May 4, 1977
Page 13549
FIRST BUDGET RESOLUTION, 1978
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 19, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Con. Res. 19), setting forth the congressional budget for the U. S. Government for the fiscal year 1978.
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute.
Yesterday, the distinguished Senator from Virginia raised questions about the increase in outlays from fiscal 1977 to fiscal 1978. That amount is $50 billion. There was some discussion of the reasons why that increase took place. I ask unanimous consent that a table identifying the sources of that increase be printed in the RECORD at this point for the enlightenment of Members of the Senate.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Explanation of $50 billion increase in outlays between fiscal year 1977 and fiscal year 1978
(Billions of dollars)
Outlays
Fiscal year 1977 outlays as proposed in Budget Committee Amendment
to Senate Concurrent Resolution 19 408.8
National Defense:
Weapons development and procurement + 6.3
Operation and maintenance + 3. 6
Military retired pay and pay raises for active personnel + 1.3
Other (primarily military assistance and ERDA defense activities) + 1.5
Total +12.7
Social Security + 8. 1
Public service jobs, youth employment and other employment
training programs + 4. 6
Medicare + 3.4
Medicaid + 1.2
Energy programs + 2.5
Interest + 5.0
Transportation programs + 1.4
Local public works program + 2. 1
Education programs + 0.9
Federal employee retirement + 1.6
Unemployment compensation – 2.0
Other income assistance programs + 1.1
Veterans programs (primarily compensation, pensions, and
readjustment benefits) + 1.7
Mortgage credit and thrift insurance programs (reflects greater sale
of assets in fiscal year 1977 than in fiscal year 1978 rather than
program changes) + 3. 4
All other programs, net + 2.3
Fiscal year 1978 outlays as proposed in Senate Concurrent
Resolution 19 as reported 458.8
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have an amendment that I would like to have considered.
TIME LIMITATION AGREEMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for just a moment?
Mr. JAVITS. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there are three amendments which I know are going to be considered, one by Senator JAVITS and Senator HUMPHREY, one by Senator PROXMIRE and Senator BROOKE, and one by the distinguished Senator from California (Mr. CRANSTON) .
I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limitation of 15 minutes on the Javits-Humphrey amendment, to be equally divided; a time limitation of 11/2 hours on the Proxmire-Brooke amendment, to be equally divided; and a time limitation of 1 hour on the Cranston amendment, to be equally divided.
It is my hope that we shall be able to yield back some of this time and that a vote can take place on the two amendments. I ask unanimous consent that the two amendments be placed back to back for the purpose of votes at the expiration of the three time agreements which we are talking about. That ought to be between 4 and 5 o'clock.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I suggest that the Senator from Maine give 15 minutes to us and 5 minutes to the other side. That is the way it will work out.
Mr. MUSKIE. I modify my request in accordance with the Senator's suggestion.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from New York yield 2 minutes for a colloquy with the Senator from Maine, in which he is ready to respond immediately?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time be expanded by 5 minutes so I may yield 5 to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator's request concerning time limitation is still pending, is it not?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That request is still pending.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, could we also include a provision, for the protection of committees which have scheduled lengthy hearings and markups today, that no roll call votes occur before, say, 4:15 this afternoon?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? There appears to be none.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, just to clarify it.
As I understand it, the unanimous consent is 20 minutes to me, 5 minutes to the opponents, that is, the managers of the bill, of which I am yielding 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I thank the Senator very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I have a question for the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. My question concerns the budget authority for health matters and the President's new child health initiative which I introduced last week and which Senators KENNEDY, HATHAWAY, and MAGNUSON cosponsored.
The President's first major health message to Congress last Monday included several new health initiatives. Among these was a child health assessment program. This program extends medicaid eligibility to certain categories of poor children not covered. It also expands and improves the current medicaid program for early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment of all poor children.
