Senators participating in the debate are the
same as Chapters 7 and 8 with the addition of:
Senator Lawton Chiles (R-FL),
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
Senator Pete Domenici (D-NM),
Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget
Senator John Stennis (D-MS),
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ),
Immediate Past Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services
George H.W. Bush, Vice President
of the United States, Presiding Officer
Also featured in this chapter as Presiding Officer:
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)
SONNY’S SUMMARY
After two earlier New GI Bill votes on June 13, the Senate debate continued with four additional votes in this chapter, for a total of six in all.
In the third vote, the Senate voted down 48 to 44 Senator Armstrong’s motion to waive Budget Act requirements1 (associated with creating a new entitlement for a year for which the budget resolution had not been adopted to pay for it) for his Peacetime Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act legislation.
In the fourth vote, the Senate approved by unanimous consent (meaning without a roll-call vote) Senator Glenn’s motion to make his test Citizen-Soldier Education Program subject to the Congress having to appropriate funds for it each year.
In the fifth vote, the Senate voted for a second time 47 to 45 to table Senator Armstrong’s proposed program.
In the sixth vote, the Senate approved—this time by a 72 to 20 roll-call vote—the Glenn amendment, requiring an annual appropriation to pay for his proposed program.
So now the Senate has established what will be its official position in the forthcoming conference with the House: a four-year pilot program for up to 12,500 new service members per year, who would serve on active duty for two years and contribute $250 per month in order to receive 36 months (four academic years) of post-service education benefits of $500 per month, subject to Congress annually appropriating the money for same.
Mr. Montgomery
Folks, let’s review the four amendments the Senate will debate and vote on June 13 in this chapter:
• In the third vote, the Senate will defeat 48-44 Senator Armstrong’s motion to waive pay-go portions of the Budget Act regarding his Peacetime Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act amendment;
• In the fourth vote, the Senate will approve, by unanimous consent (no roll-call vote), Senator Glenn’s motion to make his test Citizen-Soldier Education Program amendment subject to an annual appropriation;
• In the fifth vote, the Senate will approve 47-45 (and thus table), Senator Tower’s motion to table the Senator Armstrong Peacetime Veterans’ Educational Assistance Act amendment; and
• In the sixth vote, the Senate will approve 72-20 on a roll-call vote, the Glenn test Citizen-Soldier Education Program amendment, as modified by annual appropriation language.
We pick up the debate at page 16, 095 of the Congressional Record (above). I’ll see you at the end of this chapter, which concludes the almost nine hours of debate on the issue of a proposed New GI Bill.
Now let’s go back to the Senate Chamber. Senator Tower addressed the Chair.2
Arlen Specter
Presiding Officer
[Mr. Specter] “The Senator from Texas.”
Mr. Tower
“Mr. President, I want to tell the Senate what we have done. We have agreed to a brand new entitlement program on the floor of the Senate and the cost is going to grow annually. I am hopeful, since this is not needed as a recruiting tool and perhaps may have an adverse effect on retention, that we can perhaps consider an amendment that would take this out of the [budget] function 0503 and put it in the veterans’ function so that the Department of Defense, which has opposed this measure, will not have to bear the expense of it.”
Mr. Baker
“Mr. President, after consulting with the distinguished chairman of the [budget] committee, and other Senators, it appears to me appropriate at this point to suggest that a point of order does lie against this amendment.
“At this time, Mr. President, I make the point of order that the amendment violates section 303 of the Budget Act by creating a new entitlement program for a year for which a first budget resolution has not been adopted.”4
Mr. Armstrong
“I move to waive various sections of the Budget Act,5 and I understand that is a debatable motion. I do not intend to debate it at great length but I think the Senate should understand why we are in this situation.
“… The reason why a waiver is necessary, and why the majority leader’s point lies [against it], is not because of something that is wrong with the amendment, or because there is something wrong with the procedure for bringing the amendment to the floor, but because we have not yet passed a budget resolution in due course. In other words, if we had completed work on the budget resolution, in the normal timetable, this amendment would in fact be in order, and would not be violative of the Budget Act.”
