April 25, 1979
Page 8584
Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Chair.
I do not believe that domestic programs for our elderly citizens — programs with a proven record — should be abandoned in a frenzy to balance the budget.
I believe that we must retain the programs that serve those who can no longer defend themselves — our senior citizens, the poor, the sick. It is time to face up to our commitments to the less fortunate. And it is time to stop — to stop and take stock of what the proposition 13 passion means in practice.
In this instance, expressions like "belt tightening," "fiscal restraint" and "no more deficit" mean that tens of thousands of older Americans will be denied their basic nutritional needs.
Today, millions of older Americans face a choice between buying the food they need to survive and paying their heating and utility bills.
Today, the poor in this country — and the poor too often means the elderly — must pay up to 35 percent of their income for food.
We cannot afford to let the weakest members of this society shoulder the burden for the rest of us.
But that is exactly what will happen if this amendment is not successful. Those least able to fight will be the first casualties in the battle against inflation. And to what end?
Mr. President, I support an austere budget.
I support restraint in Federal spending.
But I cannot support cuts like this one — cuts that remove muscle, not fat from Federal programs.
We fought hard to enact programs that embody this Nation's compassion, concern, and commitment to its senior citizens. We cannot now go back upon our promise.
I urge adoption of the amendment. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I will say at the outset, Mr. President, that I agree with everything the distinguished Senator from Ohio has said.
The second point I would make is that there was no discussion of this program specifically in the Budget Committee.
The third point I would make is that there was no proposal and no discussion on any proposal to cut this program in committee.
This program is part of Mission 6, as we break down the functions of the budget, and we did not specifically address this one. Surely, this one is one that is deserving of the kind of consideration that the Senator from Ohio is proposing.
Mr. President, we are not a line item committee. We did not deal with this as a line item. We did not deal with it at all, specifically.
I repeat, the Budget Committee does not assume reduced funding for elderly feeding and other service programs. It assumes funding at current law levels. In this budget resolution many programs have been reduced below current law. These programs have not.
The Budget Committee recommendation to the Senate represents a series of careful, sometimes painful, compromises producing a balanced budget in fiscal year 1981, and we ought not to be undoing those compromises $100 million at a time when problems such as this one raised by the amendment of the Senator from Ohio can be handled within the amounts provided by the Budget Committee.
I repeat that the Budget Committee is not a line item committee. The Budget Committee's assumption that these programs will be funded at current law levels is not binding on the Appropriations Committee when it makes individual funding decisions on these programs. Out of the more than $300 billion that would be allocated to the Appropriations Committee under this budget resolution, it seems likely to me — indeed, I think it seems certain to me — that additional funds for programs serving the elderly could be found if that committee saw fit to do so.
Services to the elderly are also provided through State and local governments. These governments can decide where funding increases are necessary, and they should be looked to for any such increases they deem necessary.
Let me say this finally about this program of nutrition for the elderly. It is a program that all of us have seen in action. It is a program which none of us could conceivably, I do not believe, do anything but support to the fullest. I have never seen a better program for the elderly, in my judgment. Its merit is reflected in its growth. The nutrition program for the elderly, beginning in fiscal 1974, grew to $125 million in fiscal year 1976, and has since grown to the present level of $250 million, an increase of 100 percent.
All aging programs have experienced similar growth in recent years from a level of $261 million in 1976 to $500 million currently, an increase of 92 percent. And over the same period, Mr. President, inflation has taken 25 percent.
So the Budget Committee has supported these programs over these years, more than supported them, and supported them not only above the rate of inflation but has supported them to the degree that they have grown as I have suggested.
There is ample room in this function as approved by the Budget Committee for the Appropriations Committee to take the decision urged by the Senator from Ohio on the floor today.
I oppose his amendment not because I oppose what he wants to do, but because, Mr. President, if you lift the kinds of ceilings we are talking about in this budget resolution you make room not necessarily for that which could be provided for anyway, but make room for additional spending which may not be justified.