Health care for these poor but categorically ineligible children has been a concern of mine for a number of years. In 1967 I offered an amendment — which was incorporated into the law — authorizing States to cover these children in their medicaid program. Despite the slow implementation of the screening, diagnostic, and treatment program, today 16 States provide coverage to these children. I am especially pleased to note that a key element in the President's new program is the mandatory coverage in all States of all poor children under the age of 6.
In comparison with the overall medicaid budget for fiscal year 1978, this initiative is cheap. The administration estimates that it will cost a total of $180 million next year. Sixty million dollars of this will go for expanded coverage for currently eligible children; $48 million for extending care to poor children not currently eligible for needed treatment currently eligible; $27 million for guaranteeing that all children will be eligible for needed treatment for at least 6 months after they are screened; $20 million for increased administrative expenses; and $25 million for additional or expanded community level centers — especially new rural health centers.
I believe this to be a good initiative. My question for the distinguished Senator from Maine concerns this child health assessment program in the context of the budget resolution. The administration was prepared to support an amendment to the budget resolution to allow for this program. However programs of this size and scope are not specifically addressed in the concurrent resolution. Is it the view of the chairman of the Budget Committee that there is enough room in the resolution's current health totals to accommodate this child health proposal?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator that the answer would be as follows :
Our recommended budget totals for the health function could accommodate this legislation. The amounts involved in the budget are $48 billion in budget authority and $44.4 billion in outlays.
Now, the distribution of these funds will depend on the priorities of the Finance and Appropriations Committees.
The crosswalk of budget totals between Finance and Appropriations will not be developed until after the conference between the House and Senate on the Budget Resolution.
Regardless of preliminary crosswalk decisions, if the Appropriations and Finance Committees agree that this is a desirable program, the committee allocation of funds can be worked out accordingly.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Then, in other words, the committee's first resolution estimates within the total do not preclude any legislative action on the part of the Senate committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. But those two committees will have to act positively to implement it.
Mr. RIBICOFF. That I understand. I thank the Senator, the chairman, very much.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from Connecticut.
Mr. RIBICOFF. And I thank the Senior Senator from New York.
AMENDMENT NO. 249
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 249 and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITS), for }himself and Mr. HUMPHREY, proposes an amendment numbered 249.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 1, line 7, strike out "$458,800,000,000" and insert "$459,300,000,000".
On page 1, line 9, strike out "$497,400,000,000" and insert "$497,900,000,000".
On page 3, line 21, strike out "$27,100,000,000" and insert "$27,600,000,000".
On page 3, line 22, strike out "$27,000,000,000" and insert "$27,500,000,000".
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
What this amendment proposes to do is to increase function No. 500 to allow $27.6 billion in budget authority and $27.5 billion in outlays, thereby increasing the amounts recommended by the Budget Committee by $500 million.
Mr. President, the case for the amendment is simply that we are going to pass a target youth employment bill. We have agreed upon the essence of that bill with the administration. It is one of the real triumphs of congressional-executive collaboration.
My colleagues, Senator DOMENICI, Senator MCCLURE, Senator BELLMON, all of whom offered bills of the same character, have cooperated and worked in the same vineyard.
Senator HUMPHREY and I collaborated on a bill, which is also a critically important element in a youth package, to wit, the question of in-school youth and how to deal with them.
The total package costs $2.5 billion, and the Human Resources Committee asked the Budget Committee to provide $2.5 billion. The Budget Committee provided $2 billion.
Now, with 20 percent of youth unemployed in the age bracket 16 to 24 and with half the aggregate unemployment in the country of young people 16 to 24, this makes the strongest possible case for targeting. But in order to target, we need the money and this is the first step in that process.
So we are seeking our proper remedy, which is to get the necessary money to do the job. That is what this amendment is all about, Mr. President.
Now I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), who has been a traditional and in this case, again, a tremendous leader in this effort.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Senator from New York.
Mr. President, I am very pleased to join Senator JAVITS as cosponsor of the budget resolution amendment before the Senate — amendment No. 249. As he has pointed out, this amendment seeks to add $500 million in both budget authority and outlays for fiscal 1973 to the budget totals for function 500 — "education, training, employment, and social services." The purpose of the amendment is to make more funds available for youth employment programs.