Lawton Chiles
“If I may answer that [as to when a new entitlement program of this type would be considered in order], it would be after the Budget Committee would decide to embark on this program. The purpose of the [Budget] act is to try to keep us from passing entitlement programs binding out-year [meaning “future”] appropriations without being considered by the Budget Act and by this body without a deliberate decision of the body that we are ready to create new entitlement programs.”
Mr. Baker
“Mr. President, I do not know a single person more concerned about the state of the budget, the deficit, and the question of entitlements than the Senator from Colorado. What I am about to say is not critical of him. But if we are going to hatch new entitlement programs that begin two or three years in the future, and do so with a general waiver of the Budget Act, then we might as well throw away the Budget Act.”
Mr. Armstrong
“I have been a member of the Budget Committee for five years, and the Budget Committee does not consider the individual components except in arriving at their totals. When the Senate votes on a budget resolution, it is not whether we need a new Food Stamp Program or a New GI Bill or a new airplane. It votes only on budget totals…. It is perfectly possible for the Budget Committee to send forth a resolution in which one Senator says, ‘I am putting in extra money for a new bomber,’ and another one says, ‘I am putting it in for the New GI Bill.’ But that really is not the issue.”
Mr. Baker
“Mr. President, I do not wish to pursue it further…. Had this proposal been to enact a GI Bill but subject to appropriation, you would have an entirely different situation. But that is not what it is. We are committing funds without going through the authorizing process, without going through the appropriating process, and it does require a waiver of the act to do that. I oppose it.”
Mr. Cranston
“… The budget resolution, when it has been approved, would not be affected by one penny of what we are talking about, because there is no money to be spent in 1985 and no money to be spent in 1986 under the amendment we have approved in the Senate just now. “I would also like to add that if this point of order holds against the amendment the Senator from Colorado offered, it would hold against the amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio. The same logic would knock it down. I do not think we want to knock down a program that is designed to help us meet our military manpower needs.”
Mr. Domenici
Pete Domenici
“Mr. President, I think this is a very important issue. I do not believe it is a casual point of order. I did not think the Budget Act was cavalier at all about it….
“I can remember, Mr. President, for those who wonder how entitlements got to where they are, an entitlement program that was described on the Senate floor as costing only $700 million per year. I just refreshed my memory by reading the Congressional Record.
“Let me tell you about that program: That program [which is operating] this year, which was voted into existence on the floor, because it did not go through any committees, is [now] costing the American government… $21 billion and is [now] costing the various states of the United States $23 billion a year.6 That is how things happen around here.
“Frankly, I think if we are going to decide that a Budget Act which says you cannot create new entitlements in the out-years in this manner, if we are going to say it does not really mean anything, then we may just as well decide that committees mean nothing, that estimates mean nothing, that we are just going to come to the Senate floor and create new entitlements when we please; appropriations mean nothing; and having some way to control these things means nothing.
“Out in the country, people ask us why we cannot get the budget under control. There is a word we keep giving them. We say because 65 percent of the budget is uncontrollable—“uncontrollable” in quotation marks.
They end up looking back at us and saying ‘What do you mean, uncontrollable [budget]? Do you not run the country?’ We end up trying to explain to them that every year, the appropriators pass a bill.
“They say, ‘That is what we spent for our country. Why not take that appropriations bill and cut it?’”
Mr. Stennis
John Stennis
“Mr. President, … I have supported [military] pay increases over the years, but I have restrained myself today. I have not said anything. I have voted the other way because I have said, as have many others, we absolutely must take care of the budget deficit and these entitlements….”
Mr. Domenici
“… I just refer the Senators to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended, page 18, section 303, subsection (c).
There is a very detailed procedure for waiver, and there is a process for doing it without waiver. It can be done. It is not being done that way in this case and maybe it is because committees are not prone to do it the way it is prescribed in this amendment because they do not think we ought to be doing this kind of thing. I think that is a pretty good sign to us that we ought not be doing it, either.”
