April 9, 1976
Page 10270
TIME LIMITATION AGREEMENT
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time on the concurrent resolution now pending before the Senate be limited to 12 hours, that the time on any amendment thereto, debatable motion, or appeal, except a motion to lay on the table, shall be limited to 1 hour, that final passage of the resolution occur no later than 5 p.m. on Monday next, and that the agreement be in the usual form as to the division and control of time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I inquire whether Senator KENNEDY has been consulted in regard to this? He has a major amendment. I wish to protect his rights under his amendment.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The managers of the resolution may yield time from their time on the resolution to any Senator on any amendment, debatable motion, or appeal.
Mr. CRANSTON. With the specific understanding that there will be adequate time for Senator KENNEDY'S amendment—
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, if I could modify that understanding. Under the law the time on an amendment is limited to 2 hours. I would not want to expand on this.
Mr. CRANSTON. Not more than 2 hours.
Mr. MUSKIE. Not more than 2 hours.
Mr. CRANSTON. But up to that amount.
Mr. MUSKIE. Up to that amount. I think we could yield time on the resolution.
Mr. CRANSTON. Fine. Then I have no objection.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I understand it, the proposal is that the measure not be voted upon today, but it would be voted upon not later than 5 o'clock on Monday.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. The proposal is that the vote occur not later than 5 o'clock on Monday, but that would allow the final vote to occur at any time prior to that.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. The proposal is to reduce the 50 hours to 12 hours?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. To 12 hours.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, this is one of the most important bills, I suppose, that will come before Congress. It involves $412 billion in outlays and a great deal more than that in authorizations. I wonder whether we should attempt to take so little time. I do not like to object to a motion such as this.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator from Virginia that I would agree that we should take as much time as the Senate wants to take. We have tried to identify the potential amendments that may be coming along. There were very few yesterday. There are only two at the desk. We do not have very specific information as to others that may be offered.
My objective is not to cut short the debating time to a more restrictive point than the Senate might desire, but to reflect what the Senate's desires may be. So far as I am concerned, if the Senate wants more than 12 hours, the Senate should have more than 12 hours. This is simply an attempt to begin to set some outside time limits. If the 12 hours proves to be restrictive, we can expand on it. As a starter, I think this is reasonable — 5 o'clock on Monday. It gives us considerable time. If we want to go into Tuesday, we can always do it.
I think that setting a time limitation has some utility in focusing the Senate's attention on the fact that we are dealing with serious business and that they should get here and get down to it and dispose of it with as much time as they desire, up to the 50 hour limit, if that is what the desire is.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Personally, I would not object to this — I think it is perfectly reasonable and fair — but there is at least one Senator on this side of the aisle whom we promised we would consult about any time agreement. We have not been able to consult him as yet. I understand that he is on his way to the Chamber. I wonder whether the request can beheld up for a few moments.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President.I withhold the request.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? If no one yields time, the time will be charged against both sides.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that the time not be charged against either side.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered,
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield me 10 seconds?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. THURMOND. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. John Napier, of the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, be allowed the privileges of the floor during discussion and vote on this resolution.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished Senator from California if he is ready to proceed?
Mr. CRANSTON. Surely.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have only 7 minutes left; the Senator has 17.
Mr. CRANSTON. I am sure I do not have 17.
I ask the Chair how much time I have.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 2 and 12 minutes remaining, respectively, for the Senator from Maine and the Senator from California.
Mr. MUSKIE. I reserve my 2 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Guy McMichael,of the staff of Committee on Veterans' Affairs, may have the privileges of the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I made my basic remarks last night, and I do not intend to go over all that ground again this morning.
I want to stress a few things particularly. We are not saying that we should not be applying pressure for savings in Function 700 programs. We agree with the Budget Committee that there should be savings. It is just a question of what is a fair amount for us to try to save. By our figures, the Budget Committee is asking us to produce savings of $1.1 billion from needed programs. That is what the charts we put in the RECORD last night illustrates.
Our own amendment would cause us to produce $300 million.
It is a question of degree, not philosophy. We all want to keep spending, including veterans program spending, under reasonable control.
But we feel, very honestly and very strongly, that we cannot find $1.1 billion without seriously eroding or eliminating major programs. It is as simple as that. By and large, it comes down to the pension reform proposal, which, by any estimate, has substantial short term costs before the longer term savings can be achieved. Based on our work, the Veterans' Affairs Committee believes that the time for pension reform is now, this year. I believe that, the Senate believes that. Apparently, the Budget Committee also believes that.