One of the purposes of these ceilings is to keep the pressure on, to squeeze out those programs that do not merit the kind of support that this one does in a time of economic stringency.
So I support the Senator's objective.
I will make one other point. The House is $600 million higher than we are in this mission. So there is ample room in conference to do what the Senator proposes.
Mr. President, I would urge that we not depart from the basic philosophy of the budget resolution, which is to set ceilings. We do not line itemize. We did not, by any explicit action taken by the Budget Committee, vote to do anything about this program by way of reduction.
That is not our intention, we have never stated it, it is not assumed. There is enough money in the mission, let alone the function, to achieve what the Senator from Ohio desires.
For that reason, Mr. President, I cannot support the amendment of the Senator.
I yield at this time to my good friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank my friend.
Mr. President, the Budget Committee's recommendation, as has just been said, does not reduce funds for elderly feeding programs. I hope that point is repeated often enough so that every Member will clearly understand it.
We assume funding these programs at current levels.
The committee recommendation also assumes a permanent increase, and I underscore that, of $200 million for block grants to States for social services programs under title XX of the Social Security Act. Out of this additional $200 million for title XX funds, each State must provide — and I want to underline that — at least three social services to the elderly. These funds can be spent on elderly feeding programs if the States believe these programs are the greatest area of need.
So there is already room in the budget for a substantial increase in feeding programs for the elderly, depending upon the decisions that States and Governors may make.
The National Governors' Association has repeatedly said that they prefer block grants, because they consider funds that come down with fewer strings on them are available for the highest priority uses and they can use these funds in a much more efficient way. The Governors have even gone so far as to offer to accept reductions in categorical programs if we will allow them to be exchanged for more block grant funds. But as we described above the committee is not recommending cuts in the categorical programs, but is recommending increases in the block grants. So we are giving the Governors the best of both worlds.
Thus, there are extra funds for this program if the Governors believe the priority for this program is higher than for other needs.
The nutrition program for the elderly has had enormous growth during its relatively short life. From its beginning in 1974 the program grew to $125 millionin fiscal year 1976, and has since grown to a present level of $250 million. This is an increase of 100 percent since 1976.
All aging service programs have also had explosive growth in recent years, from a level of $261 million in fiscal year1976 to $500 million currently, an increase of 92 percent.
The Metzenbaum amendment would nearly triple the President's requested increases for these programs. The President has asked for a $38 million increase; Senator METZENBAUM's amendment would provide a $100 million increase. As our chairman has already pointed out, the House Budget Committee recommendation for social services is $600 million higher than the Senate committee level, and it is certain that this issue will be negotiated and probably compromised in conference.
Our recommendation to the Senate, which is a resolution which results in a balanced budget in fiscal year 1981, represents a series of very carefully agreed-to compromises. If Senator METZENBAUM can come along and add a $100 million increase for a program he feels is meritorious, then 100 other Senators can each find some worthy purpose and add their own $100 million. We can then easily undo the compromises that have made it possible for us to have a balanced budget by 1981.
In addition, Mr. President, Senator METZENBAUM has stated that his amendment will increase funding for these programs to keep pace with inflation. The fact is that the Metzenbaum amendment represents a 20-percent increase for these programs. Even though inflation is a problem, and we all recognize it and we all deplore it, it is not anything close to 20 percent and there is clearly no need for an adjustment of this kind on the basis of taking inflation into account.
It is for these reasons that I oppose efforts to amend this resolution as the Metzenbaum amendment would do. I agree that these goals are appealing. There are many other appealing goals that we have had to overlook and put aside. While we agree readily that elderly feeding programs have been well run, that they are very important for those they touch, we believe their legitimate needs can be met within the spending targets of the resolution as reported, particularly since it provides, as I have already said, a $200 million increase for block grants.
And the rules for spending these block grants include the requirement that elderly needs be considered and, clearly, elderly feeding needs should be and can be met with these additional funds.
Mr. President, I believe sincerely that we have taken care of the problem that Senator METZENBAUM has described and there is no justifiable reason for adding the $100 million that his amendment would add to the budget.
