May 4, 1977
Page 13570
Mr. NUNN. Would the Senator explain how his amendment in the funding levels compares to President Carter's budget submission; also whether the Budget Committee's recommendation is equal to the President's, greater than or less than the President's recommendation.
Mr. CRANSTON. The Budget Committee's recommendation is in excess of the President's.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am in position to supply those numbers.
Mr. NUNN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Carter administration's amended budget figures for this function are $18.5 billion in budget authority and $18.9 billion in outlays. The Budget Committee's numbers are $19.8 billion in budget authority or $1.3 billion higher than the Carter administration; and $19.8 billion in outlays or $900 million higher than the Carter administration.
There is one other column that would be important, and that is the current policy number which, as the Senator may remember from his own tenure on the Budget Committee, represents current programs plus inflation.
The current policy number is $19.3 billion or $500 million under the Budget Committee's recommendation, and on outlays $19.4 billion or $400 million under the Budget Committee's recommendation.
Mr. NUNN. So the Budget Committee is already recommending more in this category than President Carter or the Ford administration recommended.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. NUNN. And this would increase this beyond the Budget Committee recommendation.
Mr. MUSKIE. And I intend to explain what the Budget Committee assumed in its numbers.
Mr. CRANSTON. May I respond briefly to the Senator from Georgia. Whereas the administration's request does cover cost-of-living increases for pension and compensation programs, its request does not cover what would be covered by this amendment in this respect: they do not allow for GI bill cost-of-living increases or improvements, they do not allow for pension reform despite the fact that is an investment in the future that should pay off; they do not allow for even modest health care initiatives or certain corrective expenditures for facilities; and the Carter administration picked up a Ford administration proposed cost saving legislation that is unrealistic, of $200 million. The administration is, therefore, overestimating what can be saved there and has thus skewed the figures.
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield to me briefly?
Mr. CRANSTON. I am delighted, of course, to yield to the distinguished Senator from Vermont
(Mr. STAFFORD), the ranking minority member of our committee, whatever time he requires.
Mr. STAFFORD. I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Committee yielding to me.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator CRANSTON in offering and supporting an amendment to increase budget authority and outlays in function 700 of veterans' benefits and services. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, prior to the March 15, 1977, report to the Budget Committee carefully considered all of the possible requests for funding for veterans' benefits and services. In fact, our Veterans' Affairs Committee considered and turned down $1.2 billion of requests for increases in spending over and above the levels of spending our committee recommended to the Budget Committee.
We do, however, feel that the Budget Committee went too far in its reductions our Veterans' Affairs Committee recommended, and our committee membership is unanimous in support of our amendment to restore $500 million in budget authority and $400 million in outlays to veterans' programs.
I certainly agree with the Budget Committee's position on the need for fiscal restraint. However, it is a question of where the restraint should lie and the extent to which restraint should be exercised. As previously stated, our Veterans' Affairs Committee exercised restraint in rejecting increases that would have added $1.2 billion to the recommended levels. The rejected items of increase have considerable backing in the Senate.
It is the opinion of the Veterans' Affairs Committee that there are three major areas of need relating to veterans' programs requiring additional funds. It is difficult to conclude which of these needs have priority. In fact, in our opinion, a determination of which comes first would not be fair. The three areas needing greatest attention this year are pension reform, GI bill improvements with adequate cost-of-living increases for veterans' programs, and needed corrective health care measures.
The last Congress found inadequacies and inequities in the veterans' pension system. Last year the Senate passed a reform measure (S. 2635) to provide that pension reductions would not occur when social security cost-of-living increases are made. The committee plans to reintroduce this reform package and to improve assistance to those veterans below the poverty line, as well as to eliminate from the pension system inequities in the present law, before the larger numbers of World War II veterans enter the program. The opportunity presents itself now for sound and important reforms and better planning of our veterans pension program.
It is a well known fact that inflation has seriously eroded GI bill benefits. A cost-of-living increase was granted in 1976, but this increase was insufficient to offset inflation from the prior increase. The President's budget request did not contain a cost-of-living increase to offset the year of inflation or consider acceleration of payments and extension of the delimiting period.
