April 25, 1979
Page 8625
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before we take up the next amendment to bust the budget, the Chair recognizes the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, does the manager of the bill want to proceed in a different way? I want to submit the amendment and speak briefly on it, but if the Senator wants to proceed differently, that is all right with me.
Mr. MUSKIE. As far as I know, there are two more amendments, one to be offered by the Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) and one by the majority leader. If we can get those out of the way and get to third reading
Mr. PROXMIRE. I want to submit my amendment before third reading.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know, but the Senator is going to withdraw it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I might talk myself into persisting.
Mr. MUSKIE. I know we have that predilection in this body, but I hope the Senator might restrain himself. That is what we are trying to do, because there are a number of colloquys and similar efforts to the one the Senator is going to make. There are many here, and other Senators are pushing me to get this thing done.
Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senator will go ahead and yield to Senator MAGNUSON and Senator BYRD, then I shall follow them.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the floor to the Senator from Washington:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Washington.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 94
(Purpose: To increase budget authority and outlays in the income security function)
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON) proposed an unprinted amendment numbered 94.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 12, line 7, strike "$559,800,000,000", and insert "$560,300,000,000".
On page 12, line, 9, strike "$493,800,000,000", and insert "$494,400,000,000",
On page 12, line 12, strike "$36,800,000,000", and insert "$37,200,000,000".
On page 14, line 3, strike "$193,700,000,000", and insert "$194,200,000,000".
On page 14, line 4, strike "$160,700,000,000", and insert "$161,300,000,000".
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. It would raise the function 600 by $500 million in budget authority and $600 million in outlays for fiscal year 1979.
The amendment does not affect any other fiscal years.
I know we voted on an amendment here just previous to reduce the amount on function 600, which deals with the food stamp program, but that was directed to fiscal 1980, 1981, and 1982.
This money is for this fiscal year — and it would be my intention that these funds be used for the food stamp program in an expected supplemental appropriation.
This amendment is necessary because of new reestimates in the food stamp program's needs for 1979.
Mr. President, let me emphasize that my amendment does not deal with an item that the Budget Committee rejected. The fact is that this issue never came before the Budget Committee because at the time of markup the administration had not yet provided us with its new estimates for the food stamp program.
I am confident that if the Budget Committee had known of this technical estimating problem, it would have provided the funds without complaint.
But it did not know of the problem. Now — just this week — the administration determined that the food stamp program faces a funding crisis.
Unless we do something, the crisis will hit this summer.
The situation is grave. Unless additional fiscal year 1979 funding is approved, food stamp benefits could be cut by as much as one-third for all participants in July, August, and September; or, each participant could have his allotment cut by one-half in August and September; or, he could receive no benefits at all in September.
As I said, the situation is grave. Let me remind Senators of who the program beneficiaries are, who will suffer if the necessary additional funding is not provided.
The majority of food stamp recipients are the elderly, disabled, and children in one-parent families.
More than half of all households in the program have gross incomes of less than $3,600 a year.
The average family receives an average food stamp benefit of only 30 to 35 cent per meal.
Data from the best current sources show that 60 percent of food stamp households have no liquid assets and 95 percent have liquid assets of less than $1,500.
If the amendment is not approved, cuts will come hard on the heels of cuts already experienced as a result of implementation of the major features of the Food Stamp Act of 1977. In Oregon, 65 percent of the households using food stamps had their benefits reduced an average of $10, and 7 percent were terminated from the program. In Florida, 55 percent of the caseload had benefits reduced or terminated. In New Hampshire, the figure was 80 percent; in Maine it was75 percent.
If the amendment fails, the cuts from July, August and September will be at least 12 times as deep as the March 1 cuts implementing the 1977 Food Stamp Act.
In summary, let me say only that this increased funding represents the lowest estimate of the additional funding necessary to avoid a crisis this summer.
Because there is some margin of uncertainty regarding the exact funding needs, the administration indicated it would prefer a supplemental of $700 million. I told them, however, that neither I nor the Senate was in any mood to provide any funding increased above the absolute, bare-bones minimum. On that basis, they decided reluctantly that they would accept $500 million.