Mr. Cohen
“Mr. President, earlier this afternoon, or just a few moments ago actually, reference was made to our ‘hatching’ an entitlement program. ‘Hatching’ to me sounds like something you do in secret, like a covert action. Maybe we hatch a Stealth bomber program.
“This particular amendment has been offered in public session, not closed session. It has been the subject of debate since 1979 and the subject of debate at length this afternoon. The message to me from what is taking place this afternoon is that if we cannot win on the merits; we will beat you to death on procedure. This issue is no longer being discussed on the merits but, rather, placed on the altar of Budget Committee sanctity.
“We keep hearing the issue about costs.
The Tomahawk missile is going to come up later tonight or tomorrow. I recall being told that missile programs had a $250 million cost overrun. I tried to find out why, and they said, ‘Well, it was mismanagement….’
“No big deal, just a little mismanagement on the part of the Navy and the contractor at that time. But in the GI Bill, we are talking about putting in a program which we know has worked in the past in substitute for a program, VEAP, that is not working today. What we are getting is a lot of legislative razzle-dazzle….
“Let me address one more subject. Do you really believe, Mr. President, we are going to create a GI Bill that is subject to annual appropriations? Are we going to tell the young recruits, ‘By the way, we have this good program for you. If you will give us two years, three years, maybe four years, five years or six years, you will have the following educational benefits that will have accrued to you in terms of money, subject, of course, to the whims and caprice of Congress, assuming they will appropriate the money for that given year.’”
Mr. Baker
“…We have been an hour or more on this. I would recommend that we do one of several things since time is moving on. We either have a vote on the waiver, which I am prepared to do; or, I will move to table the waiver, if necessary. Or the waiver will be withdrawn….
“Mr. President, there are all sorts of variations on this. There is no doubt in my mind that one way or the other you can probably fit this thing together. But it has been my experience also that when you try to cut, fit, and paste on the [Senate] floor you end up not really knowing what you are doing. At least I do not know what I am doing….
“… I would ask the Senator from Colorado if he is prepared to go forward with a vote on the waiver, or to withdraw the waiver and let the point of order be ruled upon.”
Mr. Armstrong
“… Aside from the fact that I would like to pass this amendment, which despite what the majority leader and others have said has not been cut and pasted on the floor, the fact is it has been under development, and is the work of quite a large number of Senators and staffers here, in the Pentagon, and elsewhere. This is not something that has been thrown together in a slap-dash way. In fact, it has been rather carefully developed after extensive hearings.”
Mr. Tower
“Mr. President, it is my intention to object to the consent request to amend the amendment offered by the Senator from Colorado. I suggest that the best way to proceed is to go ahead and vote on the motion of the Senator from Colorado to waive the rule, then go from there and let us get this thing moving.
“We are going to be in all night now I think, Mr. President. We have spent six- and one-half hours [so far today] on this measure, an inordinate amount of time.7 We have some big ticket items in this bill…. We have all these fancy social and economic programs in defense. Nobody ever wants to cut those out of defense. Now they want to lard this [peace-time GI Bill] on it.”
Mr. Goldwater
“I am inclined to agree with the Senator [Armstrong] that sometime this will pass. What would be wrong with introducing it as a piece of legislation and having it pass as a bill?” 8”
Barry Goldwater
Mr. Armstrong
Mr. President, let me say to my friend from Arizona, that is what I did five years ago; that is what I did four years ago; that is what I did three years ago; that is what I did two years ago; that is what I did last year….
“Frankly, we have just been stiff-armed at every occasion in Armed Services. The Veterans’ Affairs Committee has had extensive hearings on it. And the hearing record not only this year but the year before, not only in the Senate but in the Armed Services Committee of the House and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee of the House, just bolster the case. In fact, of the members of the committee which has jurisdiction over this matter, eight of the 12 members of the committee, are cosponsors of the amendment. So the Senator’s suggestion is a valid one.”
Mr. Goldwater
“Eight out of 12 could not get it out of committee?”