Mr. STENNIS. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. BELLMON. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Rex Buffington be granted the privilege of the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, let me address myself on the subject to the comments by the distinguished chairman.
I do appreciate very much his indication of support for the concept. I understand full well the point that he makes with respect to the question of whether it is or is not a line item.
I have to say to the Senate that, quite often, it seems to me that we are in a Catch 22 situation on a matter of this kind. If an amendment is to cut or increase an area, then the question is, What assumptions are being made in proposing the amendment?
We find that here is $100 million that has been taken out of this mission, and there is reason to be concerned that that $100 million will be coming out of these very programs to feed the seniors to which this amendment is directed. Let me say what this amendment intends to do. It does not provide for a 20-percent increase, as suggested by my good friend from Oklahoma but, rather, provides forabout a 12-percent increase for the 2 years that are involved and then provides for about $23 million for the meals on wheels program for which funding is needed.
I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me make the reverse point. Adding $100 million to the ceiling does not assure that that $100 million will go to this program.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I could not agree more.
Mr. MUSKIE. In other words, all we are doing with the Senator's amendment is adding $10 million for spending that may or may not go to this program. So the difference between the Senator and myself is this: I think the priority of this program is so high that it will get priority attention in the Appropriations Committee, it will get priority attention in the conference with the House. The House has more in this function than we do, as it usually does in this function. I should be amazed if that priority were not reflected in the final result for this program.
If every Senator were to adopt the approach that this amendment does, that in order to guarantee — which it cannot — that a pet program or a good program, a sound program, may not be cut short, he ought to be sure to add enough money to take care of it, the result Senator BELLMON has described would surely follow.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I understand the point that the Senator from Maine makes and I know there can be no specific assurance with respect to any amendment to the budget, either up or down. It cannot make the program or break the program, the final responsibility resting with the authorizing committee and the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me make another point. I am as strongly for this program as the Senator is and I am going to fight for this program in every forum in which I can. But the Senator's amendment forces me into the position of voting as though I did not support it.
I do not know about other Members of the Senate, but what I am saying to the Senator and other Senators is that there is ample room in this budget to do what the Senator wants if that is the decision of the appropriate committee. We are not deciding its fate here today.
If the Senator's amendment loses, I suspect this program will still get the kind of funding which he desires. So we are not deciding the fate of the program here, and should not vote as though we were, but should vote on the broader question of whether or not we should add to a more than $300 billion appropriation $100 million to provide some kind of uncertain guarantee to provide for this one.
I assure the Senator that, so far as I am concerned — and I repeat that I am as strongly for this as he is. I have watched this program in action in every corner of my State and I think it is one of the most compassionate, humane, just, and right programs we have in the whole range of Federal programs. I think it is going to be defended as such and I think the record of the numbers that I quoted earlier indicates that that is the view of the Congress.
That is all I wanted to say.
Mr. METZENBAUM. In view of the fact that the House has a figure that is, I think, $600 million higher than the Senate Budget Committee's on this subject, could the Senator from Maine see his way clear — and I know it is a difficultquestion that I am asking him — to accept the amendment, since, apparently, there will be a compromise in the conference committee? Would that be at all feasible?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not like to start that practice, which is a tradition on this floor with some. Let me say to the Senator that in this function, we have always compromised upward with the House, because the House has always been higher than we have been in this function. I expect that we would compromise higher in this and I would be amazed if this were not one of the reasons.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Since I well understand the concern of the Senator from Maine about starting a tradition and I share with him that kind of concern, would the Senator from Maine be willing to accept the amendment at the very conclusion of the debate on this subject if we held the vote up until that point, so that it would not be a tradition? There would be nothing following.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have said what I said because I know of some other amendments whose sponsors would be delighted to have a precedent of the kind that the Senator is urging upon me, and I do not think it would be wise.
