April 12, 1976
Page 10475
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall not take much time. I yield myself 5 minutes.
First of all, let me say, with respect to the opening comments of the distinguished Senator from Indiana undertaking to define the role of the Budget Committee relative to that of the other committees and the individual Members of the Senate, that I do not disagree with this definition at all. Obviously, the process ought to be one to which the entire Senate can contribute as well as the members of the Budget Committee.
With respect to the responsibilities of the members of the Budget Committee in connection with this resolution, it is my view that, with rare exceptions, we ought to support the resolution which a majority of the Budget Committee was able to agree upon and report to the Senate. Otherwise, we will simply invite an open door on every decision that the Budget Committee has made, and, in effect, try to repeat the Budget Committee process on the floor of the Senate. That would be time consuming and, I think, would be a disservice to our objective.
Nevertheless, it is the Senator's prerogative to argue the merits of the particular program which he feels is jeopardized by the overall functional totals of function 750 in the budget resolution before us. I would repeat what I have said before; that the Budget Committee is not a line item committee, that when we adopt a functional total, we are not undertaking to mandate how that total will be distributed among the programs that are covered.
The third point I would make, that perhaps has not been made in the course of this debate, is that the fact that these functional totals are the same as those of the President does not mean we are mandating the distribution within those functions that the President had in mind. All we have done with these functional totals is say that these are the dollars that we think should be available in this function. The details are to be spelled out by the appropriate committees. Those committees should not be inhibited as to details by any personal ideas that the Budget Committee members had, or by the details that the President and the administration have proposed.
This is not a line item committee. We did not undertake a decision on how much money, if any, ought to be allocated to juvenile justice. I want to make that clear, so that the legislative record is clear, whatever the outcome of this amendment.
The President's budget, as I understand it, requests $707 million for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. Certainly the Appropriations Committee can allocate more than the $10 million that the President has allocated for juvenile justice out of the $707 million he has requested for the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration. I think the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island had an extensive discussion in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on Friday, in which he pointed out his concern, matching that of the Senator from Indiana and I take it that of the Senator from Nebraska, as to whether or not the amount allowed is too tight to permit adequate funding for the juvenile justice program.
I think that I would be accurate in describing the Budget Committee's attitude on this matter in this fashion: I think several members of the Budget Committee, if not all of them, expressed concern about the amount of money that has been spent under the LEAA program since its inception. There was a feeling that the program ought to be subjected to close scrutiny during this budget year, to determine whether savings in addition to those proposed by the President and the Budget Committee might not be achieved. If sufficient savings cannot be achieved, the committee, of course, ought to make that case and bring it to the Senate with a request for additional funding. But at the moment, our attitude has been that we want to keep the pressure on and force a careful examination of spending programs within the budget.
We have not made any committee judgment on the juvenile justice program. Speaking for myself, I am most sympathetic to the juvenile justice program. I think the case made by the distinguished Senator from Indiana and the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island on Friday is a most persuasive one, because it happens to be in line with my own views about juvenile justice programs.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I make one other point?
I understand that in the fiscal year 1976 budget, the year in which we now are, the LEAA estimate is that about $120 million of the LEAA budget is being used by State and local governments for juvenile justice.
I yield to my good friend from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Of course, Mr. President, there is a lot to be said on the other side of the coin. As to the idea that we should look into it and scrutinize it, that is exactly what we do before the Appropriations Committee.
The argument is made that we still have crime, in spite of the fact that we have LEAA funds. Well, as I have had occasion to remark to the Senator from Maine, we still have cancer; too, but that does not mean we should relax our efforts in the research to find the answer for it.
The fact still remains that the committee's proposal means 250 less jobs in the FBI, when crime is up. This means that we do not have the funds for the education of our law enforcement officers or the funds that are necessary to keep the juveniles out of the courts. You put them in the courts, you put them in the reform school, you put them in jail, and how much does that cost? I mean, these are the questions.
I listened to Mr. Heller on Meet the Press yesterday. Of course, he does not go along with the administration 100 percent. I think we have become a little too conservative conscious. I wonder sometimes if this is a response to Ronald Reagan or President Ford, or whether it is really a response to the people of the country. We are here to serve them.
The argument is made that sometimes you can get yourself into a big stalemate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes the Senator from Maine yielded himself has expired. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield the Senator another 2 minutes.
Mr. PASTORE. So I say to my distinguished friend from Maine, I realize what we are up against here, and I realize what happened to the other amendments that came up last Friday; but I would hope we are not precluded one way or the other. No matter what happens on this floor today, we would like to debate this subject.