It is a question of timing, really. This is the wrong year to be squeezing the veterans function the way the Budget Committee proposes. We have some very delicate reform proposals pending, both pension and the GI bill, which require additional costs now to yield longer term savings down the road. In another year, with these initiatives behind us, we could probably live with a current policy figure. This is just the wrong year to try that.
We feel we must proceed with pension reform, GI bill reform, and some health care improvement initiatives for fiscal year 1977 and provide equitable cost-of-living increases for disability compensation and educational benefits.
We are asking only for a target which will make it possible — possible not easy — to accommodate those initiatives.
As to cost-of-living increases for compensation and GI bill benefits, the Budget Committee and its chairman put forth a figure which is called current policy. It is very difficult to reconcile the figures they use with true cost-of-living parity. The only conclusion I can reach is that current policy is less than cost-of-living increases. I do not think that is fair. We are not telling social security beneficiaries they can not receive true cost-of-living increases indexed to the Consumer Price Index. All we have proposed for service-connected disabled veterans is the same treatment for their compensation payments. And that is all we have proposed for young veterans going to school under the GI bill.
I want to stress, Mr. President, that it does not take any great wizardry to compute what is a cost-of-living increase from September 1, 1974, to October 1, 1976. That is the applicable period for the GI bill. As footnote 2 of the table I inserted in the RECORD last night explains, from September 1, 1974 — the date of the last GI bill increase — to January 1, 1975, the CPI rose by 10.72 percent. Using the conservative economic assumptions in the President's budget to project forward for the first 9 months of 1976 to October 1 — at a 5.9 percent annual inflation rate — we add 4.42 percent and reach a total increase of 15.14 percent. That is pretty simple mathematics, and it yields the $738.8 million figure shown on that table.
I talked last night about some health care needs in VA hospitals. The chairman will remember the state of VA hospitals in 1970 when we focused national attention on them. They were in a pretty sorry state. We have made major strides since then. But now we may be starting to fall behind again.
I do not think we can permit that to happen. We have come too far to let medical care for veterans slide downhill again.
Right now, in this fiscal year, the VA medical system is absorbing some very heavy increased workloads which were not budgeted for in fiscal year 1976. And they are nowhere included in the President's fiscal 1977 request. I am talking about 1 million more outpatient visits — up about 10 percent over the estimates — and 64,000 inpatient visits — up about 5 percent from the estimates. We are trying hard to get caseloads under control, but we are not going to be able to cut them back. And these demands are there in the system, now and are unfunded. They will remain unfunded if this amendment is not adopted. That means there is too few staff, supplies, and equipment.
There is only so long that a medical care system can absorb these sorts of substantial workload increases without adversely affecting the quality of care provided. I believe it is totally unreasonable for us to expect the VA medical program to continue to absorb these increases for an additional 15 months. That is what we are talking about.
During budget committee markup, the distinguished Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), who used to chair the VA appropriations subcommittee, discussed with me that great need for a realistic hospital construction program to renovate some pretty old and outmoded VA hospitals. Indeed, we have some. I told him that, although the request construction authority was down for fiscal year 1977, it was something we could live with for a year. So we are not asking for an increase, which is quite justified there.
We are willing to exercise self-restraint, that is the point I am making. We are not asking for anything nearly approximating what we really need in VA health care.
What we ask for is a fair figure, a reasonable target. Give us that and we shall exercise all of our ability to stay within it or even to come below it. But do not send us back to try to live within an unrealistic, unfair target that can be met only by eliminating critical programs and benefits which the Congress has already supported or, on any realistic estimate, will want to support.
I am delighted to yield to the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, who is a cosponsor of this amendment, and whose support means much to it. I yield him 3 minutes.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the able and distinguished Senator from California. It is probably not very often that he and I are together on very many matters, but I feel that his amendment is just, it is right, and it is fair to the veterans of this Nation.
I will be very brief. I support the amendment to the first concurrent resolution on the budget to increase the target for function 700, veterans benefits and services.
It is my understanding that the amendment will increase the committee's targets from $19.3 billion as set by the Budget Committee to $20.1 billion in outlays, and from $20 billion as set by the Budget Committee to $20.8 billion in budget authority. I believe this is necessary if we are to meet our commitments for pension reform, cost-of-living increases, and other improvements in veterans' services.