Mr. METZENBAUM. It never hurts to try.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think I have said enough for the Senator to know how I feel about this particular program.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I see that the distinguished chairman, of the Labor and Human Resources Committee has arrived. I understand he would like some time.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Just a moment, to associate myself completely with the Senator from Ohio on this amendment, and with all of the principles that it brings to our deliberations and all of its necessary effect on the lives of the low- and fixed-income elderly poor.
This deals with food, which is the essence of life. I am sure that most, if not all, Members know from their own constituencies, the numbers f older people who are waiting in line to be taken into nutrition programs. But the money has not been there.
What this amendment does is merely keep intact what we have. It does not even reach beyond to the total need that is out there. that we all know so well.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. METZENBAUM. May I ask, how much time is left?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BURDICK) . The Senator has 6 minutes remaining and the Senator from Maine has 9 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield on my time.
Mr. President, I would just like to repeat what I said to the distinguished Senator from Ohio with respect to the action of the Budget Committee, I think it might be reassuring to the Senator.
No. 1, we did not deal with this program specifically. We dealt with the overall mission. So this program was not specifically addressed. It was not reduced by any specific action taken with reference to it in the Budget Committee.
What we have done is set overall numbers, overall numbers on this function, $300 million.
There is absolutely nothing to prevent the Appropriations Committee from achieving what the Senator from Ohio desires.
I, personally, have been 100 percent for the program from the beginning. If the program had come up specifically in the committee, I would be surprised if we had not moved in the direction suggested by the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. YOUNG. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. YOUNG. What the chairman said, the Senate Appropriations Committee is very friendly toward this program. I would be very much surprised if they did not appropriate this much authority.
Mr. MUSKIE. I think that is certain. Whatever happens to this amendment, I think the objective of the amendment would be achieved.
So I would be surprised if we did not achieve the objective sought by the Senator's amendment.
I just wanted the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, who has been such an effective chairman of the Human Resources Committee, to understand that there is no confrontation here with the Budget Committee.
I cannot support the amendment be-cause the effect would not assure the objective. The effect would simply be to add $100 million to the resolution which could be spent for other purposes in the function.
With respect to the overall function, the House has $600 million more in this mission 6, function 600, and $2 billion more in the function.
So I would be amazed, I say to my good friend from New Jersey, that the objective sought by this amendment is not achieved, whatever happens to this amendment, and we are not in the process of deciding the fate of this program before us which will result in a decrease in the number of meals served.
In addition, the House has $600 million more in this function, as it usually does in conference, and I fully expect to move toward the House figure because this is very important in getting budget resolution votes on the House side on this amendment.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Just one clarification, is it function 500 or 600?
Mr. MUSKIE. Five hundred. I am sorry, I misspoke myself.
Mr. WILLIAMS. The Senator from Maine is doing a masterful job here. I give him full credit for this whole budget resolution before us.
But a strong vote here for the Metzenbaum amendment would certainly be encouraging to the Appropriations Committee, I would think, to spotlight this particular program, the nutrition program for the elderly. It would help to assure that we do not have a cut there, because nutrition is the essence of life.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I make another point that I made to the Senator from Ohio?
Some of us have an obligation to try to make the budget process work and amendments of this kind will put us in a position of appearing to oppose programs which we support, when we believe we made room for worthwhile programs. If every program were to seek this additional insurance as a message to the Appropriations Committee, we would have to raise this budget by probably $5 million to accommodate everybody who would like to buy this insurance for their programs.
What we have an obligation to do is make room for the meritorious programs, those that are high priority — and this is one, in my judgment — but squeeze out the low-priority ones.
This is not that kind of program, but in order to maintain that discipline, and I guess that is my job and I asked for it, I have to put myself in the position of appearing to vote against a program which I strongly support, and other Senators may be likewise.
Mr. WILLIAMS. May I say that the Senator from Maine has brought to us all a great measure of discipline.
I will talk now about things I would have liked to see in the budget.
Mr. President, inflation hits hardest those on fixed incomes. As prices for necessities such as food and housing increase, the number of elderly persons needing help increases significantly.