It should be pointed out that considerable support exists in the committee and in Congress for legislation to extend the present "delimiting" period. We should also recall that S. 969 (Public Law 94-502) , as it originally passed the Senate, included a provision extending the delimiting period for 3 years, but only for those veterans who were enrolled in a full time course of training under the GI bill in their 10th year of eligibility and continued as full time students during the 3 year extension period. Benefit rates for the 11th year of entitlement would have been one half of the normal benefit rate, and during the 12th and 13th years of entitlement, one-third the normal rate.
This provision did not become law although it was included in the Senate bill, but there continues to exist in the Senate and in the country considerable interest concerning this or some extension of time for veterans educational assistance.
The third large area needing attention this year is health care maintenance. Our committee recommended to the Budget Committee increases of $148 million in budget authority and $129 million in outlays over the President's recommendations.
Again we should be reminded of the importance and size of our Government's responsibility for veterans' medical care, for the maintenance and operation of the Nation's largest unified health care facilities — 12 general and neuropsychiatric hospitals, 2287 outpatient clinics, 89 nursing homes and 16 domiciliary facilities. Congress has a tremendous responsibility and opportunity to provide health care, complete medical and hospital service and treatment for our Nation's 30 million eligible veterans.
The President's VA health care budget for fiscal year 1978 is $4,477,359,000, with an increase of only 7.5 percent over fiscal year 1977. Our committee recommended a comparatively small additional amount to counteract for expected inflationary increases in maintenance. The requested increases are needed to keep up with advances in medical technology and to correct certain inadequacies in medical care including those pointed out by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals. We invite attention to the construction recommendation as fully set out in the report submitted to the budget committee by our Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
The amendment now being considered would make a partial but extremely important restoration of a part of the Budget Committee's reductions in the recommended levels for function 700 for veterans benefits and services. It is worthy of the support of all, and in keeping with the Nation's commitment to our veterans. The amendment would mean keeping up with actual needs of our veterans programs.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator very much.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield?
Mr. CRANSTON. I yield.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague, Senator CRANSTON, with whom I serve on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, in offering the pending amendment to the first concurrent resolution on the fiscal 1978 budget. This amendment would provide $20.3 billion in budget authority and $20.2 billion in outlays for function 700, Veterans' Benefits and Services.
I am very honored, Mr. President, to be serving on the Veterans' Affairs Committee in this the 95th Congress, and am particularly pleased to have been named vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Pension and Compensation. I look forward to playing an active role in the evolution of veterans' services and benefits. In my judgment, the 95th Congress will prove to be a crucial juncture in this evolution.
Mr. President, I am committed to the proposition that Congress must exercise fiscal restraint in planning the budget for Federal programs. Two years ago, Congress instituted a system to insure that spending levels would not be excessive, but would remain adequate to support the necessary activities of Government. I joined in setting up that system.
However, I am convinced that the Budget Committee's recommendation of only $19.8 billion in both budget authority and outlays unduly restricts necessary initiatives in veterans' program legislation for fiscal year 1978.
The budget recommendations proposed by the Veterans' Committee evolved after careful consideration of the major fiscal 1978 priorities in veterans' programs. I believe the Veterans' Committee request is well within reasonable yet strict parameters of fiscal responsibility and control.
While maintaining proper operation of existing veterans' programs in view of current inflation, the budget recommendations of the Veterans' Committee will allow legislative efforts to address prime concerns in the areas of veterans' health care maintenance, readjustment assistance benefits, and pension and compensation reforms.
For health care maintenance, the amendment would provide greatly needed increases in budget authority to keep pace with advances in medical technology, to deal with the realistic workload estimates of the Department of Medicine and Surgery, and to correct certain inadequacies and deficiencies in medical care provided for or reimbursed by the VA.
Mr. President, the VA Department of Medicine and Surgery is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Nation's largest unified system of health care facilities. While the Department's primary function is to provide complete medical and hospital services for the care and treatment of veterans, it is also charged by statute with two secondary missions: First, to provide an adequate supply of health manpower to the Nation through the development of education and training programs; and second, to carry out programs in biomedical research to contribute to the Nation's knowledge about diseases and disabilities.
