simply going to see an escalating kind of expenditure on the part of the Federal Government that will know no end.
I remind the Senate that the outlay ceiling for the current fiscal year is $357 billion. That is $37 billion under the outlay ceiling that this budget resolution recommends to the Senate, and it is $65 billion under what the committees of the Senate have recommended to the Budget Committee. That is a range within which surely it ought to be possible for us to set a ceiling that is responsible and that deals with high priority needs that ought not to be neglected. If we are only going to look at the numbers at the top, we are going to fill up to it. We all know that. If we set a ceiling of $420 billion, Congress would move up to the ceiling. If we set a ceiling of $430 billion, Congress would move up to $430 billion. If we set a ceiling of $440 billion, Congress would move up to $440 billion.
I have been here 18 years. I do not know whose law I would subscribe this as being, but that is what would happen. We have given the Senate a ceiling of $412 billion, and we have given comparable ceilings across the board in every function. For many functions we have established the ceiling at current policy levels. May I remind the Senate that current policy for outlays is $424 billion. We have cut below that figure because we take the view that unless there is that kind of pressure we will never get Federal spending under control.
So I say to the Senate, I do not disagree as to the merit of the programs which the Senator from California has asked us to consider. I do not reject them at this point. I happen to believe that they conceivably can be accommodated under the budget totals that we have recommended.
If we vote on the Senator's amendment and defeat it, then I suppose we will be assumed to have rejected them. The Senator takes his risk on that score. I do not think this budget resolution rejects them. I do not believe it is necessary to reject them at this time. There is flexibility both in the consideration of the legislation which he has brought before us and any subsequent consideration of the budget which may make is possible for us to accommodate them. But if that decision be forced now, by an increase in the functional totals beyond what I believe to be necessary at this time, consistent with the obligations of the congressional budget process, then I would have to oppose the amendment — not because I oppose the programs the Senator uses as justification for his amendment, but because I do not think it is necessary at this time to raise the functional ceilings and thus invite increased Federal spending and a larger deficit.
I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I just want to speak a moment, because the hour is late, and I understand that the vote will not occur until tomorrow morning. I understand that was agreed to, with the hope that perhaps our colleague, the Senator from California, would have time to corral the Senators and that the veterans groups would all call in and enough pressure would be brought so that we could adopt his amendment tomorrow, whereas we probably would not do so this evening. I hope, on the contrary, that the distinguished Senator from California will reconsider overnight and perhaps want to withdraw this amendment in the morning.
I join in the chairman's recognition of Senator CRANSTON's sincerity and dedication. We sit side by side on the Budget Committee. Our chairman has worked day and night. He has worked us until 11 o'clock at night. We have been canceling things all year long. We have kept up with the pace that the chairman has set and the law has set and the pace that we, in a sense, have set for ourselves. No one has been more loyal and harder working than the Senator from California.
However, having been a comptroller, I think it is really sad, in a sense, that the very first thing out of the box is an amendment that comes from within the membership of the Budget Committee to bust the budget. If we cannot work together and bring about a self-discipline within the Budget Committee that can work its will within the membership, I do not see how we are ever going to hold the line.
Of course, one of the most sensitive subjects is that of veterans' affairs. All of us are veterans, and we never can do enough to show our gratitude; and we never, in a sense, really will provide enough, and we know that. Yet, we do our dead level best.
The committee is ably led by Senator HARTKE and my senior colleague, Senator THURMOND, the ranking minority member. It has been led by them for years, and they have not been puny or denying as to the needs of the veterans.
I happen to know, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, that the recommendation to the Budget Committee by the Appropriations Committee for funding of veterans programs was not treated casually by Senator PROXMIRE. He serves as the chairman of our Independent Agencies Subcommittee, along with Senator PASTORE, Senator STENNIS, Senator MANSFIELD, who is a veteran of all three services, Senator BAYH, Senator CHILES, and Senator HUDDLESTON, on the majority side. We have on the minority those who have been considerate of appropriations: Senator MATHIAS, Senator CASE, Senator FONG, Senator BROOKE and Senator THURMOND.
It is interesting to watch how they work. I work on these other subcommittees.
We were all admonished by Senator McCLELLAN to go back and hold the line.We are deficit financing. Inflation was now going to raise its head as an enemy, along with unemployment, if we did not set a measure down in a meaningful way, to cut back, if you please, the $75 billion deficit on current policy, and we all tried our dead level best to do that.
Looking at the President's provision, they concluded in their recommendation — and they checked this out with theVeterans'Committee, on which the distinguished Senator from California serves.
This subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee recommended an increase of $360 million in budget authority for the Veterans' Administration. Of this increase, $350 million is attributable to the likelihood that Congress will not only extend pension increase legislation scheduled to expire September 30, 1976, but also provide a further cost-of-living increase. An additional $10 million increase is recommended to allow the subcommittee the opportunity to consider the initiation of worthwhile major hospital construction projects.
We did even more. I had never worked with a more able staff than that of the Budget Committee. I do not know where we found them. The record of success thus far, in large measure, goes to the staff, because they worked with those who have been working for years in the authorizing and appropriations committees, to get a feel for these programs. They have come from some of those committees. They bring a tremendous expertise.
Someone on the conservative side in the Senate said,
Heavens, above, you already are above the President's budget $2.1 billion; but that is not bad enough. You even found, with all our House Members, $1.1 billion more than the House Budget Committee. Then, when it came to the Appropriations Committee, having considered that, you are $1.7 billion over.
Someone could well have offered an amendment here and said, "How do you expect us to hold the line when you are even going above your Appropriations Committee by $1.7 billion?"
Instead, the Senator from California says, "No, let's have $800 million more."
In all candor, we are not going to hold that with the House. We know that.
I am glad that we do not have the full membership present in the Senate Chamber. I am glad not many are here to hear us, the members of the Budget Committee. It is a little family dispute. But if we are not going to protect the budget on this matter, how can we hold the line? There are others with worthy arguments.
The Senator says "defense," and this, to me, is defense. These are veterans of defense. We cut the regular defense pay back to the pay cap of 4.7 percent in order to save $2.2 billion. We have all kinds of adjustments — $4.5 billion there — and recommend starting a contributory pension plan to try to reorganize this whole thing with respect to defense costs.
I ask this of the Senator: He knows that everybody in Congress wants to do the right thing by the veterans, and the veteran is being eaten up by inflation as much as anybody else. We have cut some $10 billion from current policy in trying to mark up this budget over a week of days and nights. We have done pretty well to come out at the current policy level for veterans, at $2 billion over the President's figure and $1.7 billion over that of the Appropriations Committee.
Let us try to argue to hold that, because we are $1.1 billion over that of the House. We are going to have a tough time when we meet with our friend BROCK ADAMS and his House committee.
Let us try, in a unanimous fashion, to get behind our own Budget Committee and hold the line for our veterans' figure, which we all know is very deserving. But let us not start at the beginning kickoff with $800 million added on because of these very worthy and meaningful programs that we all hope to put in.
I believe we have gone far over. We have done the best we can for the ensuing fiscal year in this budget, commencing in October. It is hard. I do not think that we ought to act in any way that we are too conservative or too generous with the veterans' part of this particular budget. In essence, we could really have somebody walk in here and try to cut it back. I ask my friend from California to sleep on that a little as a form of control.
The Senator knows how it is. We are all denying a lot of these programs that we wanted, but if we do not set the example — I am on the State, Justice, Commerce Subcommittee. My friend from Indiana wants more money for criminal justice and juveniles. He already has a million dollar one in here. I tried to tell him as politely as I know how, I am a cosponsor of the program and everything else, but we cannot go that way.
We have other changes sought by my friend from Louisiana. (Mr. LONG) . We have a $2 billion one in here.
If we are going to start raising spending on the one hand and cutting down the revenues on the other hand, I think we have really started down the wrong road.
I hope that we can explain it as I did to my veterans. The VFW State commander, one of the best friends I have, had me on the telephone all last night.
When he realized how well we had done, he said, "We are all calling around. I will tell my people let us not call around. Let us give them a little peace and quiet tonight and help them stabilize this budget tomorrow morning and get off on the right foot."
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, having worked on the various legislative matters that are relevant to this amendment for some 3 years in great detail, I rather doubt that I shall change my mind while I am sound asleep tonight.
I do want to say to my friend from South Carolina and my friend from Maine that I do not want to see us break the budget. I do not want to see an increase in the deficit. I plan to support offsetting cuts in the proposed budget so that if this amendment is adopted, my vote will be there to cut an equivalent or greater amount out somewhere else so that we do not increase the deficit.
As comptroller ofthe State of California and in business, I learned the virtue of short term investments that produce long range profits or savings. That is really what we are talking about in this particular amendment.