While the Budget Committee has cut services all across the budget — except in defense — in an effort to decrease inflation, it is grossly unfair to cut services to those who are hurt the most by inflation. Yet that is exactly what the assumptions in this budget represent for programs for the elderly. The least we should do in the elderly programs is maintain current services by adding in the amount necessary, which is approximately $100 million, to make up for the loss in services due to inflation.
Currently 563,000 senior citizens are served each day by the nutrition programs under the Older Americans Act. According to testimony presented to the Labor and Human Resources committee, there are 800,000 senior citizens who are not now receiving services but who are eligible, and who are on waiting lists to participate in nutrition programs. Thus, the Congress should give high priority to increasing the nutrition program. Instead we have a budget before us which will result in a decrease in the number of meals served.
We can simply not stand by while inflation literally leaves hungry our fixed-income elderly. I therefore support the amendment offered by Senator METZENBAUM which will increase budget authority and outlays in function 500 by $100 million. This will provide the increase keyed to inflation needed to maintain this Older Americans Act program at its current service levels. This is the least we can do for our elderly population, which has suffered so seriously from inflation. The cut in services for programs for the elderly, when increases are so desperately needed, is a prime example of the misplaced priorities contained in this budget resolution.
Mr. President, this is the only point I have risen to urge, most earnestly, as an exception to what I know is the necessary objective of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand, and I did not really expect to divert either of my two friends from their course. But I wanted the record to reflect what I think is really possible under this amendment and what my position is with respect to this program. I think it will be worked out, whatever the vote on this amendment.
I understand the Senator, as chairman f his committee, has to carry out that responsibility in accordance with his conscience and his sense of what is right, so I do not quarrel with what either of my friends are doing. I might wish they were not, but I do not quarrel.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. JAVITS addressed the Chair.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, do I still have 6 minutes remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BAUCUS) . The Senator is correct.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. METZENBAUM) to add $100 million to function 500 — "Education, Training, Employment & Social Services"— for the specific purpose of providing some additional room in the budget for fiscal year 1980 for the elderly nutrition programs.
As it has done in so many of the domestic and human resources programs the federal budget, the committee has made a very deep cut in the social services mission of function 500, to wit: In outlays $100 million below current law. (Current law being the 1979 amount plus allowance for any increases mandated law.)
And in several other missions the budget Committee has made similar sharp cuts below current law. In mission 4 of function 500 — training and employment — the committee cut $1.6 billion below current law; in mission 1 of function 550 — health care services — the committee went $1.8 billion below current law; in mission 5 of function 600 — the nutrition programs — the committee cut $300 million below current law; and in mission 1 of function 600 — social security — the committee cut $600 million below current law.
In these five missions — social services; training and employment; health care; nutrition; and social security — all the people programs, Mr. President — $4.4 billion or 84 percent of the total $5.2 billion Budget Committee savings from current law takes place.
And there is not one cent in this budget for the targeted fiscal assistance program, on which the severely distressed cities of our country depend upon so desperately.
Clearly, Mr. President, our domestic and human resources programs have been forced to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of necessary budget cuts to get the deficit down below $30 billion.
At the same time, Mr. President, I do not see a comparable willingness on the part of the committee to spread the burden of budget reductions equitably among all programs. Agriculture, for example, function 350, is $200 million above current law. The Budget Committee recommends that mission 1, the "Farm Income Stabilization Program" be funded at $4.1 billion, $200 million above the current law figure and the President's reestimated request of $3.9 billion.
So we have this entitlement program that gets a $200 million increase, while other entitlement programs get cut to the bone — where is the equity in that? In this paricular case, full funding of farm price supports is provided for, which are part of an entitlement program of farm income stabilization.
The advocates of full funding for this program argue that, because farm price supports represent an entitlement, such level of funding is required by statute. Yet those same advocates deny the existence of an identical kind of entitlement in education programs — to wit, the impact aid program, which requires sequential funding of a school district's entitlement based upon the number of federally affected children residing therein. By adhering to the President's recommendations not to fund the "B" category children in impact aid, which includes those children in federally-supported public housing, these so-called proponents of entitlements in farm price supports are actually turning the entitlement mandate on its head.