The VA health care system, then, is more than a source of health care. It is an integrated national system of education, including hospitals, general and specialty clinics, research centers, nursing homes, and other facilities which together provide a broad range of health care services to our country's 30 million eligible veterans.
To fulfill its missions, the Department of Medicine and Surgery maintains eight health care related accounts, the largest of which is for medical care. This account comprises 86.5 percent of the VA's proposed total budget authority for fiscal year 1978. Of this amount, 95 percent is targeted for the maintenance and operation of VA facilities. The remainder is targeted for contract hospital and nursing home care, for care in State nursing home facilities, and for the operation of the civilian health and medical program in the VA.
A second vital account is for research in health care. The VA's biomedical research program encompasses medical research in resolving problems associated with medical and dental care of veterans; rehabilitative research focussing on engineering problems in fields such as prosthetics, sensory aids, and adaptive equipment for vehicles; and health services research designed to improve the effectiveness and accessibility of health service to veterans. However, the requested fiscal year 1978 budget for biomedical research is only a 2.5 percent increase over that for fiscal year 1977, indicating that the VA's biomedical research program will remain relatively static for the fourth consecutive fiscal year.
Other accounts for the Department include grants for assistance to health manpower training institutions, construction grants for building, remodeling, and renovating State extended care facilities, State hospitals, and domiciliary facilities, research and education facilities, and outpatient clinics. Other general categories of construction include weatherization projects for energy conservation in VA facilities.
Mr. President, it is clear that failure to fund adequately VA medical services places in serious jeopardy the continuation of important health benefits to our Nation's veterans. This is but one repercussion of the acceptance of the Budget Committee target for VA budget authority and outlay.
A second area of veterans' benefits and services which demands a sound budgetary foundation is that of readjustment assistance through education and training.
The Veterans' Education and Employment Assistance Act of 1976 expanded and improved the GI bill program to promote the veteran's readjustment to civilian life through meaningful educational assistance. Since 1944 over 16.3 million veterans have received educational assistance under the GI bill. This includes 7.8 million veterans under the World War II GI bill, nearly 2.4 million under the Korean conflict GI bill, and more than 6.1 million trainees under the post-Korean period and Vietnam era GI bill.
The impact of the GI bill on our society is enormous. For each dollar spent in educational benefits, the Federal Government has received from $3 to $6 in additional tax revenue from veterans whose education has provided them with an increased earning capacity.
Speaking from a personal point of view, I must say that had it not been for benefits provided me by the Veterans' Administration it would not have been possible for me to earn my law degree at Harvard Law School.
It should be further noted that in fiscal 1976, the VA expended nearly $5.7 billion for post-secondary educational assistance for veterans. This sum represents 53 percent of all such Federal expenditures that year. Under the post-Korean period Vietnam era system of educational benefits, over 6.2 million veterans and 223,000 survivors and dependents have utilized a range of education and training courses under the GI bill.
Since the effective date of the 1974 Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, inflation has placed a serious drain on GI bill benefits, making additional funding necessary. A minimum increase of $0.5 billion over the administration's request — which included no provision for cost-of-living increases for GI bill programs — is needed in both budget authority and outlays.
This year the Veterans' Affairs Committee will examine the structure of GI bill programs closely to eliminate abuses, while assuring responsive readjustment assistance to veterans with the greatest need.
The Veterans' Committee budget requests would enable veterans to participate to a larger degree in college level programs, as well as in trade, technical, and professional training programs. Moreover, these funds would assure better counseling in choosing realistic career goals and appropriate training. The committee's budget request would also provide flexibility to include possible new programs such as accelerated education payments or an extension of the delimiting period of veterans' benefits use.
Finally, there is the need to establish budgetary flexibility to pursue reforms in the area of veterans' pensions and compensation. In the last Congress the Senate passed S. 2635, the Veterans' and Survivors' Pension Reform Act, but the House did not act on this bill before its adjournment, sine die.
