April 29, 1975
Page 12365
Mr. BELLMON. The foreign aid program involves an uncertain number of jobs. Much of that money goes for the purchase of material made in this country. It does involve a certain number of jobs. I do not think anyone could give a precise figure.
Mr. BROCK. If that were logical, if it were an adequate return on the investment, we should buy everything that people produce in this country and resell it to them.
Mr. BELLMON. That is unrealistic.
Mr. BROCK. I think we have to look at our Federal expenditures on a line item basis and see those that are prudent and those that are not.
Mr. BELLMON. The purpose of foreign aid is not to stimulate the economy. This has been an ongoing program since World War II. It is on a lower level than in the past. No economic stimulation is intended in that appropriation.
Mr. BROCK. Show me some other areas where we have economic stimulation. Show me where the increase in Federal employment, instead of putting it into the private sector, is constructive.
Mr. BELLMON. The Budget Committee's recommendation maintains the cap on the increases in Federal employment at 5 percent, as the President recommended.
Mr. BROCK. The cap on pay raises?
Mr. BELLMON. That is right.
Mr. BROCK. But it does not put a cap on the number of employees, does it?
Mr. BELLMON. I do not believe the Budget Committee recommendation includes an increase in the number of Federal employees.
Mr. BROCK. If the Senator will look at the President's budget, on which the committee's budget is based, he will find that there are some rather sizable increases. I do not understand why we cannot cut Federal employment. No one need be fired. We have a turnover of 14 percent to 18 percent a year just because of resignation and retirement. Why must those jobs be filled? Does not the Senator think that we could reduce much taxpayer expenditure through that means? Wherein is the damage to the economy?
Mr. BELLMON. I am not able, from memory, to give the Senator the number of new jobs included in this budget. I do not recall that there are any. Perhaps the chairman of the committee would recall.
Are new Federal jobs contemplated in this budget?
Mr. MUSKIE. The civil service or the new recovery programs?
Mr. BELLMON. Just regular Federal employment. Are we increasing the number?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not believe so.
According to the President's budget, the Federal civil payroll in 1950 was 2.5 million. The Federal civil payroll last year also was 2.5 million. It goes above that in times of war. It tends to level off at that figure otherwise. That table is in the President's budget. State and local payrolls have gone up from about $3 billion in 1950 to more than $11 billion today. So that Government payroll has gone up.
So far as I know, in this budget, outside of the so-called recovery program and the automatic increases attributable to unemployment compensation, and so forth, there are no new programs, except the energy programs in this budget.
Mr. BROCK. I appreciate that, and I will accept the figures.
However, I have been in Congress for 12 years, and in those 12 years I have watched downtown, from the White House and the Lincoln Memorial to the Capitol, just explode with the most beautiful, new, massive, marble buildings I have ever seen; $150 million was spent on the Rayburn House Office Building, and that is just a pittance compared to what they have spent downtown for the agencies. If all those people were on the payrolls before, where were they housed?
Mr. MUSKIE. In the temporary buildings on the mall. I saw the temporary World War I buildings come down in the last 2 years and the temporary World War II buildings come down in the last 5 years.
All I can tell the Senator is that this budget document for 1974 shows 2,479,000 permanent civilian employees in the executive branch. The 1976 estimate is 2,488,000. For 1950, it was roughly the same number. I did not put these figures together. This came in the budget document.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BELLMON. I point out that the total cost of General Government, everything – legislative, executive, all the rest – for fiscal 1974 was $3.3 billion, and for fiscal 1976 it was still $3.3 billion. We have not changed it substantially at all. There is no place here for any substantial saving. Even if we wiped out all Federal employees and had no people working for the Federal Government, the saving would not be significant.
Mr. BROCK. I am tempted by the offer, but I do not think we can take advantage of it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Virginia talked about a 35-percent increase in the Federal budget in 2 years. There was a 20-percent increase due to inflation.
Inflation does not add a single person to the payroll, not a single person.
Mr. BROCK. Wait a minute, Senator. It is true that an awful lot of our increase–
Mr. MUSKIE. It is true, there is a 20-percent increase attributable to inflation.
Mr. BROCK. And the increases in our Federal spending have been considerably in excess of the inflation, considerably. And the increases here–
Mr. MUSKIE. And I shall tell the Senator what some of the other increases are. There are $15 billion in unemployment compensation and similar recession-induced expenditures.
Mr. BROCK. Fine. I understand that.
Mr. MUSKIE And that is included in the 35 percent.
The 35 percent is an accurate figure.
What I am trying to drive home to the Senator is its components. We cannot wish them away, any more than we can wish away the 35 percent. Twenty percent of that was inflation. There is another $15 billion in unemployment compensation and in the other costs attributable to people we have to feed when they are unemployed, and so on, food stamps, welfare costs. That is $15 billion. I do not know what that figures out to, percentagewise, but that is a pretty good figure.
Mr. BROCK. If we want to feed those who need feeding – and I think every Member of this body would like to do that – to help those who cannot help themselves, then why not deal with the need for welfare and food stamp reform where people are getting it who are not qualified or deserving? I can cite some specific examples.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am simply trying to explain the 35 percent number that the Senator from Virginia used.
Mr. BROCK. I understand the Senator's point.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should think the Senator from Tennessee would want to know what makes it up.
It is not some arbitrary, thoughtless, irresponsible judgment of those Senators who disagree with us to increase Government spending. There is a reason for it. We ought to know the reason.
Senator BYRD will still disagree. He always has been consistent. So would the Senator from Tennessee. But, at least, let the RECORD reflect what these numbers represent.
Mr. BROCK. I am not arguing with the Senator at all. I understand his statement and I appreciate it. I hope he will give us the same credit for the same sincerity that he asks that we give him.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not challenge the sincerity of the Senator whatever. I think he is wrong, but I give him credit for sincerity.
Mr. BROCK. I appreciate that.