So, we have trimmed as much as we can. I urge my colleagues to give their approval to this amendment.
WHAT WENT WRONG TO BRING THIS PROBLEM ABOUT?
First, all the estimates made for the food stamp costs assumed only a 3 percent. annual inflation rate for food costs when the new authorizing legislation was enacted in 1977.
All of us who have been grocery shopping lately wish that had proved to be true.
The actual inflation rate in food costs has been more like 10 percent per year.
Even the inflation rate in food costs assumed as recently as January — when the President's budget was received — have turned out to be too low.
A second factor is that under the new law, many more poor families are now entering the program.
These are families who could not afford to buy food stamps in the past.
Now that the most needy no Ionger must pay to buy food stamps, more of the truly needy are participating.
Both the Department of Agriculture and the Congressional Budget Office had estimated that new people would enter the program, but they did not predict that those new families would enter the program as quickly as they have.
Another significant factor has been the growth rate of new families entering the food stamp program in rural areas.
So it is an emergency. I have discussed this with the chairman of the committee and other members of the committee, the ranking minority member, and I hope the committee will accept this.
I want it clear, it does not affect the present budget, nor the 1981 or 1982. It merely adds the ceiling to the present budget restrictions, which is 1979. I was not quite convinced with the administration appraisal, but, after going into it in some detail, I am convinced.
The mistake was made downtown. When they estimated the food stamp recipients, they did not estimate the greater number coming in after we took the caps off. But, over and beyond that, for the inflation estimation, they estimated that food costs would go up only 3 percent.
Well, everyone knows food costs have gone up 12 percent, 14 percent, and 15 percent, and this is the big item in the food stamp program, the cost of food.
I do not think this Congress wants to have a food stamp program cut altogether. We cut it in the 1980 budget and we are going to cut it, I guess, a little bit in the 1981 and 1982.
But this is of an emergency nature.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Washington has, to the best of my information, stated the facts that he has developed with respect to his amendment.
The fact is that this problem did not surface at the time of the Budget Committee markup. It deals with the 1979 fiscal year alone. It does not impact on 1980, 1981 or 1982.
The underestimate of the needs of the program for 1979 are attributable, first, to the sharp rise in food costs, from 3 to 4 percent, which was used as a basis of the estimate, erroneously, in my judgment, to 20 percent, and in part to the additional caseload generated by it.
Mr. MAGNUSON. If the Senator will yield, and we expect and have the promise they will send up a supplemental for the exact amount they think they need, and then we will have a little leeway in the Appropriations Committee to give the exact amount.
But their best estimate now involves the $500 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. This morning the Senate with respect to fiscal year 1980 held the food stamp program at the level recommended by the Budget Committee to protect the current level of benefits of 33 cents per meal, on the average.
Now, without this appropriation in 1979, this summer benefits could be reduced by as much as one-third, or even one-half, and that could hit us in July.
I suspect that the reaction to that kind of administrative action would really precipitate a very difficult time for a lot of people who would not be in a position to protect themselves.
So I think in that sense it is an unanticipated, unexpected emergency that the Budget Committee was not asked to consider, that we did not consider, that we did not act upon in one. way or another.
In that light, it seems to me that we ought to respond to the situation presented by the Senator from Washington. who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and give the Appropriations Committee the necessary room to do what the facts justify when the Appropriations Committee considers the problem in connection with the supplemental.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I yield first?
Mr. BELLMON. I thank my friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, what seems to have happened here is this: When the new food stamp bill became law, it included provisions both to make the program more liberal and to tighten it down and make certain higher income people ineligible. The administration apparently has gone ahead at a rapid rate and opened up the program to let new people in and to increase benefits by the elimination of the purchase requirement, but they have not moved at the same time to put into action those provisions which would have tightened down the program as the law requires and in this way reduce the cost.