Moreover, in the recommendation that outlays for title I concentration grants, which is itself an entitlement program, should be available due to a reduction in the impact aid entitlement, the whole entitlement concept, supposedly such a sacred cow for the farm price support program, is rendered virtually meaningless.
In my judgment, Mr. President, this unwillingness to spread the burden of budget cutting equitably among the various competing functions in the budget represents discrimination against the poor, the unemployed, the elderly, the sick and the distressed cities of our country.
Senator METZENBAUM has focused upon a particularly egregious example of this discriminatory budget cutting — the elderly nutrition programs. The Budget Committee's mark on the social services subfunction is well below that recommended by the Labor and Human Resources Committee. It is also $0.1 billion below the "tight and lean" mark recommended by the President.
While such a cut may appear eminently responsible on paper, we must understand what its effect will be — to further reduce services to a portion of our people most in need of social services — to wit, elderly persons living on fixed incomes. The nutrition services to which our amendment is targeted supplement in-kind the already meager fixed incomes of the elderly so susceptible to the eroding effects of inflation. I should add that virtually 60 members of this body last year made a commitment to improved nutrition services to the elderly by cosponsoring an amendment to the Older Americans Act, which authorized an increase of $100 million for senior nutrition programs.
Having made that commitment, it is unconscionable that we should turn our backs on those whom we have acknowledged as most in need. Indeed, the increase provided for senior services in this amendment barely begins to meet the mandate of the authorization statute; nevertheless, given the present realities of this budget, it is the precious little we can reasonably expect, and I urge the passage of the Metzenbaum amendment.
Mr. President, I wish to join in the colloquy with Senator MUSKIE, but I want to take this separate time to state what I have in mind.
I think this is more. I think this is symbolic. Senator WILLIAMS and I — I used to be ranking member of that committee, I am still a member of it — are deeply distressed by the fact that it looks like, and I know it was not done designedly, but there is real discrimination here when we compare what has been done for agriculture, where we went over and above what the law requires, and what has been done for these social services, training and employment, health care, nutrition, social security, which takes 84 percent of the $5.2 billion Budget Committee savings from current law. That is what bothers me.
So I have been with the Senator all the way and I hope to stay with him on through this. But I really need to vote for this as a symbol, a sense of protest in terms of what looks on the record like taking it, really, out of the big cities and the big city problems.
Again, I know the Senator's problems. He has a committee. He has to deal with them and work something out. But when we make this comparison, as I say, when we look at the agriculture picture, and I am not moving to cut it, or anything else, I understand the problem, but when we look at it and see that is more than low, and then look at the way the knife has been applied to these social programs which mean so much to us in the major cities of the country and which have taken the great bulk of this cut, we have to find some way to vent our feelings in a protest.
So I shall support this because of the symbol and I hope it will have an effect on the conferees.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I say to my good friend from New York, I fully understand his point and do not quarrel with it. As a matter of fact, it is not a bad point for all three of the Senators to make in the light of the three amendments we have just dealt with.
The proponents of those three amendments all suggested it is a simple matter to cut another $5 billion, another $10 billion, another $15 billion from the budget.
Here is an example of a relatively small program, as the total budget goes, where the pain is real, and the case is being made for that. I do not object at all when the case is made, so long as Senators understand what happened in the Budget Committee, if it happened, and what is really at stake.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the name of the Senator from Virginia (Mr. WARNER)be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I will conclude my remarks, rather than speaking to the merits of the issue, by pointing out that this amendment has tremendously broad support from a host of organizations: National Council on the Aging, National Council of Senior Citizens, National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, American Association of Homes for the Aged, Grey Panthers National Organization, Community Nutrition Institute, Food Research Action Group, National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Program, Inter-Religious Task Force on U.S. Food Policy, Consumer Federation of America, Congress Watch, National Farmers Organization, National Farmers Union, Rural America, Bread for the World, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, International Ladies Garment Workers, United Auto Workers, AFL-CIO, and Environmental Policy Center.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is anyone left out? [Laughter.]