Mr. President, the budget process requires all of us to make some hard decisions to curb unnecessary spending. I hope the Senate will act in a responsible manner. I am confident that fat can be cut out of the budget in a number of social welfare programs.
In two areas, however, defense and veterans' matters, I hope we will give most careful attention to meeting our commitments.
To paraphrase Air Marshal Sir John Slessor, the most valuable social welfare service a nation can perform is to keep its people alive and free. Without freedom, other social services are meaningless.
If we are to heed Sir John Slessor's advice, I submit that we will vote for adequate levels of spending in defense and veterans matters. A strong defense rests on good military hardware and technology on the one hand, and superior manpower on the other. It is the veterans who have kept our country free. A strong defense is essential to keep it free.
I hope we will continue to keep our historical commitment to both and, therefore, urge my colleagues to join in supporting the increase in the veterans' function.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for a question, the Senator from South Carolina?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I would be pleased to yield to my distinguished colleague.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask my senior colleague, is he not fully aware of what we have done already at the Budget Committee level which is to raise the Appropriations Committee some $1.8 billion, and the President's request $2.1 billion already which is being responsible, as he indicated? Does the Senator understand those figures?
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, that may be true. But from the investigation I have made, I am confident this additional money is needed if we are going to meet our commitments to the veterans, which I feel we should meet.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. Each side has 2 minutes remaining. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I would just say to my distinguished colleague from South Carolina — and he has invited me next week to a lunch to balance the budget, where we are going to receive 200,000 signatures, according to his information, from our constituents in South Carolina in order to get a balanced budget — here I have been working months and months now and have come out on the side of the veterans some $2.3 billion more than the administration has requested, and $1.8 billion more than the Senate Appropriations Committee, and $1.1 billion more than the House, and we want to start this morning now with busting the budget with another $800 million.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I think I have answered the question.
If we are going to meet our commitments for pension reform, cost-of-living increases, and other improvements in veterans' services, such as homes and the other things that should be done, it is going to take this money.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired. Who yields time.
Mr. CRANSTON. I yield an additional minute to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I feel very strongly about veterans. If it were not for the veterans, we would not have a country. If it were not for people who wore the uniform and fought for this country, we would not have our freedom. I say we should not be stingy with them.
We have got ways where we can cut in various social welfare matters. Why, this food stamp program reform yesterday is almost a farce. It is going out and you make great reductions in food stamps. If you are going to do what is justice in this country, I think we have got to remember the men who have fought to save this country, and I think we have got to understand that if we are going to keep it free we have got to keep it strong.
Therefore, I am strong for doing what is right and no more than right by the veterans, and I am in favor of keeping this country strong militarily.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All the time of the proponents of the amendment has expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman yield 1 minute on the bill?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield 1 minute.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOLLINGS. On the matter of veterans I want to express the same sentiment in support of the veterans. The distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE), a distinguished veteran, supports this figure. We took the President's request, we added some $300 million on there for pension cost-of-living increases, as was approved by the Appropriations Committee, and in doing exactly as the Senator says, increased it almost $1 billion for cost-of-living increases, and readjustment benefits; $900 million to take care of the veterans. Then we defied the President's savings proposal of another $1 billion. That is how we got over $2 billion; so we have done as the Senator says. But the Senator comes now and just says, "Well, I like the veterans and I do not like the food stamps, and let us start off the budget process by busting the budget some $800 million."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I wonder how many veterans are on food stamps at the present time. I think that is an unfair allusion and, may I say, I think I can speak as a veteran having been a seaman second class in the Navy, a private in the Army, and a private first class in the Marine Corps, and I bow to no one in my desire to benefit the veterans who served in all our wars, some of them worthwhile and some of them tragic, but they served, and they are entitled to every consideration.
The distinguished Senator from South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND) has indicated that we "face hard decisions." You bet your life we face hard decisions because here the Budget Committee, which has been doing a superb job up to this time, is advocating in this package before us $2 billion more than the President's budget, $1.1 billion more than the House's budget, and $1.7 billion more than the appropriation budget.
I think if we are going to make a success out of the Budget Committee we had better start right now and continue to back it up all day.
I do not intend to vote for any amendment no matter how meritorious or how nice it is or how politically palatable it may be during the course of the debate on the legislation before us. I intend to support fully what the Budget Committee has recommended because if we do not then I think we might as well abolish it, do away with it, and go back to our old ways. This is one way to put the Senate on notice that it means what it says and in meaning it it will do what it says.