The statement that this amendment does not affect 1980 or 1981, in my opinion, is not entirely accurate; because if Congress comes along now and bails out what I consider to be a blunder by the administration by providing all the money they think they need, then this is certainly going to discourage them from implementing the provisions that will tighten down the program for future years.
In my judgment, if we take this action, it will increase the cost of the program in 1980 and probably in future years. I think we need to send a message to the administration that when Congress passed the law, we intended that they follow the law, not just the provisions that liberalized it. They have been very slow to implement the tightening down provisions; and if we give them all the money they want, there will be no incentive to tighten it down in the future. I believe there is time, in the remainder of this fiscal year, if they will apply themselves to that purpose, to tighten the administration down the way the law requires.
I am not in favor of bailing out what I consider to be this bureaucratic failure to follow the law, and I do not believe the Senate should give them all the money they want.
When it is appropriate, I am going to move to reduce Senator MAGNUSON's amendment by $200 million in BA and $200 million in outlay. I think they need some help, but I do not think they should get it all.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I ask this of the Senator from Maine: I have this in formation in my office. but I do not have it at my desk. This program started in 1965 at $34 million. It is now up to $6.8 billion, according to my recollection. Can the Senator confirm the accuracy or inaccuracy of that figure?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I think it is $6.1 billion.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. While the figures are being obtained, I point out that this program has skyrocketed perhaps more than any other program that Congress has passed.
Mr. MUSKIE. The food stamp program was mandated on a nationwide basis for the first time in 1974. Prior to that time, it was on a pilot basis. Then it was provided in combination with the commodity program which was phased out in 1974. So, to make comparisons, I think you would have to add these other programs.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I do not agree with the Senator at all.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator asks me a question. If the Senator would prefer to answer the question himself, that is fine.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator give me one figure? What is the figure in the budget for the food stamp program for the current year?
Mr. MUSKIE. For which year?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. For fiscal 1979.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It is $6.1 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. $6.3 billion at the present time.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. For 1979?
Mr. MUSKIE. As of now, it is $6.3 billion. This amendment would take it to $6.9 billion.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. We are speaking of 1979?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It is $6.3 billion, and the Senator from Washington wants to add $500 million to that, to bring it to $6.8 billion. Is that correct? That is the figure I gave a moment ago — $6.8 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let us make sure what we are talking about. I was talking about outlays. The outlay figure would be $6.9 billion.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. It would be $6.9 billion in outlays for fiscal 1979?
Mr. MUSKIE. BA would be $6.6 billion.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. What would it be for fiscal 1980?
Mr. MUSKIE. It would be $7.2 billion. The CBO estimate for 1980 would be $7.55 billion. The Budget Committee has mandated $350 in savings through efficiencyand management, and the program is at $7.2 billion in the 1980 budget.
We had an extensive debate on this all morning today. The reasons why the program has risen—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought the Chair had heard enough about this in the Budget Committee, and I thought I was saving the Chair. I apologize to my colleagues.
The principal reasons why are two-fold: One, the cost of food has risen from the 3- to 4-percent inflation estimated at the time of the 1977 changes in the law to 20 percent. You do not have to ask the Budget Committee or anybody else what has happened to the cost of food. My wife reminds me every week. Increases in the cost of food affect recipients of food stamps as much as they do U.S. Senators.That is the principal reason for the increase.
Second, in the 1977 revision, we eliminated the purchase requirement for two reasons: One, the purchase requirement was resulting in a lot of fraud among vendors. That was one reason why the committee recommended eliminating the purchase requirement. Two, the purchase requirement was deterring many people at the income levels which the program was intended to help from applying for it. The average income of more than half the recipients is $3,600 or less.
The people who have come into the program as a result of the 1977 law are coming in at that income level. In other words, many people who the law says are trying to get by on an income that is insufficient, who are being kept out of the program, are coming in.
So the elimination of the purchase requirement was designed to achieve those two objectives.
In addition, the 1977 law undertook to apply some restrictions to the program; and those restrictions, so far as my State was concerned, had impacted adversely on 75 percent of the recipients ofthe program — in other words, reduced their benefits.