As to the solidarity of the Committee on the Budget, last year I felt it was very important that Budget Committee members stick together on the floor. The chairman and the ranking Republican member (Mr. BELLMON) urged that we do that when the resolution was adopted a year ago when it was the first experiment with this fledgling new budget process. I opposed certain amendments offered then, specifically an amendment that would have increased money for the unemployed Americans, for job programs for them, because of the need to insure that the budget process got off to a successful start and was not upset in any serious way in that first year.
I think we are in a somewhat different circumstance now. We have had a year of successful experience.
After all, the budget process is, most of all, one relating to fiscal responsibility and to the determination of priorities in Government programs and expenditures, and some of us simply have somewhat different sets of priorities. The chairman (Mr. MUSKIE) laid claim, when speaking to the Committee on the Budget this year just before we issued our report, that he did not think it was as important that year that we all stand behind the exact report, the exact figures that came out from the committee. He repeated much the same thing this afternoon on the floor when he said, among other things, in reference to the figures reported:
I expect some of them may be amended. That is fine with me. The budget resolution is not Holy Writ. It is simply a reference point to help the Senate express its will.
This amendment provides an opportunity for the Senate to express its will on one very important part of the budget resolution and of the critical programs of the Federal Government.
The Senator from Maine said that if we granted every request for more money,we would come up with some huge total that might add to spending this year. Of course, we should not do this. We should exercise judgment. I have exercised mine. Senator THURMOND, Senator RANDOLPH, and Senator HARTKE have exercised theirs in deciding to support this particular amendment, and have joined with me in offering it.
The Veterans' Affairs Committee did not approve every request that came before us. Far from it. Some very serious, strongly supported programs totaling over $5 billion were not recommended by the Veterans' Committee. What we did in the March 15 report was exercise our judgment in offering what we felt was wise and necessary. Now, this amendment represents further reductions we have made after the action of the Budget Committee.
We are not by any means supporting everything that was supported by the Veterans' Committee. This amendment represents a lesser figure. But we should each exercise our judgments and grant. requests, if that is our will, and turn them down, if that is our will, now, not next September when another resolution is before us, because we can lose some very valuable time, retard some very valuable progress, and maybe miss some very important savings in. respect to this particular amendment if we do not adopt it now.
Before closing — I know it is the desire of all present that we end shortly —I wish to comment on just one other aspect of the distinguished chairman's statement in response to my opening statement in regard to this amendment, and then go through a few figures with him.
He indicated that we can accommodate pension reform and accommodate cost of living increases within the figure offered to us in the budget resolution. I have to differ on that point. I do not see how we can
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CRANSTON. Certainly.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not think I said that we could. What I said was that we should try. There is evidence of flexibility under these numbers that we ought not to ignore as we pursue that objective. I cannot guarantee, as the Senator knows, what line items will be included in any function. The guiding principle of the Committee on the Budget is that we do not try to make up the line items.
The figures I gave the Senator about possible flexibility in the budget were given to me by Sid Brown, who is our very able numbers man, as the Senator knows. Those figures represent an inflation factor that is built into the committee mark that could be made available for legislative initiatives. We ought to take advantage of whatever flexibility there is in the function in order to include additional high priority items. That is really the way I would put the point.
Mr. CRANSTON. Let me say that I do not see the point in trying to do something that simply cannot be done. We have gone through these figures and we find that we cannot accommodate these programs. The chairman has seemed to contradict the very words of the committee report. The committee report says:
Current policy includes estimated increases related to the consumer price index for each of these programs. Inflation adjustments have also been made in current policy estimates for other existing veterans programs.
The committee considered the fact that Congress is considering legislation, both for needed reforms and long term savings in pension and readjustment benefit programs. It is the committee's view that funding for such an initiative can — I emphasize "can" — be accommodated within current policy totals.
If we go through the figures, I do not see how that "can" can be substantiated. The report tries to have it both ways — to be all things to all veterans, as it were. But the hard figures refute any such assumptions.
Mr. MUSKIE.I am surprised to hear the Senator make a statement like that, because I heard him tightly examine numbers that the Defense Department, for example, considers wholly right, untouchable, immovable, and unsqueezable in terms of getting at waste. The Senator and I know that they can be squeezed.We have learned in more than a year — a year and a half — of experience on the Committee on the Budget the numbers that are brought to us are not locked in concrete, they can be improved upon.There are savings that can be achieved.
Mr. CRANSTON. We are not talking about administration proposals here.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, I am talking about any proposals. I do not think that our numbers are necessarily any harder or firmer or more accurate or more precisely anticipatory of the future than the administration's.