Congressionally mandated annuities for Revolutionary War veterans began our long tradition of repaying soldiers, their widows and their children for their sacrifices in time of war. This country's obligation to its veterans has never been ignored; our goal has always been to provide just and adequate compensation to veterans.
Today, the veterans' pension system is both unjust and inadequate not because of malice or insensitivity, but simply because the system was not created to deal with the multiplicity of problems today's veterans face. Inflation, high unemployment, and the imminent arrival at age 65 of the majority of World War II veterans are only a few of these problems.
Studies in 1974 showed that the overwhelming majority of veterans with dependents have annual incomes below $10,000. The present pension system does little to ameliorate the desperate economic plight of these disabled or older Americans. Indeed, the formula for computing pensions and cost-of-living increases actually rewards those veterans who are relatively well off, while penalizing those with meager incomes. In 1975 the Senate Veterans' Committee found that 34.13 percent of single veterans receiving VA pensions had incomes below the poverty level. Almost half of all widows receiving VA pensions were under the poverty level. In fact, the median income level for widows with one dependent fell below the poverty level.
We cannot allow this inexcusable situation which smacks of an ungrateful nation to continue.
The 1975 reform bill, S. 3625, revised the pensions system by proceeding from the principle of level of income support rather than that of supplemental income. Specifically, the bill sets the income level which each veteran or survivor should enjoy as $2,700 for single individuals and $3,900 for married couples. The difference between those sums and income from other sources would constitute the pension rate for each individual.
In addition, S. 3625 would have provided automatic cost-of-living raises above the minimum level of income support, so that pensions would always remain tied to the current economic situation.
Enactment of the Cranston amendment would guarantee that each veteran or his dependent survivor would receive a just and adequate income.
Mr. President, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is cognizant of the budgetary constraints which must be exercised. The committee has assessed the legislative priorities of veterans programs and contends that its budget requests for function 700 are reasonable and justifiable, and in the long run will contribute to greater dollar savings through an efficient and effective program of benefits to our Nation's veterans.
We cannot forget the debt we owe them and their dependent survivors.
I therefore urge the adoption of this important and necessary amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may I repeat — I do not know it does that much good since there are not that many Senators on the floor — that the Budget Committee had to cut budget requests of authorizing committees or we would have had a deficit recommendation of $78 billion for fiscal year 1978.
Every committee believed in the merit of its requests. None were less convinced than the Veterans' Affairs Committee and, I suspect, in every case was as good as that of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. But in order to get the deficit down somewhere within reasonable reach we had to cut $15 billion. None of that $15 billion represented frivolous requests. As far as I am concerned all of that $15 billion that we had to cut represented requests for which a solid case could be made. So if the Budget Committee is limited to cutting only those things that someone regards as frivolous we might as well eliminate the Budget Committee and let the authorizing committees put in their requests, add up the total, and enact it into law.
What other purpose does the Budget Committee serve unless it serves the purpose of cutting into meritorious programs, where necessary, to meet the national interests in prudence in spending and the economic needs of the. country?
How did the Veterans' Committee fare as compared with others?
In budget authority we cut all authorizing committees 8 percent. We cut the Veterans' Committee 3.4 percent, less than half the across-the-board cut.
With respect to outlays, we cut all committees 3.3 percent. We cut the Veterans' Committee 2.9 percent. If this amendment is passed, what will the effect be? The Veterans' Committee originally requested $20.5 billion in budget authority. We gave them $19.8 billion.
If this amendment is approved, it would raise the total to $20.3 billion, virtually all that the Veterans' Committee originally requested.
If this amendment passes with respect to outlays, the $19.8 billion that the Budget Committee approved would be raised to $20.2 billion compared to the $20.4 billion requested by the Veterans' Committee in its March 15 recommendation to the Budget Committee.
If we were to deal with all committee requests to the same extent, that is, raise our allowance, comparably to the raise requested by the Veterans' Committee, we would be close to $78 billion deficit in 1978.