Finally, I say to the Senator that the average meal for recipients in this program is 33 cents. What we are talking about with the Magnuson amendment is dealing with a problem which conceivably could reduce what is available for a meal to 22 cents.
As someone pointed out today, we have a restaurant downstairs that is subsidized, and I suspect that it is subsidized by more than 22 cents per meal.
This is where we are with this amendment. The situation, as Senator MAGNUSON has pointed out, is real. Senators can decide either to take this action, which will protect the 33-cent meal and avoid the 22-cent meal, and cover these recipients for the hot summer months of July, Au-gust, and September, or not. That is the clear issue.
The other facts we discussed pretty thoroughly this morning, and the numbers are as I have described them just now and this morning.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, this program has gotten totally out of line. The increase in the program has been tremendous. I am surprised that it would be advocated on the floor of the Senate tonight, after the votes that have been taken today on this budget resolution, to increase by $500 million the funds for the food stamp program, which now exceed substantially $6 billion. I think it is totally unjustified.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a table showing the tremendous increases in the food stamp program over a period of years.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, before we vote on this amendment, I call the attention of the Senate again to the testimony given this morning by Elmer Staats, the Comptroller General, before the Subcommittee on Agriculture of the Appropriations Committee.
On page 3 of his testimony Comptroller General Staats has this to say. He is referring to the food program benefit gaps and overlaps. He says:
In June 1978 we reported on overall benefit gaps and overlaps and administrative inconsistencies in 13 major domestic food assistance programs. By participating in several such programs simultaneously, which is specifically sanctioned by the programs' authorizing legislation, households can receive more in food benefits than the average amounts American families of comparable size spend for food, and more than is needed to purchase a thrifty food plan diet. We estimated that if food stamp allotments alone were tailored to meet the differing nutritional needs of household members of different ages and sex, over a half billiondollars might be saved each year.
Administrative inconsistencies among the 13 programs include different eligibility criteria relating to income and asset limits and exclusions from income, different requirements for verifying income, and different accounting periods for measuring income.
This is Elmer Staats, our hired hand, the man who runs the GAO. He is telling us this food stamp program alone is so badly administered it is wasting a half-billion dollars.
To me it is unrealistic to come in here at the 11th hour — we had no warning of this earlier in the budget markup — and ask for a half-billion dollars to bail out a program that our own Comptroller General is saying is wasting that much money every year. It just does not make any sense.
I am not against the food stamps, but I am against this idea of administrators of these programs being so lax and so careless that they run out of money and then they come running up here and ask us to bail them out.
I cannot support this amendment.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. BELLMON. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I point out that if you want to talk about the pros and cons of the food stamp program that is a legislative matter. This is merely an amendment to take care of this year which the GAO agrees that if fiscal relief is not forthcoming the cuts were made and the cuts must be made on a uniform basis, and it just means that the food stamp program will stop.
If you are going to stop the food stamp program that is one thing. But if you are going to provide it for 1979 that is another thing. Of course, this was not taken up by the Budget Committee. That is exactly why we are here with the amendment, because I am sure the Budget Committee would have voted some relief, because of the fact of the two things that the Senator from Maine pointed out, the fact that they underestimated by only 3 percent inflation costs and that more people came in legitimately under the law.
Now if the Senator from Oklahoma wants to change the law that is one thing.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Either we are going to provide for it as prescribed by law or we are not going to.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.
Mr. BELLMON. As I said earlier, the law does provide for the elimination of the purchase requirement and the administration has put that part into effect, but it also tightens down eligibility and the administration has not put that part of the law into effect.
Mr. MAGNUSON. All right.
Mr. BELLMON. So what they come here asking us for is money to let them go on with the same lax administration that has already been followed for the first half of this fiscal year. If we do this, they will never tighten the program.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I have no evidence of any lax administration or waste in any program such as this.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, will someone yield me a few minutes time, 3 or 4 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 45 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I think the point Senators must keep in mind is the one that the Senator from Washington made, that he is not increasing anyone's benefits with the proposal that he is making here tonight. We are not changing the guidelines one iota on the food stamp program. We are not liberalizing anything. No one is going to get any more under the terms of the Senator's proposal here tonight than they were promised under the 1977 Food Stamp Reform Act.