Mr. Armstrong
“Well, they have not been able to do so yet, I say to the Senator. “Mr. President, all I can tell you is that we are offering it as a floor amendment again, as we did before. All I want to do at this point is expedite the process, and so I am going to reluctantly suggest that the best way to do that is to first have a vote on the motion to waive. That is part of the Budget Act process. Even though I do not think it is the most orderly and best way, it seems to be the best approach….”
Mr. Cranston
“I ask for the yeas and nays.”
Presiding Officer
“Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.” [The yeas and nays were ordered.]
Presiding Officer
“The clerk will call the roll.” [The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Vice President George H.W. Bush
[The Vice President of the United States, George H.W. Bush, had assumed the Chair, as Presiding Officer.] “Are there any other Senators in the chamber who wish to vote?”
Mr. Montgomery
The result was announced—yeas 44, nays 48.9
So the motion to waive portions of the Budget Act was rejected.
“On a point of order an identical amendment was ruled out of order one year ago. This amendment fails.”
Mr. Glenn
“Mr. President, my intentions are to ask unanimous consent that I may be able to modify my amendment, which is at the desk, if I get the floor to do that.
“May I do that at this time?”
Presiding Officer
“Is there objection to the request from the Senator from Ohio?”
Mr. Armstrong
“Mr. President, reserving the right to object, could we understand the nature of the modification?”
Mr. Glenn
“Yes. It makes the amendment subject to an annual appropriation.”
Mr. Armstrong
“Mr. President, I am disposed not to object to this amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio even though at one level it might be natural if I would do so because a similar request was objected to when I offered to do that. It would be my intention not to object, but then immediately if the Chair will recognize me to offer my amendment again in a slightly modified form so that both are before us and we get a fair up-or-down choice between the two proposals….
“Some of those who have voted against us on the last vote have said they would like to vote with us the next time around, that they have scruples against voting against the budget waiver even though we have done it hundreds of times.”
Mr. Domenici
“… The Senator from Colorado makes a point that we waive the Budget Act all the time. Let me make one point: we do not waive the Budget Act all the time under section 303, which prohibits the creation of new entitlements in this manner.
“In fact, section 303 is waived very rarely.
“What we do is waive the whole act from time to time. But I remind you that for good reason the Congress of the United States prescribed a very excellent process for new entitlements.
“We are supposed to introduce a resolution saying that we want to waive section 303, pursuant to the Budget Act and have a new entitlement.”
Presiding Officer
“Is there objection to the unanimous consent request [to make the Glenn amendment subject to an annual appropriation]? Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is so modified.10
“The Senator from Texas.”
Mr. Tower
“Mr. President, I just want to suggest that the Senator from Colorado go ahead and offer his amendment, and let us get on with this.”
Purpose: To establish two new programs for educational assistance for veterans of peacetime service, and for other purposes.
Mr. Armstrong
“Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
“… Since we were not successful in the budget waiver and since some members who voted against the GI Bill concept on the waiver motion issue expressed to me privately their willingness and desire to vote squarely on the issue if I could get it before the body in a form that we were just voting on that and not some procedural question, I have felt constrained to offer this.
Ordinarily, I would not come back a third time. But I do think we understand the issue.
“It is not my desire to drag it out. I just ask the 51 who voted with us an hour or two ago [in opposition to Mr. Tower’s proposal to table my amendment to create a permanent peacetime GI Bill] to do so again, and let us get on with the task.”
Mr. Tower
“Mr. President, I would simply ask the 49 Senators that voted with us on the last vote to vote with us again. I think that the Senator’s views on the issue to create a new entitlement are clear.
“I move [again] to table the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.”
Mr. Armstrong
“Will the Senator withhold for just a moment?”
Mr. Tower
“I will withhold for a moment but we have been debating this issue for over seven hours today, and I do not think we could get anymore enlightenment on it. Senators are going to be here all night voting on amendments that are germain to this bill.”
Mr. Armstrong
“Since there was a tabling motion previously, I wonder if the Senator would now not be willing to have an up-or-down vote on the issue itself, rather than a tabling motion. We had this tabling motion earlier, I would just appeal to the Senator that we have been through that, and could we not now just vote on the pending question?”