My good friend, Senator JAVITS, and I have had a long and fruitful working relationship on youth employment legislation. On January 11, we joined together to introduce S. 170 — the Comprehensive Youth Employment Act of 1977 — much of which was adapted in the administration's Youth Employment and Training Act, S. 1242, which is currently before the Human Resources Committee. To fill in gaps in S. 1242, Senator JAVITS and I joined together to submit amendment No.184, which adds work-study and counseling programs which were unfortunately omitted from the administration's bill. Today, we are joining together again to assure that sufficient funds are available for the youth employment programs that will be enacted this year.
Our amendment will increase the budget authority and outlay levels for "CETA titles I, III, IV, and new youth employment initiatives" from $4.1 billion, which is what the Budget Committee targets, to $4.6 billion. We believe that the severity of the youth unemployment problem requires that we at least continue our current policy commitment to these CETA titles and new youth employment programs, and our amendment would do that. In addition, our amendment would bring outlays for these programs up to the level recommended by both President Carter and the House Budget Committee, and would fully fund the new youth employment programs created under the Youth Employment and Training Act.
We believe it would be a serious mistake at this time to under-fund youth employment programs. In March, teenagers 16 to 19 years old had an unemployment rate of 18.8 percent; while young adults 20 to 24 years old had an unemployment rate of 11.4 percent. By comparison, the unemployment rate for adults 25 and over was 5.1 percent. Among black teenagers, the unemployment rate in March was 40.1 percent and, in many of our central cities, disadvantaged youth have been experiencing an unemployment rate that exceeds 60 percent.
As a result, there are more than 3.4 million youths in this country who are ready, willing, and able to work but who have been denied jobs.
This is a national tragedy and an unconscionable waste of one of our Nation's most valuable resources. Almost every teenager and young adult I have met wants desperately to work and to be accepted as a productive and useful member of our society. They want jobs, they want to be productive, they want to earn their way, they want to be given a fighting chance.
Unemployment cheats them out of all this. Joblessness tells our young people that there is no productive role for them. It tells them that they will have to wait — often for years — before we will admit them to adulthood, years before they can earn their own income and become contributors to our national economic life.
Full funding of a youth employment program will be an excellent investment in the future of our country, because the personal, economic and social costs of youth unemployment are enormous.
If we do not move swiftly to provide jobs and training for our youths today, we may well end up in the 1980's and 1990's not only with a serious youth unemployment problem, but with a whole generation of middle age Americans who have little or no job skills and who will need very expensive rehabilitation to become productive and self-supporting workers.
In addition, youth unemployment is a major source of crime. In 1973, the latest year for which we have comprehensive figures, 75 percent of arrests for serious crime involved youth under the age of 25. Youth made up 75 percent of those arrested for arson and for robbery, and 85 percent of those arrested for vandalism, for burglary, and for auto theft. There is no way that we can reduce or eliminate crime in this country until we solve the problem of youth unemployment.
The most direct and rapid way to alleviate youth unemployment is through the creation of specially targeted youth employment programs, and the Youth Employment and Training Act does just that. The 200,000 jobs that would be created for youths under this act if it is fully funded is only a drop in the bucket when there are 3.4 million youths unemployed, but it is a beginning toward a comprehensive and effective youth employment program.
If the Senate goes along with the Budget Committee's recommended slowdown in outlays, the effect may well be to encourage prime sponsors — who are going to have enough troubles implementing the new title VI jobs projects — to drag their feet in implementing youth jobs. I do not think we should give them that kind of excuse for going slow. Let us show them that the Senate of the United States is serious about the need to reduce youth unemployment by increasing our budget targets for these programs and by telling the prime sponsors that we expect them to use this money as swiftly as possible.