We have these witnesses come before our committee. We start at 10 o'clock in the morning, and we go until 12:30 in the afternoon. We meet again at 2 o'clock, we go until 5 o'clock. We listen to Tom, Dick, and Harry. Then we get out on the floor here, and we are told that the Budget Committee thought, in its good judgment, that the chances are that the LEAA money is being wasted.
Now, who told them that? Where did they get the information? They did not hear one witness; who told them? The administration.
Has this Congress become the patsy for the administration? Must we sustain their budget? That is exactly what we are doing.
When the thing was real hot, to use the vernacular, they would not give us 10 cents for juvenile delinquency. I do not mean my remarks to be an affront to the distinguished Senator from Maine — that is why he is going to give me more time — but all I want to say, gentlemen, is that we work hard on these budgets.
I realize what the situation is, and that everyone wants to keep within the context of the estimates submitted by the administration. But what did they do on defense? They ask for every dollar, and they do not want one nickel cut. The administration knew that they had to raise it by 15 percent on defense, for the simple reason that if they did not, they knew Congress would not do it. So what do they do? They cut the social programs. They take it out on the juveniles, they take it out on the FBI, the elderly, and the sick.
They take it out on more jobs for people out of work because they know that is going to be the debate in the Chamber.
They did that with us on aid to education in impacted areas. They would never put 10 cents up for impacted areas. They did that because they knew that Congress would put it in. Then President Ford would go before the people on television, and he will say: "Look what they did to me. They put all that money back in."
And everyone knows that every school committee was looking for that money that had been bankrupted.
Take my own State of Rhode Island. In my own State of Rhode Island, they took everything out of Quonset Point. We expanded our schools. We built the houses. They are all boarded up. The schoolrooms are empty.
And the Government says, "Now, you go fish or cut bait."
That is where we stand, and I hope that does not happen to us.
I repeat again. Maybe we ought to withdraw this amendment. I do not know. We ought to take up this fight at the proper time after we have had the witnesses before us.
As we were told here last Friday, "You come out with the justifications and justify, and we will change our minds."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional 2 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
Mr. PASTORE. I think I have said it all.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 additional minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. And this is in conclusion, because I have already reached my crescendo.
I merely state that here we are dealing with human beings. We are dealing with kids. And we are dealing with law enforcement by the FBI.
I am saying right here and now, for every nickel that you save in programs for the prevention of crime, once that crime happens, you spend a dollar. Are we going to end up being penny wise and pound foolish? I hope that does not happen.
I repeat again that I do not know what is going to happen. There are few Senators in the Chamber. The rest cannot hear this argument. Senators will not know the logic being used now, but they will be dropping in, they will be trodding in, and "If I like EDDIE MUSKIE, I will vote to go along with EDDIE MUSKIE; if I like the Senator from Oklahoma, I will go along with him — the facts be darned."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional minute has expired.
Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Chair for being so generous and kind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. NUNN). I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. BAYH. I am glad to yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HRUSKA. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana, which has been so ably and eloquently supported by the Senator from Rhode Island.
This Senator is not prone to come to the Chamber asking for more funds. He is one who has a record of voting for or advocating fiscal responsibility in its place. Notwithstanding the noble sentiments that are explained here about sustaining the integrity of the budget and so on, Mr. President, it must be remembered that the budget making process and the process of appropriating money are selected efforts to determine priorities.
It does not mean indiscriminate cutting. It does not mean indiscriminate appropriation. It means a selective process on the basis of priorities.
I suggest, most urgently, that the amendment which would increase the level of the functional category for law enforcement and Justice by $100 million is a high priority. Included in the amendment are funds for the administration of the Juvenile Delinquency Control Act, which was the product really of the energy and talent of the Senator from Indiana. I helped him in the adoption of that legislation because I felt strongly that the thrust of law enforcement should be directed to youths age 16 to 26. The highest percentage of crime is committed by juveniles in that age range.
Without a restoration of funds for this program, it will be starved for the second consecutive year. Last year, the Department of Justice experienced a $100 million cut in funds, most of it visited upon LEAA, and now we have another cut.
This would be a partial restoration, and it should be made. The law enforcement education program — LEEP — is a most desirable program because it trains law enforcement officers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
Who yields time?
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I yield time.
Mr. HRUSKA. The LEEP program trains officers and people in the law enforcement field in all of its aspects who in the main will be devoting their talents, resources, and time to dealing with crime in that age bracket to which I have referred.
Mr. President, how can we deny funds for two such worthwhile programs, and continue to consider funds for the Federal Trade Commission's request for a line of business reporting program? This program, if funded, would allow the FTC to harass businesses and corporations by requiring line of business data. What makes the request for these funds even more outrageous is the fact that this matter is presently tied up in litigation before the courts.
The reason I mentioned this particular item, Mr. President, is to point out to my colleagues the priorities that must be considered when every effort is being made to reduce Federal spending across the board.