When we left the Senate with the first concurrent resolution last year we had no assurance that the numbers we had adopted would be adequate to fund all of the program decisions that the Congress would make in the year that has passed since that time. But somehow it has been done; and we are pretty close to the mark without specifically providing for every program that has since been supported. Frankly I say to the Senator that I think he makes a mistake in risking. these programs by offering an amendment that raises the implication that these specific programs are at issue here.
I do not think they are at issue in the budget. As a matter of fact, the language the Senator quoted from the report appears to be a strong endorsement of the programs because the language says they can be accommodated.
Now the Senator is saying with his amendment that they cannot. So if the Senate defeats the Senator's amendment then the Senate will have said in disagreement with the Budget Committee that these numbers cannot accommodate these programs.
Mr. CRANSTON. These programs are now being jeopardized; they are put in risk by the very figures that have come out of the Budget Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know the Senator believes that or he would not be offering the amendment.
Mr. CRANSTON. Of course.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not believe it, and so I see no reason to put these programs at risk when one takes into account in addition what is the fact, what is the law, that if those programs cannot be accommodated under these numbers the Senate can change its mind about these totals down the road.
But with that kind of an approval, implied approval, in the committee report, it seems to me that the Senator's objective is very well served, and he could use that language when the legislation comes before the Senate to argue for a rise in the ceiling if the ceiling at that point will not accommodate the programs.
Mr. CRANSTON. I know that we do not deal with line items in the Budget Committee and in the budget resolution. But I think it makes a mockery of the budget process to suggest that we can do a large number of things within figures for which there is simply not room to accommodate those programs. And then to seem to invite us to go ahead and do them — or try to do them — with the expectation that we can raise the levels in the second concurrent resolution.
I would just like to run briefly through a few figures, and then we will cease so far as I am concerned.
The President's budget submitted to us for veterans affairs, in the veterans' category, was $1.2 billion in outlays. Seventy-four percent of veterans' appropriations go for transfer payments to individual veterans and their dependents. It is tough to find room for much of a cut when that is the starting point for the budget. Maybe a little bit of fat can be found in it. We have been trying to do that for a substantial period of time. We have found some. How much is left I do not know.
Then to the $17.2 Presidential request you have to add $900 million because the President, in his budget, took credit for certain cost saving initiatives, as he has in several other categories of the budget, that are simply not going to occur. His cost saving initiatives include enactment of a reduced time period for Vietnam-era veterans to use the GI bill, and certain other proposals which have consistently been rejected by Congress in the past. Therefore, there is no reason to assume we are going to accomplish them at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have not had a chance, of course, to look at the Senator's numbers list, but just to make my point out of the Senator's own list, in IV, our legislation previously approved by the Budget Committee and passed by one House of Congress, S. 2635, the Veterans and Survivors' Pension Reform Act, $798.5 million.
Two things about that number: One, there is an inflation factor in that number that is higher than we now think it is necessary to assume. That is going to provide dollars. Overall in the function I have given the Senator a figure of $350 million, so there is more inflation money in there than you need to assume, so that gives you something to add to something else.
Mr. CRANSTON. Fifty million dollars at most from that item. And we have in our amendment assumed the need to cut $300 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. But, second, that $798.9 million figure assumes an effective date of October 1, 1977.
Now, the Senator may have a crystal ball that tells him that that date is fixed in holy writ, but I suspect that those who are interested in the legislation would be happy if the bill became effective January 1, 1977. A savings of $150 million would result from this change in the effective date of the legislation.
Now, what is wrong with using this kind of flexibility to serve the purpose of both budgetary prudence and a worthwhile program?
Mr. CRANSTON. That could save $150 million. We have cut $300 million in our amendment. You have not reached that figure yet.
Mr. MUSKIE. No, I am not going to provide a long list of specific items. The Senator has offered me this list to indicate how tough it is to save any money for veterans' programs. And without having had a chance to examine it in detail, I have put my finger on what appears to be a possible reduction in the estimate for one item on that list.
Why does the Senator put at risk these programs to which he is so deeply committed? What I am saying to him is that we do not have to decide whether or not those programs ought to be defended now. I am saying is that there is — we can find — a considerable amount of money in these numbers to help fund them, and that in other ways we may be able to live within the committee mark.
Why then does the Senator force a decision on those specific programs now when the decision could be negative, and thus put the programs in greater jeopardy than the Budget Committee has in its resolution?
Mr. CRANSTON. Well, the Senator has stated, and this Senator agrees, and I am sure all other Senators agree, that there are no immune items in what we are considering. Where funds can be found for needed programs, they can be found. But it is very difficult, and if we find funds for certain of these programs, they will be found, they will be carried forward within the final figure.