What the Senator is trying to do is to offset the misjudgment that was made not only by the administration but by the committees of Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, and everyone else, as to what food was going to cost, and in order to get the amount of food that we committed ourselves to under the 1977 act it is imperative that we approve the figure that the Senator from Washington has proposed.
But this is no expansion of the program in terms of benefits. It is designed to prevent the poorest people in this country from suffering approximately a one-third reduction in their present food benefits for the summer and fall months. So the Senator from Washington is absolutely right. This is really a management decision that is necessary to make.
I do not think it is mismanagement on the part of the administration. It is the fact that because we did not have the foresight either here in Congress or in the executive branch to properly forecast what the inflation level would be. So I am hopeful that we will keep the commitment that we wrote in the law in 1977 in the Food Stamp Act and approve the proposal of the Senator from Washington.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall just take a couple of minutes.
Mr. President, I know the Senator from Oklahoma does not want to shut down this program and I know that he believes that by enforcing some of the restrictions imposed on the program in 1977 money can be saved.
But I doubt that the savings can be realized in time to deal with this problem that is going to hit in July.
I wish that we could somehow conduct a hearing here and get the facts as to those possibilities. We cannot.
The Appropriations Committee can, and I hope the Appropriations Committee will explore that and if savings can be achieved administratively to absorb part of this increase it should be done.
But we cannot make that judgment with precision tonight. I just dislike to contemplate the impact of the kinds of reductions that are possible this summer if we do not take the action that the Senator from Washington is asking for here tonight.
With respect to the comments of the Senator from Virginia as to whether or not this is justified, the answer to that question depends upon whether you think there is a problem affecting people who will go hungry if we do not act or there is not, or whether the Government has any responsibility for them.
I surely have indicated my willingness to impose budgetary restrictions that are unpopular here today, yesterday, and the day before. But that does not mean that I must be blind to every real problem or emergency that arises.
I wish we had more facts. I wish we could be certain how much we could save by administering the program as tightly as possible. But we cannot make that determination tonight with enough precision to satisfy me at least, and I am sure that the Senator from Washington will undertake to make that kind of a finding, and I am willing to rest some confidence in him and his committee.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I merely wanted to repeat that the Appropriations Committee will take a look at this. The supplemental will be up here within 30 days, I think, and we will take a look at it. If it only amounts to $300 million, fine. But we need a little leeway until we can get all the facts.
But the fact is that unless there is some money put in here, and they estimate $500 million is the figure, why in July, August, and September one-third of the people getting food stamps are not going to get them and the amount per meal is going to go down from 33 cents a meal to 20 cents even of those who get them. Even for those who get them, and these are elderly people, too.
You can talk all you want to, the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Oklahoma, about the abuses in the food stamp program. We are not here to determine that. There is waste in all these programs, I suppose. But this is the law and this is what the people expected, and this is what we should do. It does not affect the 1980, 1981, and 1982 budget. The projections for the 1980 budget are much higher and for 1981 they are higher, above the $6 billion. I thought it was $6.1 billion, but it is $7.2 billion.
In the meantime, if you do not like the food stamp program go to the proper committees and have it cut out. You cannot legislate here tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield 2 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. I yield time to anybody who wants it and who is willing to stay here long enough to consume it. I yield 2 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will just take 1 minute. I am not going to argue the merits, but I just want to make the point that Senator MUSKIE and Senator BELLMON, who have labored hard here for 3 days, in many instances you have made this body and many of us who support this budget process vote with the Budget Committee to save $100 million, and just a little while ago on a most controversial issue many of us supported the Budget Committee to save $300 million.
Now, Senator BELLMON said at the 11th hour, and he was almost literally right, it was 11:15, we are being asked to approve $500 million, and we are just being told that somebody made a mistake.
