May 4, 1977
Page 13585
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has covered the committee's position very well. I see no point in repeating the observations that he has made.
I say in addition — I am not sure he covered this point — that the committee has already reduced the recommendation for forward funding from full forward funding to partial forward funding in fiscal 1979. I really think the committee went into this very carefully, as the Senator has said, in connection with the third concurrent budget resolution. It is the desire to keep the lid on to the extent that we can, given the requirement for some public employment at a time when 7 million Americans are out of work. I understand the concern of the Senator from California that the program has not worked and is not as effective a way as we all would have liked, but we have provided for that as well.
I value the Senator's membership on the Budget Committee and I look forward to long tenure with him on it. I hope we can find occasion to agree on matters of this kind. I am sure his instincts in the direction of budgetary discipline are consistent with my own. On this particular one, I think the committee position is sound.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Just to confirm some figures, which I understand come out of the Congressional Budget Office, they estimate that our unemployment rate in 1979 is going to be 6.3 percent. For example, Chase Econometrics predicts an unemployment rate of 9.2 percent for the first quarter of fiscal 1979; Data Resources, 6.6.
The question I wish to ask the Senator — because I, too, am strongly opposed to this amendment — is: Is it not a fact that what really is being contested here is the nature of the budget process?
The fact is that the Budget Committee has to make the very best estimate it can. That is our law. Based upon this data which I have just mentioned, that and a good deal more, there is really nothing else that the committee can do other than make the estimate which it has — which seems to me, too, to be consonant with these figures — if anything, at the most optimistic, a shade less than what we are anticipating for 1977. It is tragic but true.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. It is a conservative estimate. It represents the biggest reduction that the Budget Committee could justify, given our expectations. The Senator is perfectly right.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator yield me 1 additional minute?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. BELLMON. I simply want to add to the RECORD the fact that CETA — I am sure most Senators are aware of this — is the primary vehicle for serving the structurally unemployed.
Structural unemployment, as I think most Members of the Senate know, is expected to continue to remain high, even if we do have strong economic recovery. So when we fund CETA and give the prime sponsors advance notice so that they can plan and operate these programs in an effective way, we are striking, in the most telling manner we have found so far, at structural unemployment. In this way, we are reducing some of the other costs, such as unemployment compensation, welfare, and other Government programs, and putting people in a position where they can become contributing citizens and wage earners as well as taxpayers. In my judgment, this investment is one of the finest ways we can use the resources we have available.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back my time.
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Did the Senator want any more time?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not want any more.
Mr. HAYAKAWA. Mr. President, I wish to add, in reply — or partial reply — to the distinguished Senator from New York, that I have no intention of challenging the budget process.
What we are suggesting, instead, is that the second concurrent resolution is a more appropriate time to determine how many CETA jobs we should fund.
I point out the peculiar state of unemployment today: I have tried to point out before and I still want to point out that unemployment today does not mean what it did in the 1950's and does not mean what it did in the 1930's. In March 1977, 65 percent of the working age civilian population was employed in our country. Yet the unemployment rate was 7.3 percent. In 1969, the unemployment rate was 3.5 percent; yet still only 64.6, or almost exactly the same percentage, of the working age civilian population was employed.
Let me repeat those figures: 65 percent in 1977; in 1969, 64.6 percent of the working age civilian population were employed. This means that we see the same percentage of our working age population employed today as we did in 1969.
In an important sense, there is no worse unemployment now than there was then but, because of the greater participation in the labor force of secondary wage earners, women and teenagers — who have weaker job attachment, who have more of a tendency to quit jobs and fly from job to job and shop around for jobs they like better than what they have now — our unemployment rate is much higher. I do not think our figures or our computations are taking these facts of structural unemployment into account.
This particular fact of structural unemployment, the ease with which one can quit a job in full confidence that one can go on a skiing trip for a few months and come back and be sure of getting another job, is not an indication of economic recession or depression. It is the indication of enormous prosperity, that one can be sure of being able to quit and come back and find another job without trouble. This is the condition reflected in so much of our unemployment.This is not being taken into account in our deliberations on the subject of CETA. I thank the chairman.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will just take a minute or two on a couple of points.
In the first place, I say to the Senator that his comparison of 1977 and 1969 figures must take this into account.
One, 1969 was pretty close to a full employment year and that makes it a factor, of course, where we have this tremendous influx of women into the labor force.
I must say that the 7 million who are unemployed are just as unemployed as though the women had not entered the labor force.
And the next point is what we do about those 7 million. That is the nature of our problem and that ought not be overlooked.
There has been a tremendous change in the structure of the labor force.
We do not know everything about the implications of those changes that we would like to know. As we develop knowledge, however, we ought to understand that for some 2 years or more we have had a minimum of 7.3 percent unemployed, and we have had a pretty big blip in the downward trend over the last 6 months.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MELCHER). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.