Mr. METZENBAUM. The only ones left out, as of this moment, are 51 Members of the Senate. Since I think it is time for them to have an opportunity to indicate their position on this subject, I am prepared to vote.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. METZENBAUM. I yield.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I have watched the deliberations concerning this first budget resolution, it is quite evident that the Congress has finally heard the electorate's demand for less Government spending. We have finally realized that our economy cannot sustain more and more spending, and that eventually we will have to balance the budget. Given these fiscal restraints, it becomes imperative that all programs be scrutinized to see which merit no increases in funding, which deserve cuts, and which should be increased. I think that the budget committee has done a commendable job in preparing the fiscal year 1980 budget, and I appreciate all the work which members and staff have put into this budget resolution.
Having said this, there is one area which I think legitimately deserves an increase in funding, and that falls under function 500, mission 6, which deals with social services. Specifically, I am referring to services for senior citizens, and in particular, nutrition programs. Recognizing the value of nutrition programs for seniors, last year the Congress approved an expansion of the nutrition programs when it reauthorized the older Americans act amendments of 1978. A separate program for home-delivered meals was added to the congregate meals program, largely in response to constituent demand for this type of program.
Because the 1978 amendments were not approved until after the fiscal year 1979 appropriations bill was passed, funding for senior services for this current year were based on a continuing resolution at fiscal year 1978 levels. Even with the additional emphasis placed on nutrition services, there was no new money for fiscal year 1979.
I am concerned that the fiscal year 1980 budget recommends no new money for senior services, which has the effect of holding spending to the fiscal year 1978 level. While I am as committed as any of my colleagues to balancing the budget, I think that we must do so in a responsible manner. We must assess carefully all programs, and be prepared to increase funding where it is necessary.
After having done that with this particular program, I think that an increase in funding for senior services can be justified. It has been proved that the maintenance of adequate daily nutrition promotes good health, and offers protection against illness. As a group, senior citizens tend to be one of the most vulnerable populations within our society for illness, and I think that it is our responsibility to see that their interests are protected under the budget. Through authorizing legislation we have indicated our support for nutrition programs for seniors, and I think it is now our responsibility to see that they are adequately funded.
Besides this obligation which the Congress has to protect and promote the health of our citizens, I would like to remind my colleagues that maintenance of good health is cost effective in the long run. It is much cheaper to provide a meal in a congregate setting or deliver it to a person's home rather than to provide hospital care. While I believe the merits of nutrition programs transcend economic arguments, the cost factor is important, and should be recognized.
Based on these feelings, I have decided to support the Metzenbaum/Williams amendment to add $100 million to the budget for senior services. Without additional money in this area, services will have to be cut to cover the cost of inflation, and I think that that is a reduction which we cannot afford to have. While we need to trim fat from Government programs, if we do not add some increase to senior services, we will be cutting into the heart and muscle of these programs.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, as already has been said, ample provision has been made in the budget to take care of the elderly feeding program. A $200 million increase is available for block grants, all or part of which can be used for this purpose.
The point that is being missed is that the people Senator METZENBAUM is allegedly trying to help are the ones most hurt by inflation. We often hear of the almost pitiful condition of those on fixed incomes, who find food prices going up, find fuel prices going up, find housing costs going up.
The purpose of the Budget Committee, and the purpose of the Senate and Congress, is to bring about a balanced budget, to bring inflation under control, and to help stabilize living costs for those on fixed and low income.
What we do here, if we adopt the Metzenbaum amendment, is to unbalance our budget by this amount. We may havea budget imbalance in fiscal year 1981. It may no longer be in balance. In effect,it will exacerbate the the problems for the people he is trying to help.
We have taken care of this need. There is no reason to add this $100 million, and I urge the defeat of the amendment.