Well, let me tell you I am not going to vote for it. I am going to vote for anyone who will support getting more information about this.
If you want to reduce this budget process to a mockery where people who will stand up here and support a Budget Committee for $100 million worth of savings and then tell us to support a request for $500 million because there is some kind of mistake, some failure to account, then this process is not going to work very long.
I do not believe we can go out there to our people and say, "Well, it isn't going to have any effect on 1980 and it isn't going to have any effect on 1981."
You are probably right, but $500 million is $500 million, whether it is in 1980,1981, 1983, or 1979, and I do not think we ought to be voting for it at the last minute, based upon somebody saying the administration acknowledges that they made a mistake.
I am just as willing to believe Senator BELLMON, who says they made another mistake. They did not make any savings when they should have, and that is just as credible as a $500 million plus mistake. I do not think we ought to approve it, certainly not the full amount if we find
some way to cut it. We ought to give some credibility — those people who have faith in this process ought to be given a little justification here tonight, and not to just vote and have $500 million spent at the last minute.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. My good friend, I do not think I deserve that abuse.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was not directing it at you.
Mr. MUSKIE. But you were looking directly at me.
Mr. DOMENICI. I was looking at whoever proposed it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am asked as the Budget Committee chairman to consider increases, decreases, to present my judgment to this body, to present my judgment here. Now the Senator is telling me that I cannot do that without his approval, and that if I undertake to present a problem, and emergencies are not predictable — we did not have this before the Budget Committee—
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. So I was supposed to anticipate it and present it before 11 o'clock tonight? I mean suppose an earthquake hit the Senator's State last night, and you know we are asked to consider increased disaster relief.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, did you yield to me? Could I finish and then I am not going to argue?
Mr. MUSKIE. I thought you had finished.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, who controls the time if the Senator from Maine supports this amendment? Parliamentary inquiry. `
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator from Maine—
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, you do not need to answer the question. I will sit down and say nothing more on the subject, and nobody can get time from whatever source they can get it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would Senator BELLMON yield me time?
Mr. BELLMON. How much time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Half a minute.
Mr. BELLMON. Let us be generous, 2 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I want to say to the Senator from Maine I truly did not direct those remarks at you. You are entitled to support the $500 million. I am merely making a point for many people who are supporting this process that it is pretty difficult at this hour, after having voted some hard votes to save $100 million here and $100 million there, to vote for $500 million.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me, since I have no time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I would be glad to yield to you.
Mr. MUSKIE. I cast those hard votes, too.
Mr. DOMENICI. You did more than I.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Is the Senator from New Mexico directing his remarks to the Senator from Washington? [Laughter.]
Mr. DOMENICI. I guess I would say who else?
Mr. MAGNUSON. It is not my fault that this amendment is coming up at this hour. I have been wanting to go home since 7 o'clock. [Laughter.]
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think it is anybody's fault. I think it must have come down from the sky, I will say to my good friend.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, let me make one brief comment and then I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Indiana.
Characterizing this request for $503 million as an emergency I think sort of misses the point.
There is no emergency. There are still 5 months to go in this fiscal year, over 5 months. If the Department gets a signal from Congress to tighten this program down they have all this time to do it. It is a program that is running at a rate of almost $7 billion a year, and tightening down to save $500 million is not that serious. It would not require that serious an effort. It would not mean a lot of people doing without food stamps. It would mean they would begin to enforce the full law, not the easy part of the law. That is what we are trying to do tonight.
I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, earlier today I suggested an amendment that would have retained the cap, which is presently the law. It is $6.88 billion for fiscal 1978 for food stamps.
This is not a new question. It may be a new question before the total body this evening, but the Committee on Agriculture discussed this at some length at the time the request for $6.9 billion for fiscal 1980 was suggested, and by a vote of 9 to 8 within the Committee on Agriculture a $6.9 billion request went to the Budget Committee. That has subsequently been increased to $7.2 billion and was confirmed by a vote of roughly 61 to 30 about 12 hours ago.