In addition, our amendment would restore some of the economic stimulus that was lost when the tax rebate was withdrawn, and it would help us achieve the economic growth and unemployment goals which the Budget Committee itself proposed in its report. The overall outlay and revenue targets set in the first concurrent resolution were arrived at by assuming that the rebate and other jobs programs would be enacted and started up swiftly, so that they would have a beneficial effect on the economy by the end of this year. The withdrawal of the tax rebate combined with the actual shortfall in spending that has occurred so far in fiscal 1977 makes the fiscal 1978 budget less of an engine for economic growth than the Budget Committee initially assumed it would be. This unfortunate gap in the budget resolution will produce slower economic growth this year and next and less progress on unemployment. We believe that these circumstances are good reasons for expanding, and not cutting back, youth employment and training programs. We feel that there is sufficient justification and room in the fiscal 1978 budget for an increase of $500 million in the function 500 budget authority and outlay targets, to permit adequate funding for our youth employment programs.
Mr. President, the Joint Economic Committee conducted 2 years of study on the problem of unemployment, with particular reference and emphasis to youth unemployment.
I joined with Senator JAVITS early this year in a bill to provide a comprehensive youth employment program, and as the Senator has stated, there were several other such proposals. We finally combined them into one proposal which received administration support. But I must say that proposal itself was not anywhere near adequate to the size of the task.
The major employment problem in America today is the employment of our young people. Fifty percent of all the unemployed in America today are between the ages of 16 and 24.
This Senate should now know that this is a tragic waste of human resources. It is in this period of time, between the ages of 16 and 24, that the possibilities for learning work skills are at their best. It is in this period in the life of a man or a woman that they are most productive. Yet it is at this particular period of 16 to 24 in which we have the largest number of unemployed.
If we could get our young people employed, our adult unemployment would go below 5 percent.
We have simply got to take some action. It is only fair to say that the private sector is not absorbing these young people because, first of all, most of them have had no work training, they have little or no work skills or work discipline, and they need to be brought into some forms of constructive employment at a local, community, State, and Federal level.
With work in private industry, that may require some supplemental assistance from the Government so that we begin to get the productive good that these youths can provide to this Nation.
Unemployment among our young people robs them of a great period of their life and robs the Nation of hundreds of billions of dollars of production.
I hope and pray that the amendment of the Senator from New York can be adopted. I have joined him as a cosponsor. I think that our amendment will restore some of the economic stimulus we lost recently. We are going to need it.
But economic stimulus or not, if this Senate wants to. come to grips with the youth crime problem — and that is a question, I am not sure they do, as a matter of fact, I have been here long enough to think we have become accustomed to it — but if we want to come to grips with the problem of youth crime, we better come to grips with the problem of youth unemployment.
We have incontrovertible evidence, beyond shadow of doubt, that as you reduce the number of young people unemployed, you reduce the number of people in crime.
It costs between $8,000 and $10,000 for every youth offender who is apprehended and is incarcerated. Even for those who are not incarcerated, the costs are phenomenal for social rehabilitation.
So what do we do? We have public works programs in America building jails for young people; 80 percent of all the crime in America is committed by young people between the ages of 16 and 24.
So I beg of the Senate to be realistic and quit hiding our heads in the sand and pretending that this problem does not exist.
This country is not going to go bankrupt because it puts young people to work. If private industry can put them to work, all the better. However, every witness from private industry who has testified before any committee in Congress has said that these young people do not have the work skills, the work training, in order for them to be accepted into the employment force at this time.
So I hope and pray that the committee will see fit to accept the amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. BELLMON. I thank the distinguished Senator from New York.
Mr. President, as a supporter of youth employment legislation, I am highly sympathetic to the amendment which would increase budget authority in the 500 function to allow for an increased fund.
There is a problem here, in that authorizing legislation for a comprehensive approach to youth employment is not yet in place. We all realize that we are working on such legislation; but up to now it has not become law, and this presents problems.
