February 19, 1976
Page 3864
Mr. MCCLURE. I thank the Senator for yielding me this time.
Mr. President, as a member of the committee and as the ranking Republican member on the EDA Subcommittee, I rise to supplement the motion to sustain the veto of the President, though some of the legislation merged into it was legislation of which I was a cosponsor. I also was a member of the conference, and saw the conferees take action which was in excess of and quite different from the thrust taken by the Senate when the bill was first passed.
I think we have had a great deal of comment and focus upon the tendency of the Congress of the United States to report out omnibus legislation which has been characterized by some as "pork barrel." If I understand that term correctly, it is intended to imply that there is a little something in it for everybody; therefore, since everyone gets a little pork out of the barrel, they vote for it.
If ever there was a bill properly so characterized, I think that is an apt appellation for this bill. As a consequence, the bill has become overblown as a result of that tendency of the conference to add a little something for everyone, and that is the reason why I shall vote to sustain the veto, with the confident expectation that if the veto is sustained, we will be able to construct out of it a much more workable bill that will really accomplish the aims of Congress in a much more precise manner.
I am concerned also that the administration has not implemented the title X program, the Jobs Opportunities Act, in the way which we had contemplated that they would.
It is obvious to me that the Department of Commerce in making their computer model made the model incorrectly, because the information that came out was obviously incorrect.
Mr. President, I will vote to sustain the President's veto of the conference report on H.R. 5247.
The total cost of the several different measures in the conference report is about $6 billion. In his message to Congress, the President provided extensive background material explaining his reasons for the veto. I do share the President's concern that the number of jobs created by the bill may fall short of the projections and that the estimated cost per job could be too high. The President's message estimates it will cost $25,000 per job. Fortunately, the economic recovery which began late last year appears to be on solid ground and still shows no signs of faltering.
When the jobs generated by these funds reach their peak in late 1977 and 1978 and when outlays under these measures are being made, they would come when recovery is advanced.
The conference report would continue, with modifications, the jobs opportunities program. The program was enacted last year and we have some experience and information about the program. I have serious reservations about the direction the program has taken. It has not attained the goals I envisioned at the start of the program. It has not created the kinds of jobs, nor created them in the manner, I expected when I introduced the measure in December 1974. I continue to support the concept behind the program. I believe it would work and would be effective in helping to create productive jobs for the unemployed, particularly in the private sector of the economy.
The most effective means for creating new jobs remains a balanced economic policy, enabling sound growth without another round of inflation. Let there be no mistake made about the true culprit for our unemployment problems — inflation. If we cannot — or will not — control inflation, then there are not enough printing presses in the world to meet the demands for so-called "Government money." The Federal Government can "create" money, up to a point, but it has to ultimately come from the pockets of the people. The President believes that passage of H.R. 5247 will take more from the people than it will return. I will support that decision and will vote to sustain his veto.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table reflecting outlay spendout of H.R. 5247 be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table wasordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows :
[Table omitted]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired. Who yields time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the able Senator from Tennessee had indicated that this measure, as others we have, would be one that would continue. I must make the point that this measure contains its own automatic cutoff provisions. As unemployment declines, the assistance provided is reduced.
This is a very important factor that is contained in the bill for our colleagues, regardless of their thinking on the bill, to understand.
Mr. President, I yield 4½ minutes to the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) who has identified himself with this legislation and who has been one of the leaders in its passage. He made important contributions to this measure, particularly with respect to the sections establishing the local government assistance program.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from West Virginia. I shall try to cover a lot of ground quickly.
First of all, I say, in response to the remarks from the Senator from Idaho, that we have been working on this bill for almost a year. Essential and principal elements of it have been part of our consideration in the first concurrent budget resolution of last spring. It was considered in the conference and considered in connection with the hearings preparing for the second concurrent resolution. We have been working on this for a year.
As the Senator knows, we can keep this cake in the oven for a long time, but the unemployment is now. Unemployment has been our experience for the last year and, according to the President's budget, will be our experience for the next 3, 4, or 5 years. So the problem is now, and there is a piece of legislation that has gone through the legislative route, has gone through the budget process, and is within the congressional budget.
One of the purposes of the congressional budget process is to give Congress a handle on influencing economic policy, and it has done so.
This bill contains elements that have been essential to the development of the economic policy produced by the Congressional Budget Committees.