Now the request at this hour for $500 million additional is, in my judgment, totally unwarranted. The point, in fact, is that the cap exists. The cap, in my judgment, ought to stay. We have made a compact of trust with the American public at the time we went into the new reform in food stamps and liberalized the program.
Unless the cap exists the USDA has no incentive whatever to effect the reforms the Senator from Oklahoma has talked about and, in fact, the reforms are there, the money is there to be saved, and the money must be saved.
At this hour of the night to suddenly suggest an additional amount of $500 million is, in my judgment, outrageous. I am just hopeful that Members, despite their fatigue with the subject, will appreciate that the Committee on Agriculture has plenty of time to reform the program prior to an emergency that may come down the pike, and despite allthe alarms thrown up by the administration which has maladministered a program, if one has ever been maladministered. I ask for the rejection of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I never knew that amendments became outrageous because you presented them at any time the Senate was in session.
Your amendment was presented this afternoon. That was not outrageous, and neither is this. We are in session, are we not? We have a right to present amendments. I do not understand the statement.
Mr. LUGAR. I would respond that $500 million without study and without really—
Mr. MAGNUSON. Now wait a minute,as to the study, I said we are going to send up a supplemental appropriation.
The Appropriations Committee is going to look at it and see how much is actually needed. They suggested that they need six. I cut it to five. I would beglad to join with the Senator from Oklahoma and make it four, and then we will see exactly what we need to appropriate, and if it is three or two, all right, but I am not going to have the food stamp program cut off abruptly because someone does not like the legislative merits of the food stamp program.
We have got nothing to do with it. You ought to go to the proper committee.You lost in the committee, did you not?
Mr. LUGAR. Not on this issue. They voted nine to eight for 1980.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Then we could go ahead with a different perspective, and we would not need to appropriate so much money. But the law is there; you cannot change it. We just want some working room to find out exactly. Within 60 days the supplementals will come up, and this will be one of them. I think we can work with $300 or $400 million,and I will guarantee you that I will cut it; I will recommend that it be cut.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. MAGNUSON. If it is more, I will try to find that money and appropriate it.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask that it be reported.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I ask unanimous consent to change the figures.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would remind the Senator from Oklahoma that a second degree amendment is not in order until all time has been used or yielded back on the first degree amendment.
The Chair would inform the Senator from Washington—
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. If the Senator from Washington would permit me a comment, I might not object.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I am permitted to modify my own amendment in the first degree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator from Washington that since the yeas and nays have been ordered, it will require unanimous consent for him to modify it.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, is there any time available to discuss $500 million?
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I am glad to yield the Senator such time as he may desire. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, first I commend the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his statement here this evening. I commend the distinguished Senator from Indiana (Mr. LUGAR) for his statement this evening; and I commend the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma for bringing out the facts of the GAO report.
As one who has been on this floor, just as all of us have, for 2 days or 3 days on this budget resolution, and as one who has supported the budget resolution right down the line, I find it very discouraging that here we are confronted with an increase of $500 million in fiscal 1977 for a program
Mr. MUSKIE. 1979.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. In fiscal 1979, for a program which is now $6,300 million. The Senator from Washington would add $500 million more to that.
Mr. President, if we are ever going to get the finances of this Government in some sort of shape, we are not going to do it by adopting such amendments as that offered by the Senator from Washington tonight to increase this program by $500 million for fiscal year 1979. Whether or not that will make an impact in 1980 and 1981, I do not know; my guess is that it will. My guess is that the Budget Committee will come in next year and tell us that it does. But that is just a guess, and I cannot prove it, obviously.
But I would hope that the Senate would not, tonight, retrace all the steps it has taken today and yesterday in supporting the Budget Committee, and in one fell swoop, by one vote, appropriate in tax funds $500 million.
The Senator from South Dakota says no one is going to get any extra benefit from it. Well, the taxpayers are going to pay for it. The taxpayers are going to pay $500 million extra for it, whether anyone else gets benefit or does not get benefit. The money will go somewhere, and I think it will be a great mistake to increase this program under the conditions that exist today.