I would point out that in the budget resolution before us there is on page 76 a reference to veterans' benefits and services. I will only read one short paragraph, and I quote:
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 initiatives can be accommodated within current policy totals.
I hope this amendment is defeated. I intend to vote against every amendment offered today. I intend, as far as I am concerned, to try to make the Budget Committee work.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired on the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield a minute to the distinguished Senator from Michigan on the resolution.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I am authorized by the distinguished minority leader to indicate that he and I fully share the view of the distinguished majority leader that it is the position of the joint leadership to oppose the pending amendment by the Senator from California.
It seems to me that this is really an acid test as to whether or not the Senate will demonstrate to the country and to ourselves whether the senatorial rhetoric about budget responsibility is just that — only rhetoric — or whether we are really serious and are going to be responsible in terms of passing on budget policy questions.
This is a tough vote. No one in this body is against veterans. This Senator, like others, is a member of veterans' organizations and personally knows the importance and value of the veterans' benefits.
But this amendment ought to be defeated and I hope the Senate will rise to the occasion.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,will the Senator yield me 2 minutes on the resolution?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been in the House and Senate of the United States for going on 24 years.
During that time, I have voted for every piece of legislation on the statute books that benefits veterans and their families, and I am proud of that record. I also had a good deal to do with the writing of the Budget Reform Act by virtue of my being chairman of the Senate Rules Subcommittee.
We put a lot of time on the Budget Reform Act and I said, at the time, that if the act were made to work it would depend upon the will and determination of the Congress to make it work, and that if it worked it would be the most important piece of legislation enacted during my years of service in the Congress of the United States.
So I stand with the majority leader, the minority leader, the Republican whip, and the manager of this resolution, in opposing this amendment.
In spite of the politically appealing nature of the amendment by the able Senator from California — and my record will show that I have always supported improved medical services for veterans — we have got to stand behind the manager of this resolution if we intend to make the Budget Reform Act work. If we are going to make it work, we are going to do it today and on the motion by the Senator from Maine to table the amendment.
We either hold the line on the budget or we go through the ceiling, and this vote will test the will of the Senate as to whether it meant business when we voted for budget reform and fiscal responsibility in passing the Budget Reform Act.
TIME LIMITATION AGREEMENTS. CON. RES 109
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time on the resolution be limited to 20 hours, that a final vote occur on agreeing to the resolution at no later than 5 p.m. on Monday next.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, I ask that the distinguished chairman yield me 1 minute since there have been statements.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will, of course, but let me say to the Senator from California that the Senator from Alabama had asked for 2 minutes and I agreed.
Will the Senator wait?
Mr. CRANSTON. I will wait.
Mr. ALLEN. I will wait.
Mr. MUSKIE. Either position is fine.
Mr. CRANSTON. I will wait.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I must say that I was extremely pleased to hear the majority leader make this very fine speech in favor of holding the line and in favor of fiscal responsibility.
I was delighted to hear the assistant majority leader (Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD) make a fine statement in favor of holding the line.
I always like to follow the leadership of the majority leader when I possibly can, and I am very happy to be able to give my support to the leadership position on this resolution.
I think there is some hope for fiscal responsibility with the leadership taking this position.
I certainly commend the chairman of the Budget Committee and the leadership for adopting this position.
I want to vote for this amendment myself, I want to see these additional funds made available for our veterans. But I shall not vote for the amendment, because I believe we must hold the line in this area, and in other areas of the budget.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the chairman for his courtesy in yielding to me.
Mr. President, let me say that I intend to vote for other amendments for compensating cuts that would result in a situation where the net deficit is not increased if this amendment is adopted.
We are talking here about a matter of priorities in spending and, certainly, the Senate as a whole has the right and the obligation to consider what priorities should be high, what should be low, and what adjustments should be made, in what the Budget Committee recommends to us.
The fact that the Budget Committee has suggested certain figures does not make them sacrosanct.
I would like to quote what the chairman, Mr. MUSKIE, said in his opening statement. He said:
I expect some of them may be amended — referring to the figures in the budget resolution.
He said :
That is fine with me. This budget resolution is not holy writ, it is simply a reference point to help the Senate express its will.
The Senate, in respect to the work of all committees, takes into consideration that work and decides whether or not it wishes to make any revisions in the work of the committee.