I agree with the Senator from Rhode Island. We have painstaking hearings in which we hear the logic, force, and basis for determining priorities. We are not dealing solely with numbers. We are also dealing with human problems and the progress, safety and security of the Nation.
I once again urge our colleagues to support this amendment in the interest of avoiding a pseudo savings in the budget that is unsupported both in the record of the Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senators that they have made a most persuasive case. As a matter of fact, I do not challenge their case on the merits at all.
Second, I agree also that this is a tight budget, in light of the Senator's concerns, and I voted personally to put $100 million more in it in the Budget Committee.
The third point I make is that I welcome this debate. In this morning's press I read that we have provided $17 billion more for social programs than the President's budget, $17 billion more, creating the impression that somehow we have been spendthrift in the Budget Committee.
So I am delighted to have Senators of prestige, matching the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, the distinguished Senator from Indiana, and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, making the point that even our budget is tight and that meritorious programs are being jeopardized or are underfunded.
I think that is a demonstration of the fact that the budget discipline is working and were it not for these protests of the budget then the public might well be justified in concluding that we have too much fat here.
So I say to our colleagues, and I think my good friend from Rhode Island will understand this, that I have heard persuasive arguments of this kind from every sector of the budget, and it is not easy to say no, especially for one with my voting record and background. I mean, I am persuaded by arguments of the kind I have heard here this afternoon. But I think I have an obligation to defend the discipline imposed by this resolution, and at this point I am willing to—
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me a minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield a minute to my good friend from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I simply point out that in fiscal year 1975 the outlays for function 750, law enforcement Justice, were $2.9 billion; for fiscal 1976 they were $3.4 billion, a jump of $500 million, and the recommendation of the Budget Committee is to stay at the $3.4 billion figure for fiscal 1977.
Mr. President, I think we have seen the occurrence happen here that we have seen in other categories. Last Friday we had extensive debate about the desirability of adding several hundred million dollars in the veterans function. Later today we are going to have arguments in favor of adding money to the agricultural function.
The problem that the Budget Committee has is that there are so many good things that everyone would like to do that we simply cannot afford.
We are trying very hard, as the chairman has said, to apportion the money we have available to do the things that Congress feels are of the highest priority. We sincerely believe that the decisions that the Budget Committee has made are such that it will allow the essential work of function 750 to go ahead, and I urge that this amendment be defeated.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am not sure how much time remains, I wish to just sum up briefly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has 1 minute.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield those minutes to the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. My distinguished chairman and my friend has been very kind. In listening to him and my friend from Oklahoma, we are all very concerned in understanding each other's position.
I think it is important to reflect on the policy implicit in the reduction in question. We want to be fiscally prudent. We do not want unnecessary spending. Yet, if this amendment of the Senator from Indiana, supported by my friends from Nebraska and Rhode Island succeeds, the budget in this component will still be $200 million less than the actual total amount we are spending this year without accounting for the impact of inflation.
When we see the never ending headlines about crime, I, for one, think we had better take a hard look at whether we are actually being prudent in assessing the overall budget allocation. As crime goes up, do we really want to spend less to prevent it?
I should emphasize that there has been a difference of opinion between the distinguished President of the United States and the Senator from Indiana. Supported by those who have spoken previously and supported by the Senator from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS), who, because of a constituency problem is not able to be present, I have been supporting an effort to try to do something about children problems before they become adult problems and society's problems. I am not talking about the young toughs who rob and rape and pillage. We have to treat them appropriately. I am talking, however, about the grade school kids, junior high school kids, with emerging problems. We must deal with them in such a way that will prevent an escalation in the seriousness of their conduct.
We enacted this legislation in 1974. We finally forced the President to accept the $40 million that was passed by the House and the Senate. We passed $75 million last year. The appropriating committee and the authorizing committee request $100 million. The President disagrees. He is even trying to gut and eliminate the $112 million that the Senator from Maine referred to which incidentally is for programs other than prevention. The Senator from Maine has no way of knowing this, but in extending LEAA, the President has one line in S. 2112 that would excise that maintenance of effort section
If we are concerned about crime, if we are concerned about prevention, if we are concerned about young people, we had better vote "yes" on this and join some 50 organizations such as the Boy Scouts the Girl Scouts, the Camp Fire Girls, the YWCA, the YMCA, the National Council of Jewish Women, the American Legion, Youth Committee — every organization in America that is concerned about the problems of young people and that has supported the Juvenile Justice Act from its inception. They are supporting our effort to return dollars to our communities, so that they can deal with the problems of young people where and when they can be solved — not here in Washington, not in the White House where they have no support, but in their own hometowns.