But it is obviously impossible to come up with anything like $1.1 billion, which is the difference between our estimates and the Budget Committee recommended outlay level.
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course, if the Senator keeps raising his figure, it becomes harder and harder for me to find the money.
Mr. CRANSTON. I am not raising any figures. Those are the figures I discussed in the Budget Committee, and the figures in the chart. The amendment calls for lesser figures, and we can squeeze some and we may have to.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is offering a $800 million amendment which he says is abundant to fund the program. Then he has challenged me to find money to meet it. Then the Senator raises the target to $1.1 billion. I cannot hit a moving target.
Mr. CRANSTON. Leave it at $800 million and see if you can hit $800 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. What the Senator is asking me to do is what he knows perfectly well I will not do, and that is fill in the line items in this function. I will not do it because I do not think it is necessary. I do not think that is the nature of this budget process.
I think we have provided overall numbers and, remember, that for the budget resolution as a whole we are $9 billion below current policy. In this function we are at current policy. So we have been tougher on many other functions than we have been on this one.
I repeat to the Senator I think he has got a legislative record, if he drops this amendment, that goes farther to advance the programs he is advocating than a defeat on this amendment could possibly do.
Mr. CRANSTON. Well, all I will say in conclusion is the Senator cannot find the figures and I cannot find the figures. They cannot be found within the figure the Budget Committee has reported.
Mr. MUSKIE. In addition, may I say to the Senator that we have mandated savings in several other places. We have not specified where the savings should be found.
The distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee has an amendment at the desk to wipe out some of those savings we have mandated. I assume he will challenge me to specify in detail where they can be found, and I will not be able to. I can suggest some directions. That is our responsibility. But I do not agree with the Senator that I or any member of the Budget Committee has a responsibility to line item this budget or to find every penny to fund every worthwhile policy initiative that we have expressed an interest in.
If we were to be required to do that the only way we could meet that challenge would be either to approve the $439.7 billion outlay number or simply submit to the Senate this year's outlay total, $376 billion, and say to the Congress, "Now, it is up to you. Above that the sky is the limit."
What the Senator is asking me to do is to identify every penny for every policy initiative that has not been finally decided in the Congress, but which we have every right to consider and enact within the budgetary constraints we have laid down.
The Senator knows perfectly well that is not the nature of our responsibility.
Mr. CRANSTON. No, and in discussing cuts that were made in other categories, there was a theory examined, discussed, weighed, urged in the Budget Committee at the time a target was agreed to. There was no such process gone through, there was no justification presented for this reduction when it was moved in committee from what has been recommended by the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
I would just also add that the actual cost-of-living increases are something that are rather easy to figure out, and should be rather automatic, if we wish to treat veterans like other members of our society.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to the Senator on that point that we are the only agency, of the White House, of the House, and of Appropriations Committee, we are the only agency which has given cost-of-living increases.
What is the Senator implying? Our numbers included those.
Mr. CRANSTON. They are not adequate today for the cost-of-living increase in disability compensation, and costs in GI bill as well as for pension reform.
The other point I was starting to make, the other major items the Veterans' Affairs Committee recommended constitute not just ideas dreamed up by members of the committee; they represent legislation passed by either the Senate or the House. So apparently, there is substantial support for these programs, not just legislation we have expressed an interest in.
Mr. MUSKIE. Did I say that they were ideas just dreamed up?
The Senator read the language from the committee report.
The report expresses a strong sympathy for the programs. Why does the Senator insist on making a case against his own objective?
And also with respect to specific program items again, of course, we did not go through every piece of substantive legislation that is likely to emerge out of this Congress.
Thanks to the Senator's interest, to his knowledge and to his background. I think we got into more detail in this function than other functions.
The same is true of the education function in which the distinguished Senator from Minnesota is such an expert, and in that function we went into more detail than in many other cases because he was interested.
And the Senator from South Carolina in the natural resources, energy and environmental function, because of his background in the energy field, he went into detail.
In no case did we go into greater detail than we did in the veterans' function.
But we do not write legislation, we do not line item the committee work.
Mr. President, I think we ought to save a little time tomorrow to continue this discussion. I think it has been a good one. The record is there. The Senator from California, as always, has made a good record for his case, even though I disagree with it.
So I hope our colleagues will have something interesting and enlightening to read in the morning before they come in to vote.
I express my appreciation to the Senator from California and the Senator from South Carolina in helping put this record together this evening, and I will see them in the morning.