The net effect of the amendment that Senator THURMOND, Senator HARTKE, Senator RANDOLPH, myself, and others, have offered is not to increase the deficit by $800 million, which is the gross figure we are proposing. The net effect would be more like $500 million.
Out of that we would make an investment in pension reform that would yield vast benefits in the future. We would also give fair, accurately calculated cost-of-living increases to veterans in their pensions and GI bill rates and disability compensation, and we would be insuring that they have decent medical care consistent with rising workloads.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator STONE be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GLENN) . Without objection, it is so ordered
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am going to move to table this amendment for a very specific reason.
As the Senator knows from our discussion last night, I insist that the Budget Committee has not taken a negative position on the programs that are the basis for the Senator's amendment.
As the majority leader has pointed out, the veterans' programs, in the view of the committee, can be accomplished, in some fashion, under the numbers provided in the budget resolution. I am going to move to table this amendment so that the vote will not be interpreted as a vote on the merits of the proposal.
Mr. YOUNG. Will the Senator withhold that motion?
Mr. MUSKIE. The majority leader has been asking for a vote.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. YOUNG. If I wanted to destroy the effect of the Budget Committee, I would vote for this amendment.
In many respects, the Senate Budget Committee has been doing a good job in some respects though it gets in the hair of some of us on the AppropriationsCommittee. If we voted for all the amendments to upset the work the distinguished Senator from Maine and his committee has been doing, that would be the best way to destroy the effectiveness of his committee.
I want to give him a chance. I think he has been doing a good job so far.
So I will support the Senator's committee and vote against all amendments.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from North Dakota.
Mr. MOSS. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. MOSS. This is an important matter as has been indicated by a number of my colleagues.
I think all of us are concerned about adequate compensation and support for veterans. I have always counted myself as a staunch supporter of veterans programs.
This matter came up and was carefully considered in the Budget Committee sessions. I point out that the Budget Committee recommended the budget at current policy levels. It should be made clear this does not represent any cut. The amendment has been offered to increase budget authority and outlays in the veterans budget function by $800 million in fiscal 1977. It would increase the deficit by $600 million, the difference of $200 million is assumed to be reflows through the economy resulting from the increased expenditures. The primary reason the Budget Committee was organized and, this is written into law by this Congress, was to get the budget under control and not be on an uncontrollable spending spiral.
In the resolution before us, the Budget Committee recommended $20 billion for budget authority and $19.3 billion for outlays for 1977. This amendment will raise those figures by $800 million in each case to a total of $20.8 billion budget authority and $20.1 billion in outlays. As I said in my statement on the floor yesterday, this concurrent resolution proposed by the Budget Committee—
Represents a cut of over $30 billion from the spending proposals the Budget Committee received from all of the authorizing committees of the Senate.
And is nearly $9 billion below what would be spent by merely extending through 1977 the same policies and law contemplated last year in adopting the fiscal 1976 second concurrent budget resolution last December.
In order to do this, the committee cut below current policy levels in some functions. But in the veterans function we did better. We recommended a budget at current policy levels.
Incidentally, I think it would be helpful to compare the committee's recommendation with current policy and with the levels proposed by the President, the Senate Appropriations Committee and the House Budget Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following table reflecting such a comparison be entered in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, this table shows that the Senate Budget Committee recommendation is $2.1 billion higher than the President's; $1.1 billion higher than the House Budget Committee's; and, $1.7 billion higher than the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Although veterans compensation, pension, and readjustment benefit levels are not indexed for price increases, 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 did this, despite the fact that it is not required by law. As a result of these actions, there is in the resolution about $300 million from these economic adjustments and another $100 million from action the administration is taking to recoup overpayments VA has made. In other words, a total of $400 million would be available for use in pension reform, or whatever purpose the Veterans Committee recommends and the Congress enacts.
The Budget Committee, of course, does not deal in line items. I believe that is right. As my statement before the Senate yesterday indicated, the ultimate responsibility for determining the program mix within the budget functional areas — such as this one — is vested in the authorizing and Appropriations Committees.
I am in agreement with the stated purpose of this amendment. But I understand that it is far from certain that the House will agree to pension reform, I certainly hope they do.
I have already indicated that the Budget Committee's recommendation includes about $400 million in this function,which is available for pension reform, if that is the will of the Congress.