As I contemplate the vote that we just had I am tempted to reach the conclusion that we have lived with $60 billion deficits so long that we regard $60 billion deficits as absolute zero, or maybe a Celsius as we contemplate going to the metric system, that $60 billion deficits now are the norm, and that we are free to add anything we wish to it without any economic consequences that we need to be worried about.
I know these programs have great appeal and great support. But do we ever say no? I have to say no. If I did not I would be bringing a $78 billion deficit to the floor. I have to say no. But what good, Mr. President, is ED MUSKIE's no if no one else supports it? I have only one vote.
What does the Budget Committee assume in its recommendations for the veterans' function?
The committee's recommendation, Mr. President, as I have said, is relatively higher for veterans' programs than for most other Federal programs. It is one of the few functions which was allowed a substantial increase over current policy, $400 million in budget authority, and $500 million in outlays.
The committee's recommendation is $400 million higher in budget authority and outlays than the Appropriations recommendation for this function or $800 million higher in budget authority and $900 million higher in outlays than the Appropriations Committee's recommendation when CBO estimates for the cost for existing programs are used.
I have already pointed out that the Budget Committee's resolution is higher in budget authority and outlays than the President's request for this function.
What this resolution does provide is current policy which reflects inflation for all veterans' programs, plus an additional $500 million in budget authority and $400 million in outlays for medical care and other entitlement programs.
Based on markup discussions, it can be inferred that new initiatives, such as pension reform and real GI bill benefit increases, could not all be accommodated in fiscal year 1978 at the maximum amounts proposed by the Veterans' Affairs Committee without enactment of savings legislation such as proposed by the President. But all of the Veterans' Affairs Committee's recommendations for veterans' medical care can be accommodated within the resolution totals for this function.
Mr. President, in reaching its conclusion about how much can be allowed for this function within the budgetary constraints with which the Committee had to work, with which Congress has to work, and with which the administration has to work, the Budget Committee provided more than current policy amounts for veterans' benefits and services. It provided for that important category of veterans' medical care, which has always been regarded by the veterans' organizations of which I have been a member and others as the highest priority in veterans' programs. But we did not provide everything that the Veterans' Committee requested for other program categories.
The distinguished Senator from California is a member of the Budget Committee, and he uses his place on that Committee to plead the veterans' case. There is no other authorizing committee which has a more effective spokesman on the Budget Committee than the Veterans' Committee.
So there is no way for the Budget Committee to ignore the case for an increase in spending in this function. But neither, Mr. President, is there any way for us to give the Veterans' Committee everything it asked for, however meritorious, just as there is no way for us to give any other Committee everything it asked for.
Each of us has his favorite programs. I have been identified with environmental programs. I voted to cut below the President's recommendations in those areas. I voted on the floor here this afternoon against housing programs and community development programs which I have supported for years, and which I voted for in the Budget Committee, but which I voted against on the Senate floor. Why, Mr. President? There must be a reason.
It is a very simple reason. If we are to have budgetary restraints, if we are to control spending, every one of us must be willing to restrain our requests for programs we feel deeply about, because other Senators with different priorities feel deeply about other programs; and if we are all to give, you know, everything we have got for our programs, and if the Senate is to be moved by that kind of an appeal, there will be no budgetary restraints and we will be going down the road to higher and higher deficits.
I do not believe any of these programs are served by that prospect. We have had two votes this afternoon already, overwhelmingly one-sided votes, Mr. President — 68 to28 against the Budget Committee on the first one, and 58 to38 against the Budget Committee on the second one — and there were members of the Budget Committee who voted on the losing side of those votes in committee, who voted on the winning side of those votes on the floor of the Senate today.
I am not going to become too pessimistic about one or two votes. But, Mr. President, I think we have gotten so used to $60 billion deficits that we are beginning to measure our votes by how much above $60 billion the deficit goes, not by how much above zero deficit our spending will go. If that happens, we might as well toss the budget process out the window, because it is not going to mean anything.
Restraint with respect to spending has got to be exercised by at least a majority of this body.
Restraint exercised by the chairman of the Budget Committee is meaningless without that.