It may not be consistent with the President's economic policy, but it is consistent with the, congressional budget policy that has been established now over a period of 11 months and is reflected in the second concurrent resolution which we approved overwhelmingly last December. This is congressional priority, and it ought not to require additional defense on the floor of either House.
Mr. President, this afternoon I intend to vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 5247, the Public Works Employment Act of 1975.
In urging my colleagues to do the same, I would like to stress a couple of particularly important points.
In the first place, as in the case of the HEW appropriations veto which we overrode earlier this month, H.R. 5247 is entirely consistent with the budget ceilings adopted by this body in the second concurrent budget resolution.
That resolution allows for $3.9 billion in budget authority and $1 billion in outlays for fiscal year 1976 for antirecession programs. The bill before us is well within those limits, allowing for $3.55 billion in budget authority and not more than $600 million in outlays for fiscal year 1976.
With H.R. 5247, Congress has done its job well setting spending targets and sticking to them as many thought we could never do. Any claims of "budget busting" are political rhetoric and nothing more.
A second point I would like to make, Mr. President, is that too often when we discuss the budget impact of a bill like this one, we talk only about cost and we overlook the benefits to the budget of a program that will put people to work.
The Budget Committee estimates that for every 1 percent increase in the unemployment rate — for every 1 million unemployed Americans — the cost to the U.S. Treasury is $3 billion in extra benefits to the unemployed and $14 billion in lost revenues.
The bill before us is a modest proposal — estimated to produce about 650,000 jobs. This bill will not stop the incredible drain of unemployment on the Treasury. But it will reduce it. And for those of my colleagues who say they will vote to sustain this veto because they are concerned about the size of the deficit, they would do well to consider this point.
The Budget Committee staff has estimated that of the additional $6 billion in increased Federal spending in H.R. 5247, $1.8 billion will be returned to the Treasury as tax receipts. The remaining $4.2 billion will go to increase after-tax incomes in the private sector.
Following this $4.2 billion as it is spent and re-spent through the private sector, the committee staff estimates that the total feedback of this bill to the Federal budget — in increased taxes and reduced outlays for unemployment compensation, welfare, and so forth — is even greater. So the net impact on the Federal budget of this bill will be approximately $3 billion. And for that relatively small price, we will have put hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work and gone a long way toward stabilizing the very rocky condition of many of our State and local government budgets.
I might add here, Mr. President, that the figure of 650,000 jobs produced under H.R. 5247 is taken from estimates made by the congressional committees who worked on this bill for over a year. I do not know where the President got his estimates of 125,000 jobs at a cost of $25,000 per job. But they are preposterous. And I hope my colleagues will give them the amount of attention they deserve — none.
Finally, Mr. President, I address myself to what I consider a very disturbing attitude that I hear voiced both by some Members of this body and by the current occupant of the White House. That attitude is expressed as a growing willingness to tolerate ever higher levels of unemployment.
We are told that the unemployment picture is getting better. Well, just how much better is it? In December, 23 States had unemployment over 8 percent. 36 had unemployment of 7 percent or more. Thirteen States had the same or higher unemployment rate than they had last winter.
Never before in my long career in the Senate can I recall a time when we in this body considered 7.8 percent unemployment — which we had in January — not high enough to do something about; 7.8 percent unemployment is not just high — it is very high. The President's own projection of 7.7 percent unemployment — representing nearly 7 million Americans — is not just high — it is very high. Projections for 1977 and 1978 are for unemployment at 6.9 and 6.4 percent, respectively. That is high unemployment as high as during any previous recession since the big one during the 1930's.
What have we done about it? We have enacted a tax cut, and that is all. And State and local governments are turning around and taking that money right back from consumers through tax increases.
The bill before us now is one of the few chances we will have to enact a solid complement to the tax cuts we have already passed. And yet the "ho-hum" crowd in this Chamber and at the other end of the avenue are saying there is nothing to worry about — not 7.8 percent unemployment, not 7 percent unemployment, not even 6.5 percent.
Frankly, Mr. President, I find this attitude appalling.
For those of my colleagues who plan to vote to sustain out of concern for the size of deficit, let them take this message home: that continued high unemployment only means more and bigger deficits to come.
And for those who plan to vote to sustain because unemployment is getting better, let them tell their unemployed constituents not to worry, that times will be better in 3 or 4 years.
Frankly, Mr. President, I do not want to take either of these messages home to my constituents in Maine.