And I believe that, therefore, there is now plenty of flexibility within this area which makes this amendment unnecessary. Should this not be the case, as the year wears on, we can still make the adjustments required, if necessary, in the second concurrent resolution in September. Thus, in voting to table the amendment, I am not voting against supporting the veterans. I believe the veterans function is an important one. I believe that the veterans themselves are even more important. I believe the Nation owes a great debt to our veterans. I have consistently supported veterans programs. As a veteran myself, I have both an awareness of, and a special appreciation for, the veterans.
In voting to table the amendment, I am indicating my support of the veterans programs and my belief that they can be accommodated within the functional total recommended by this committee; and, I am voting against adding further to the deficit. Increasing our Federal deficit tends to feed inflation and to erode the value of our dollar. Thus, to some degree, raising the deficit is especially detrimental to those who rely on fixed pensions or income. If we are to move toward a balanced budget, which I believe is a necessity, we must maintain the pressure for increased fiscal responsibility.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Gorden Gilman of the staff of Senator FANNIN be granted privilege of the floor during thedebate on this resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom Connaughton, John Rector, and Howard Paster of my staff, and Lyle Morris of Senator GLENN'S staff, be granted privilege of the floor during all debate and votes on Senate Concurrent Resolution 109.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John I. Brooks of my staff be granted privilege of the floor during consideration of this measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I wish there were some way that I could support, in good conscience and consistency, the Cranston-Thurmond amendment. It is an appealing amendment. Moreover, it is addressed to a segment of our population for whom all of us have the deepest gratitude — the veterans who have fought our wars and defended our Nation.
But I sincerely believe, Mr. President, that if a referendum could be taken among the veterans themselves, they would say: "Don't approve this proposal,or any other proposal that will further damage the economic stability of America." Our veterans know, Mr. President, perhaps better than most, the the reckless deficit spending approved and encouraged by Congress. They know that the Federal debt is now in excess of $800 billion. They know that we cannot expect to have a safe America, unless it is a nation of strength and economic stability. That, Mr. President, is what these veterans fought for.
I also suspect, Mr. President, that our veterans will be looking carefully at every Senator's consistency, or the lack of it, in moving the Federal Government back toward a balanced budget. I suspect many will be mindful of the vote yesterday in this Chamber, when the Senate approved the Dole-McGovern amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, relating to food stamps — a budget busting decision that will increase the already bloated cost of the existing food stamp program by an estimated half billion dollars.
In doing so, Mr. President, the Senate overrode its own Budget Act. It pushed aside the majority opinion of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Therefore, Mr. President, as we proceed to vote on a motion to table the CranstonThurmond amendment, I feel that it would be appropriate to have printed in the RECORD the roll call vote of yesterday on the Dole-McGovern food stamp amendment in the nature of a substitute. A yea vote on Dole-McGovern was a vote to "bust the budget," as the distinguished Senator from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN) has described it. A nay vote on Dole-McGovern was a vote against budget busting.
I ask unanimous consent that the rollcall (No. 137) be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the rollcall vote was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 137 Leg.]
YEAS 49
Abourezk, Bayh, Biden, Brooke, Bumpers, Burdick, Cannon, Case, Chiles, Clark, Cranston, Dole, Durkin, Ribicoff, Schweiker, Hugh Scott, Stafford.
Eagleton, Ford, Glenn, Philip A. Hart, Haskell, Hatfield, Hathaway, Hollings, Huddleston, Humphrey, Javits, Kennedy, Leahy, Stevenson, Stone, Taft, Talmadge.
Magnuson, Mansfield, Mathias, McGee, McGovern, Moss, Muskie, Nelson, Packwood, Pearson, Pell, Percy, Randolph, Weicker, Williams.
NAYS 30
Allen, Baker, Bartlett, Beall, Bentsen, Harry F. Byrd, Jr., Robert C. Byrd, Domenici, Eastland, Fannin.
Fong, Garn, Goldwater, Griffin, Hansen, Helms, Johnston, Laxalt, Long, McClure, Morgan.
Nunn, Proxmire, Roth, William L. Scott, Sparkman, Stennis, Thurmond, Tower, Young.
NOT VOTING 21
Bellmon, Brock, Buckley, Church, Culver, Curtis, Gravel, Gary Hart, Hartke, Hruska, Inouye, Jackson, McClellan, McIntyre, Metcalf, Mondale, Montoya, Pastore, Stevens, Symington, Tunney.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to table this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the Cranston amendment.
The result was announced — yeas 52, nays 22, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]