April 30, 1975
Page 12593
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET DETERMINATION
The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 32) relating to a determination of the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1975.
Mr. CRANSTON. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from Minnesota may proceed.
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, through error I inadvertently omitted to request that the name of the Senator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) be added as a cosponsor of the amendment on which the Senate just voted. I now make that unanimous-consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who yields time?
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, may I have some time on the bill? Five minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from California 5 minutes on the bill.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, as the Senator from Maine knows, I had intended to offer an amendment if the Mondale amendment were defeated. I talked with the Senator from Maine about it yesterday. He is the only Senator I have talked to, because I did not wish in anyway to appear to be undercutting his amendment with anything relating to the same subject until he had a full opportunity to present it and have it voted up or down. I share all the concerns that prompted the Senator from Minnesota to offer his amendment.
My amendment, which I had planned to offer were his defeated, related to the social and economic conditions that caused him to introduce his amendment, but it would have dealt with them in a different way.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator will please suspend until order is restored. Senators will please remove their conversations to the cloakrooms.
The Senator may proceed.
Mr. CRANSTON. I voted against the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota because, like a majority of the Senate, I oppose increasing the prospective deficit at this time. I hope we will never find it necessary to do so. I share his belief that the amount indicated in the report for jobs programs and economy stimulating programs is inadequate. I hope we will find it possible to get the funding for those programs as we work on authorizations and appropriations bills by taking money away from other programs without increasing the size of the deficit or the amount we will spend.
That may or may not prove possible. The assumptions in the current resolution reported by the Budget Committee are based upon present economic conditions. We do not know what those conditions will be after a while; we hope they will be better. They may be worse, and we may find it advisable to increase the spending on temporary jobs programs, even if that will temporarily increase the deficit.
I was, therefore, going to suggest that we adopt an amendment that would require that the Congressional Office of the Budget give us periodic reports – and they have that capacity – on the state of the economy, on unemployment, and on where we stand, so that if we find it necessary to make more funding available for jobs programs we will know what the conditions are that make that advisable.
The Senator from Maine has written a letter to Alice Rivlin, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, dated today, requesting roughly this exact type of information, and so I see no necessity for my amendment. I am delighted that the Senator has taken that step. That will give us the information we need in the weeks and months ahead to act intelligently on the budget in relationship particularly to the need for jobs funds and programs.
I thank the Senator for taking that step; I applaud it, and I look forward to working with him and the other members of the committee and the Senate to see that we observe those reports, study them carefully, and take whatever steps may be necessary in the future to help turn the economy around and to provide jobs for those Americans who cannot find them now, or who may, unhappily, be losing them in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say, Mr. President, that I appreciate the point the distinguished Senator from California is making. I believe it behooves the Budget Committee to monitor the behavior of the economy closely, and respond to that behavior as conditions dictate.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point my letter to Dr. Rivlin, the text of which is as Senator CRANSTON has described it.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
April 30, 1975.
Dr. ALICE M. RIVLIN,
Director, Congressional Budget Office,
Congress of the United States,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ALICE: As you know, the central concern of the Budget Committee in formulating its first Concurrent Resolution on the Budget has been to provide adequate economic stimulus to return the country to full employment at the most rapid practical pace. Opinions differ on both the appropriate amount of Federal spending and the design of programs to achieve this objective.
We expect the Senate to complete action today on its Concurrent Resolution. We expect the First Concurrent Resolution to be adopted by both Houses by May 15.
Adoption of the Resolution, however, is only the beginning. We plan a second resolution in the fall and, as you know, the law requires additional resolutions after the first at any point when conditions require it. It will be most helpful to the Budget Committee in fulfilling its responsibilities if you will monitor the economic and general fiscal conditions in light of the Budget Resolution. We will appreciate a report on your evaluation of economic conditions and their relationship to current fiscal policy by June 30, 1975. Particular emphasis should be placed in that report on the extent to which Congress has adhered to the Resolution and on the inter-relationship between Congressional action taken and foreseen by that time upon economic recovery. We will appreciate a subsequent report on the same matter on August 15.
A major issue in this year's First Concurrent Resolution has been the design of programs which have a temporary stimulative effect on employment, but which disappear as lower levels of unemployment are achieved. A substantial difference of view exists as to whether such programs can in fact be designed and effectively implemented.
We will appreciate your undertaking a study of the experiences of our country and other nations in the design and implementation of such programs. We would appreciate a thorough examination of the design and economic implication of selected examples of actual and potential programs of this kind. We are very interested in whether such temporary programs can in fact be created and produce a useful effect and, at the same time, remain truly temporary. If such programs can be designed, what are the "triggers" which would actuate them and how can they be designed to "trigger out" effectively when their intended result has been achieved?
We look forward to the results of both these studies. They will be useful to the Committee and Congress in dealing with the severe economic problems we confront.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
EDMUND S. MUSKIE.
Mr. MUSKIE. I read just this one paragraph, which responds to the Senator's point:
Adoption of the Resolution, however, is only the beginning. We plan a second resolution in the fall and, as you know, the law requires additional resolutions after the first at any point when conditions require it. It will be most helpful to the Budget Committee in fulfilling its responsibilities if you will monitor the economic and general fiscal conditions in light of the Budget Resolution. We will appreciate a report on your evaluation of economic conditions and their relationship to current fiscal policy by June 30, 1975. Particular emphasis should be placed in that report on the extent to which Congress has adhered to the Resolution and on the inter-relationship between Congressional action taken and foreseen by that time upon economic recovery.
I think the Senator will agree that the thrust of that letter is on all fours with his own concern.
Mr. CRANSTON. It most certainly is, and will provide us with some badly needed information. I thank the Senator.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I wish to comment on the remarks of the able Senator from California. I noted that he began in certainly what I considered an apologetic manner, saying that he did not vote for the amendment which was defeated. He said that he realized we were going to face up to the inadequacy of what the Senate and Congress needed to do to produce jobs for people in the United States who need work.
I know of his concern for the employment of people. It is my prediction – and I am not one to make predictions – that we will be back here, I say to the Senator from California, at a later date, probably sooner than later, attempting to do what we failed to do this afternoon.
Mr. CRANSTON. I thank the Senator for his remarks.
Let me say that I voted against the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota only because I do not believe at this time we should concede that we have to have more spending and a larger deficit. I hope that within the present spending limits we can find more money for jobs and less money for some other programs which might be cut back from the figures that are suggested in the report of the Budget Committee.
However, we have now set up a procedure through the letter of the chairman to Alice Rivlin that will give us current information on the state of employment and the economy generally, and if we find that the situation is worsening, that we need more money to stimulate the economy, more money for jobs, we will have the information at our fingertips, and we can then proceed to do at that time by other methods what we did not feel, the Senate as a whole did not feel, was wise to do today.