I ask unanimous consent that the list of many organizations supporting the act appear at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ORGANIZATIONS ENDORSING THE JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PREVENTION ACT OF 1974 (PUBLIC LAW 93415)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
American Institute of Family Relations.
American Legion, National Executive Committee.
American Parents Committee.
American Psychological Association.
B'nai B'rith Women.
Children's Defense Fund.
Child Study Association of America.
Chinese Development Council.
Christian Prison Ministries.
Emergency Task Force on Juvenile Delinquency Prevention.
John Howard Association.
Juvenile Protective Association.
National Alliance on Shaping Safer Cities.
National Association of Counties.
National Association of Social Workers.
National Association of State Juvenile Delinquency Program Administrators.
National Collaboration for Youth.
Boys' Clubs of America.
Boy Scouts of America
Camp Fire Girls, Inc.
Future Homemakers of America.
Girls' Clubs.
Girl Scouts of U.S.A.
National Federation of Settlements and Neighborhood Centers.
Red Cross Youth Service Programs.
4H Clubs.
Federal Executive Service.
National Jewish Welfare Board.
National Board of YWCAs, and National Council of YMCAs.
National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year
Committee on Child Development Audrey Rowe Colom, Chairperson Committee
Jill Ruckelshaus, Presiding Officer of Commission.
National Conference of Criminal Justice Planning Administrators.
National Conference of State Legislatures.
National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
National Council of Jewish Women.
National Council of Juvenile Court Judges.
National Council of Organizations of Children and Youth.
National Federation of State Youth Service Bureau Associations.
National Governors Conference.
National Information Center on Volunteers in Courts.
National League of Cities.
National Legal Aid and Defender Association.
National Network of Runaway and Youth Services.
National Urban Coalition.
National Youth Alternatives Project.
Public Affairs Committee,
National Association for Mental Health, Inc.
Robert F. Kennedy Action Corps.
U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding the amendment which has been offered to increase budget authority and outlays by $100 million in function 750, Law Enforcement and Justice, for fiscal 1977 — for juvenile justice activities.
The Budget Committee recommended $3.3 billion in budget authority and $3.4 billion in outlays function 750 for 1977, the same as the President's budget.
I support the stated objective of the amendment. However, the Budget Committee, of course, does not deal in line items and therefore I think it is inappropriate to try to treat line item matters in our consideration of the Budget resolution today.
The ultimate responsibility for determining the program mix within the budget functional areas — such as this one — is vested in the authorizing and Appropriations Committees. If these committees recommend such a change and it is the will of Congress, I believe that the increase proposed could be accommodated within the resolution.
Accordingly, I am voting against the amendment in the interest of holding down the deficit.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President, I am concerned about the possible interpretations of the Budget Committee recommendations regarding the Law Enforcement and Justice category.
The committee has adopted the level of spending recommended by the President. The President's budget is, however, predicated on several serious reductions in important programs, including the juvenile delinquency program, LEAA block grants, LEEP, Legal Services, FBI training for local police and LEAA discretionary grants.
In fact, two of these programs would be decimated under the President's budget. One is the fledgling juvenile delinquency program. Some $40 million was appropriated for this program in fiscal 1976. Through a rescission proposal, which was not accepted, the President sought to reduce this amount to $25 million, with the remaining $15 million to be used in fiscal 1977.
When the rescission was not approved and the entire $40 million made available by the Congress, this left only $10 million in requests for fiscal 1977. Obviously, this would seriously undercut efforts to move ahead on this program.
In the past several years, efforts to combat juvenile delinquency have been spurred across the Nation by the availability of new funds through this program. In Louisville, Ky., for example, funds have been used for Shelter House, which assists runaway children — children whose growing years are not as easy as we would hope and who need help in coping with the world around them. Personally, I do not believe this is a program on which we should skimp.
Under the President's program, the LEEP program would be eliminated. This program provides education and training programs for policemen to enable them to increase their skills and academic training. In fiscal 1975, the last year for which full figures are available, 13 institutions in Kentucky participated in this program.
The legal services program, which admittedly experienced a number of problems in its very early years, has been restructured as a public, nonprofit corporation and is pursuing its responsibility of providing legal services for those who otherwise would be unable to afford them.
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Justice, Commerce, of which I am a member, recommended to the Budget Committee that provision be made above the President's budget for these programs, and I understand that the House has taken that course. I believe these are important programs which should not be stymied and I do not want to suggest that I approve of the reductions recommended in the President's budget. For that reason, I am supporting the amendment offered by the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays, if the Senator from Maine thinks it is appropriate at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were not ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Why do we not ask for the yeas and nays at some point in the next debate?
Mr. BAYH. At any time the Senator from Maine feels it is appropriate, I would like to ask for the yeas and nays.