Restraint exercised by the Budget Committee as a whole is meaningless without that. And if we are going to yield for all the sexy items — we all know what the sexy items are — budgetary restraint will mean nothing, because it is the sexy items that represent the highest cost. The income security items, all of which are sexy, at least as sexy as this one, chew up $146 billion of the budget. If we are going to allow ourselves, each of us, the luxury of voting for those sexy items, forget about the budget.
That is the way it used to be. Every time a new veterans' program came along, we used to rush to the well to get on record as voting "yea." Every time an increase in social security benefits came up on the floor, we all rushed down to the well to vote "yea." I could add to the list, but every one in this Chamber knows what is on that list. I do not have to remind anyone.
But I say to the Senate if we limit our budget restraint only to the unpopular programs, you can get someone else to preside over the budget process. There are not enough of them. There simply are not enough of them.
I know increased defense funding has been unpopular for a number of years. It is coming back. It is going up the scale in popularity, and pretty soon everyone is going to be rushing to vote for everything in the name of defense. Space, of course, has been on a decline in recent years after a boom period. It may be that space will become popular again, and everyone will rush to vote for space.
Do we not understand in this Chamber that budget discipline means saying no occasionally, that it means having a sense of priority, that it means sharing the shortfall of available dollars?
We did not think we asked the veterans' function to assume an unreasonable load in terms of sharing the shortfall. I thought it was reasonable. We asked less of them than we did of most committees, or of the committees as a whole.
So this is an important test. I am for the objectives which the Senator from California outlined. They are all worthwhile. But I have not found any un-worthwhile programs the cutting of which would help much in terms of this deficit.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, first let me say that I applaud the efforts of the distinguished Senator from Maine to hold the line on the budget, to make the budget process work. He has done magnificently in that respect. I have worked with him toward that end and I will continue to do so as a member of the Budget Committee. I have supported each of the budget resolutions that have come up since we have had the budget process.
I also thank the Senator for his compliments to my efforts to represent the veterans before the Budget Committee. I was not successful in persuading the Budget Committee on this same amendment I am offering now; we lost on a 5 to 7 vote. I hope I will be more successful on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. President, I totally agree with the Senator that every authorizing committee cannot be given what that authorizing committee requests. Otherwise we obviously do not need a Budget Committee or a budget process. In the case of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the needs of our veterans, and this amendment, I wish to stress that this amendment does not seek all that the Veterans' Committee requested.
I want to correct some figures which were used by the Senator from Maine. In regard to the committee request the Senator's figures were correct in reflecting the original request from the committee. However, we modified in budget authority and outlay levels in our request after we found that CBO assumptions and estimates created the need for different figures.
Those revised figures, which were contained in an April 29, 1977, letter to each member of the Budget Committee, were $20.8 billion in budget authority and $20.7 billion in outlays. This amendment represents a request for $.5 billion less in both categories. So we have cut $.5 billion in this amendment under what the Veterans' Committee felt was actually required for these purposes.
Moreover, the Veterans Affairs Committee voted down amendments, during its markup of its March 15 report to the Budget Committee, which would have added $1.1 billion more than was recommended.
Let me finally stress, Mr. President, that the key item involved in all of this is pension reform. If this amendment is agreed to, we can start the process of pension reform, which, in fact, was endorsed last year in the report of the Budget Committee and called for by the Congress in enacting last year's pension rate increases, Public Law 94-432. If we fail to pass this amendment, pension reform will have to be put off for another year. The longer we put it off, the more difficult it will become to attain. There will be long range losses of great significance, I think, far beyond the modest cost of this amendment, if we do not get going now on pension reform and investment in the future which will help us move toward balanced budgets.
Mr. MUSKIE. Every time there is a sale in town, a white sale, a post-Christmas sale, my wife, like so many wives, is tempted to go down and add to her Christmas purchases on the argument that buying in the course of those sales would save me money. All of us who have wives have heard that story.
Well, after Christmas, like most husbands, probably, I cannot afford those savings. If I were to provide the money to invest in those kinds of savings I would go broke.