Also, the fact is that the carryover for youth incentives from the 1977 fiscal year budget will be close to a billion dollars. I hope the Senator from Minnesota realizes that we have a billion dollars left over — or will, at the end of this year — in funds that will be unutilized in this function. This is due to the timing of a stimulus supplemental appropriations bill. The bill came too late to get the programs in place and to have the money utilized. That, plus the substantial allowance for youth and other CETA programs, appears to be the maximum amount that the system can use in fiscal year 1978. So there seems to be plenty of money provided already.
Further consideration of the budget authority level and the appropriate estimate for outlays can be made at the time of the second concurrent resolution for fiscal 1978 and the first resolution for fiscal 1979.
I wish to make clear, as the Senator from New York knows, that the minority members of the Budget Committee — for whom I speak generally — have been highly supportive of such legislation. We all realize that this is a major problem, that an investment here probably would be as fine as any we could make with the Federal funds that we have available.
I fully expect the committee to continue to look favorably upon youth employment legislation and to make available whatever funds realistically can be utilized for this purpose.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I yield myself a half minute just to say that Senator BELLMON has been one of the outstanding leaders in our effort in agreeing with the administration in this respect, and so have Senator MUSKIE, Senator McCLURE, Senator DOMENICI, and Senator HUMPHREY.
So these assurances are critically important, and we. are very grateful for them.
I will yield to Senator DOMENICI and Senator McCLURE, and then perhaps the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) will conclude.
I yield 3 minutes to Senator DOMENICI.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I appreciate greatly this opportunity to talk with both Senator HUMPHREY and Senator JAVITS.
I believe that everything they have said about the problem we have in our country with youth not having opportunity to find employment and to do useful things is recognized in this budget resolution.
In fact, it is to the credit of people such as Senator HUMPHREY and Senator JAVITS and many other Senators that this resolution includes an outlay figure for youth unemployment that is $2 billion in 1978.
I do not think that means that we have hidden our heads in the sand. Quite to the contrary, with no program in place, we have shown our concern by a rather large program funding level, $1 billion of which would be carried over from 1977 and $1 billion that this committee has approved, without seeing a new program, but knowing full well that there is tremendous support in this institution for such a program. In a year when we do not want to start new programs, we have made very few exceptions, but herein the exception is real and the exception is significant in terms of dollars. In a sense, we have done that for the future, hoping that programs of the type we have been told about will find themselves in the new youth program that we work out with the administration.
Judging by the previous experience with programs such as CETA, I would say that the $2 billion that we ended up with, number one, will result in an enormous amount of funding and will do a tremendous amount of good and, if the programs are prepared properly, will make a tremendous impact on the social problem about which Senator HUMPHREY has spoken.
Second, from my standpoint — and I think the Budget Committee in its deliberations, and perhaps our two leaders will concur in this — we felt there was no way that we could get into the field, into the hands of the prime sponsors, and ultimately into the pockets of our young people, and the private sector sponsors and public sponsors, more than $2 billion in 2 years. If it turns out that that rather generous assumption is in error and that more is needed, I concur with our minority leader that there is ample time in the reconciliation process between the first resolution and the second resolution to adjust.
It is absolutely imperative that those who are sponsors in the committee understand that our motives are to assist them in this regard, that our notions are complementary. We have worked with them. We hope that the administration and the authorizing committee will come up with that kind of package for them, which uses the prime sponsors that are in place but adds the private sector as a potential training and employment ground for CETA use of its money and its expertise. If that is put together, then I think the $2 billion is safe. If more is needed, it seems to me that between the first and second concurrent resolutions they will have an easy time convincing us.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague very much.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to Senator McCLURE.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has only 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. JAVITS. I think Senator MUSKIE will yield some time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I thank the Senators for yielding this time.
I associate myself with the remarks made by each of the speakers preceding me, with only two or three additions.
I agree with Senator HUMPHREY that it is tragic that we spend money in public works to build jails for young people, instead of trying to keep young people out of those jails.
Had I had my way, I would have taken some of the money from the public works appropriation and put in additional money and funding for the youth program.