Mr. Tower
“Without the tabling motion the matter is still debatable. Therefore, Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.”
Mr. Armstrong
“I reluctantly ask for the yeas and nays.”
Presiding Officer
“Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.”
[The yeas and nays were ordered.]
“The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from Texas [Mr. Tower] to table the amendment of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Armstrong].
The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.”
[The bill clerk called the roll.]
Presiding Officer
“Are there any other Senators in the Chamber wishing to vote?”11
[The result was announced—yeas 47, nays 4512 … so the motion to lay on the table amendment No. 3191 was agreed to.]
Mr. Armstrong
“…When we last visited this issue about six months ago, we failed by four or five votes. I guess today, after three roll calls, they finally got us by a vote or two.13 I expect that some of us will want to make this effort again. In fact, I think the clear sentiment which has been expressed is increasing support for the concept of a GI Bill. There are parliamentary questions to be answered; there are details that need to be reconciled.”
Mr. Glenn
“Mr. President, I would like to have a recorded vote on this [rather than by unanimous consent]. I ask for the yeas and nays.”
Presiding Officer
“Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.”
[The yeas and nays were ordered.]
Mr. Glenn
“Mr. President, as I explained before, this amendment is a targeted effort to assist the services in acquiring high-quality recruits for two-year enlistments from a wide cross section of American society and at a limited cost.
“It does not conflict with, or change, any existing programs.
“It is a contributory program; the recruit forgoes $250 per month on pay for the full 24 months….
“Mr. President, with the absence of a draft and the high pay given recruits, it is unfair to ask the taxpayers to wholly subsidize service-connected educational benefits. Therefore, I believe this amendment, which requires the government to match a serviceman’s funds at a rate of about 2 to 1, is equitable and fair to the soldier and the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to vote for its adoption.”
Mr. Cohen
“Mr. President, before we vote, I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues on the floor that in the Glenn proposal, there have been no hearings held whatsoever. The basic objection we have heard here on our proposal is that we have not had hearings again. The record is voluminous, yet not quite enough hearings have been held. On the proposal of the Senator from Ohio, there have not been any hearings held, to my knowledge.
Mr. Cohen
“Also, I point out if my colleagues think VEAP is a failure, then this, it seems to me, is also going to be doomed to failure. We have a system in which there is a $25 per month contribution on the part of the service personnel and the program is, in fact, failing. Now we are going to have a $250 a month contributory program. If that is not doomed to failure, I do not know what is.”
Mr. Glenn
“Mr. President, the VEAP program the Senator from Maine refers to certainly was not successful. I hope ultra-VEAP can be considered a success. I think the amendment I am proposing will be a response to that.”
Presiding Officer
“Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Ohio. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.”
[The legislative clerk called the roll.]
“Are there any other Senators in the Chamber wishing to vote?”
Mr. Montgomery
The result was announced—yeas 72, nays 20…14
So the amendment No. 3179, as modified, was agreed to.
The Senate now had a “New GI Bill” position, as the full Senate approved S. 2723 on June 20, 1984: A four-year pilot program for 12,500 new service members per year, who would serve on active duty for two years and contribute $250 per month in order to receive 36 months of post-service educational assistance at $500 per month, but only if Congress annually appropriates the funds.
Know the meaning of votes beyond the numbers. Vote tallies—like 72 to 20—sometimes tell only part of the story, whether it’s a House vote or a Senate vote. In this case, do you think the Senate’s position was a strong and unified one? I heard some pretty strong dissent. This included dissent from many of the 25 Senators cosponsoring the Armstrong amendment, including eight of the 12 members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The House conferees respectfully would factor in this lack of consensus in putting together the House’s approach to negotiating with the Senate conferees in the House-Senate conference committee.15
It’s now time for the House and Senate to go to conference on the FY 1985 DoD Authorization Act, of which a New GI Bill is a very small provision, though those working on the provision didn’t think so.