Well, that is sort of our position. This is not the only request for reform that we have been asked to consider in the name of future savings. I would like to be able to accommodate them all. But, Mr. President, we are not in a position to do that. We cannot accommodate them all.
The second point I would make is that all too often I have found, in my brief career with the budget, that those promised future savings do not materialize. They all too seldom materialize. I have seen it with respect to medicare and medicaid. We reported out a budget resolution last year in which we assumed savings from reform in those programs. Well, we got legislation in the name of savings, and the savings never materialized.
So on both counts, Mr. President, I do not quarrel with the validity of the objectives the distinguished Senator from California laid down, and he did it very persuasively, and perhaps even more effectively. At least he had more listeners in the Budget Committee than he has on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. It is not that I quarrel with that, but I have to say no over and over again to worthwhile program initiatives in order to exercise budgetary restraint.
One side of me regrets that I have to say this, but I would urge the Senate to reject this amendment in the name of preserving the targets which have been laid down by the Budget Committee.
I see the distinguished Senator from Virginia (Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR.) in the Chamber. Yesterday he took me severely to task, me and the Senate Budget Committee, for recommending too high a deficit. He pointed out that the budget resolution before us, as amended by the committee amendment, represents an increase in outlays between fiscal 1977 and fiscal 1978 of $50 billion. He is right.
Earlier this afternoon I placed in the RECORD an explanation of that increase. Our outlays rise by $50 billion in this resolution from fiscal 1977 to fiscal 1978.
Anybody looking at that number has to be shocked. The notion that we can afford to add to it, to increase the rate at which spending grows, I find unacceptable.
I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Virginia for having raised that question and he got me to focus on it in a more specific way than I have.
I urge Senators to look at the table I put in the RECORD. They will discover how difficult it is to hold down spending. We are not making it any easier by approving amendments of this kind.
Mr. McCLELLAN. How much time does the Senator have remaining?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time have I remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Arkansas.
Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, I brought some of my mail with me when I left the office awhile ago to come to the Chamber vote. During the course of this debate I have been reading a letter from one of my constituents. I would like to read four paragraphs in the center of the letter. I believe what he says is pertinent to the issue which is before us at this moment:
Although many of the issues facing America today are deserving of our time and attention, there is one that is very basic and underlies several of the problems that I have already enumerated. I am referring to the very grave problem of our Nation's continued deficit spending.
In my opinion, we must reverse this trend, if it is not already too late. By continuing to disregard basic financial commonsense, we are jeopardizing the future of America. If we adopt this philosophy in our personal financial lives, it inevitably results in bankruptcy. We must all be willing to accept the belt tightening measures required for a balanced budget.
Many of us who are younger have never known anything but an affluent society. Unfortunately, this has a tendency to cause our attitudes toward financial matters to be somewhat irresponsible. We accept easy credit and extended term payments as a way of life and, therefore, think little of the implication of deficit spending. Economic ignorance is running rampant in our country today. Therefore, those of you who are in position of responsibility and have a grasp of the issues must put forth your best efforts to change the current direction our country is heading. Even though I am encouraged by President Carter's stated goal of a balanced budget, I believe we must be realistic. In the end, Congress will determine whether or not we have a balanced budget.
Regardless of what President Carter proposes, those of you in Congress must hold the line.
I just point out, Mr. President, somebody is going to have to make some sacrifices. We promised a balanced budget. I have little hope of it being achieved, but it will certainly not be achieved if we continue to increase the deficit.
I just thought the remarks in this letter were appropriate to the issue being discussed.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator yield to me 1 minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield 1 minute to the Senator.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I ask the able Senator from Arkansas, when he replies to that letter, as I am sure he will, if he will present the compliments of the Senator from Virginia to the writer of that letter and tell him that what he or she wrote, which the Senator from Arkansas read on the floor of the Senate, seems to me to represent the type of commonsense that we need in Washington, D.C. I want to present my compliments to that person.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I wish to identify for the record the author of the letter: Mr. C. Alvin Fowler, CPA, special representative of Harding College, Searcy, Ark