That is the problem with a budget process that forces us to focus on priorities, and we always have that problem. That is why the budget process is there. But we cannot turn our back on 3.6 million unemployed young people in this country.
We cannot ignore the social, political, and economic problems that are caused by the strategic waste of lives by these 3.6 million young people who are unemployed, and many of whom are nearly unemployable. We must find ways to assist in that, and I pledge myself, along with my colleagues on the Budget Committee, to continue our efforts to find room within the budget to expand this program, and I will support in every way I know how the effort to get that done.
I want to underscore, too, what my colleague from New Mexico has said about a CETA program being expanded to include the private sector because I as you, Senator HUMPHREY, believe that we must involve the private sector if we are going to move these young people from unemployment rolls to permanent employment rolls. This can well be the bridge that will lead to that direction.
Mr. President, I am proud to join with my colleagues in this effort. I have prepared a statement which I would like to make at this point.
The 3.6 million unemployed youth in this country make up a disproportionate share of the unemployed. Youths make up nearly 50 percent of all unemployed persons. I agree with my colleagues that we must take immediate action to authorize and provide funding for youth employment programs.
As the sponsor of S. 503 and a supporter of the administration bill which includes portions of S. 503 as well as S. 170 which was introduced by Senator HUMPHREY and Senator JAVITS, I want to note that it appears that we have substantial agreement among the Senators on the floor that youth employment legislation must be a high priority for the Senate.
I feel that the level of funding provided for youth in this first budget resolution is appropriate for the present time. However, I, too, want to express my continuing commitment to youth employment programs.
I thank the Senator for yielding at this time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I think the case has been eloquently and effectively put by all of the speakers. I compliment my good friends, the Senator from New York and the Senator from Minnesota, for taking the leadership in pushing for these youth employment programs.
At the beginning of this year we were in something of chaos with seven different legislative approaches having been introduced. Fortunately, that has been put together and we are in the process of developing a policy to which we can all subscribe.
The members of the Budget Committee have clearly committed themselves to the support of this objective. When you can get the support of Senators BELLMON, McCLURE, and DOMENICI, and the Budget Committee, with an objective of this kind, you have got to assume you have almost unanimous Budget Committee support.
So I have no fear that we will find the way to achieve our objective, and we will not be spending this money between the first and second resolutions this year, but we will be reassessing the needs as the legislation develops and comes to the floor.
So I would like to add my assurances to my good friends from the Budget Committee.
Mr. JAVITS. That is what I want, your assurances in addition to theirs which, I think, are very satisfactory to Senator HUMPHREY and myself.
In view of the fact that all of the Senators mentioned have themselves been active participants in this same struggle, I would be prepared, with Senator HUMPHREY's concurrence, to withdraw the amendment based on these assurances.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I want to join in that decision. I do compliment the Budget Committee. I think Senator DOMENICI's comment was most appropriate.
I know there has not been an authorization, and I know the legislative committees have not as yet moved to a point of decision on youth employment programs. I compliment the Budget Committee — Senator BELLMON has spoken here today, Senator DOMENICI, Senator McCLURE, and you, Mr. Chairman — on your foresight, and I thank you for what you have done. I understand that if it is needed in the second concurrent resolution we can make whatever adjustments are required. But there is, to my understanding, $2 billion, with $1 billion that is a carryover, plus the extra $1 billion you have in your budget resolution, available for these programs.
Mr. MUSKIE. I might add to that, Senator, that in the CETA program there is $0.5 million which the President plans to target on youth unemployment, as well. Of course, it will not be available to fund the particular program the Senator is interested in, but it is another evidence of our concern and our support.
Mr. HUMPHREY. It is my understanding this amount in the Budget Committee's report is better than the administration itself proposed in terms of the total program.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I want to compliment the Senator and to thank him.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on the last point?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. McCLURE. It is substantially above the administration's request, and again a sign of the determination of the Budget Committee to move forward in this direction.