There is no emergency. This Congress is going to be in session a long time. I urge the Senate to vote down this amendment, or any modified version of it, because I do not believe that this is the way that the Senate should operate, if it really is serious about getting its budgetary affairs in order.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Now, Mr. President,I amend the proposal I made, the figures of which are in five categories, to a total of $400 million.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It there objection to the modification?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment, and I present a new one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will require unanimous consent also. Is there objection?
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection—
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Who yields time?
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I am happy to yield the Senator from Maine such time as he may require.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, all we are doing is killing more time. If we have an up or down vote on Senator MAGNUSON's amendment, and he loses, he can offer the amendment that he wishes to offer now, and it will save a roll call vote and save time. He can do it either way, of course. The way the budget resolution operates, numbers can be changed at anytime. By blocking his change now, we are just delaying the resolution of the real issue, which he and Senator BELLMON are in agreement upon, and I do not know why you want to waste time.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Surely.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. What will your amendment do?
Mr. BELLMON. It reduces the outlays $200 million below the first amendment.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It will be at 400.
Mr. BELLMON. It would increase by $400 million over the budget.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It would increase by $400 million over the budget, instead of $500 million.
Mr. HARRY P. BYRD, JR. I have no objection to that, provided I get a yea or nay vote on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, so we will understand, the original Magnuson amendment would
have increased budget authority by $500 million and outlays by $600 million. The revised amendment would increase both by $400 million.
Mr. MAGNUSON. That is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so modified. The Senator will send his modification to the desk.
Mr. BELLMON. It is at the desk.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Now, Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have already been ordered.
Mr. HARRY F. BYRD, JR. Not on the new amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BELLMON. I yield to the Senator from Kansas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on the amendment as modified.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me just 2 minutes?
Mr. BELLMON. I yield.
Mr. DOLE. I think we have had a lot of talk about the food stamp program, but not about the reforms that have tightened up the program. My view is that I hope we can spend less than $400 million, but let us not prejudice the poor people because of faults at the Department of Agriculture.
What will happen if the cap is not lifted for fiscal year 1979?
The situation is grave. Unless additional fiscal year 1979 funding is approved, food stamp benefits will be cut by as much as one third for all participants in July, August, and September; or, each participant would have his allotment cut by one half in August and September; or would receive no benefits at all in September.
It is too late for administrative or legislative action to create program savings to offset the existing deficit. The Agriculture Department's General Counsel and GAO agree that if fiscal relief is not forthcoming, cuts must be made on a uniform pro rata basis to all households. To do otherwise would be illegal.
Additionally: The majority of food stamp recipients are the elderly, disabled, and children in one-parent families;
More than half of all households in the program have gross incomes of less than $3,600 a year;
The average family receives an average food stamp benefit f only 30 to 35 cents per meal; and
Data from the best current sources show that 60 percent of food stamp households have no liquid assets and 95 percent have liquid assets of less than $1,500.
If the amendment is not approved cuts will come hard on the heels of cuts already experienced as a result of implementation of the major features of the Food Stamp Act of 1977: In Oregon, 65 percent of the households using food stamps had their benefits reduced an average of $10, and 7 percent were terminated from the program. Eighty-nine and seven-tenths percent of the elderly and disabled in Oregon lost benefits. In Florida, 55 percent of the caseload had benefits reduced or terminated. In New Hampshire, the figure was 80 percent; in Maine it was 75 percent. The reforms were on the cutting side.
If the amendment fails the cuts during July, August and September will be at least 12 times as deep — on a monthly bases — as the March 1 cuts implementing the 1977 Food Stamp Act.
So there are reforms on the other side. They are not all on the liberal side putting more people into the program. And it is not any fault of the food stamp recipient that the USDA did not implement these reforms until March 1. Once they are implemented it is going to create the emergency that the distinguished Senator from Washington mentioned. I think it is a good compromise.
SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote!