July 20, 1979
Page 19768
Mr. CHILES. 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 3, line 18, strike "$1,627,000,000"and insert "$1,122,000,000"
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair inquires of the Senator from Florida whether this is an amendment on which there is a time agreement of 1 hour.
Mr. CHILES. The Chair is correct. This is an amendment in which there was a time limitation of 1 hour equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair thanks the Senator.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.
This amendment is part of a continuing effort to redirect CETA away from the temporary title VI program to the new title II program which provides training as well as jobs for the hard core unemployed. Title VI is the program where there has been tremendous fraud and abuse. A lot of the cause of that fraud and abuse was that there was a push to hire at any cost without regard to the needs of the participant, or to whether the jobs were actually needed by the community or whether these jobs could ripen into some kind of a permanent work experience and training for the employee.
The Department of Labor is continuing to play a numbers game, pushing local governments to hire more people than they want, more than they need. This is evidenced by recent problems in the Southeast region where local CETA directors have written to us that Labor has told them to shift people out of title II B and C training, to make the public jobs program numbers look better.
I quote, Mr. President, from a transcript of a speech by a Labor Department regional administrator in which he called in all of the people in the Southeast region who were 200 jobs or more below the goal that he had set — and I stress that, the goals that he had set — for hiring, not the goals that had been set by the local governments, the local county or city commissions, who have some idea of what the need is in the area, plus what the ability to train or to hire people and to put them into meaningful jobs is. Anybody who was 200 or so below his goals, he called them into a meeting and told them to meet those hiring goals, to use up the 1979 money and keep Congress from cutting the 1980 appropriations.
He said, and I quote:
We have got a program that Congress is saying we do not need, and you are dragging your—
And there was a three-letter word there that refers sometimes to a donkey, and then he said:
The fiscal 80 appropriation is going to be dependent on what you spend in FY 79, in the next few months, and you are dragging your "Donkey."
The pressure from Labor to hire has been so great that it has created a backlash. State officials are suspending normal procedures, they are telling counties to hire first and then submit contract modifications. I have a telegram from my State that went out telling them:
We are under pressure. You are not meeting your goals. Hire the people and then tell us what kind of waivers you need, but go and hire the people first.
I find a number of my county officials are up in arms about this. Mr. President, I want to submit for the RECORD certain correspondence I have received from county commissioners and other people who are saying that regardless of those goals they are not going to hire more than they can put on, and they consider it a direct affront to them that they are being forced to do that by the program.
I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that this correspondence be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
JULY 10, 1979.
Hon. LAWTON M. CHILES,
U.S. Senator,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington., D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CHILES: The Citrus CountyBoard of Commissioners voted unanimously July 3, 1979, to object to a special survey, for the hiring of 20 people, disregarding all Federal guidelines of CETA.
We're extremely proud of our current CETA program. We believe it is a model program, following Federal guidelines for placement and training. However, should the current dictate be allowed, it will tear down all aspects of a workable, constructive program.
The mandate being forwarded to our CETA Director gives the County no options except to spend or throw away money.
The survey concocted to provide these jobs has already been taken, according to a 30 page document from Mr. Ernest Urassa, Program Administrator in Tallahassee. So again, it proves a waste of taxpayers' dollars.
Our CETA Director was notified by telephone the latter part of May of these plans, with other telephone calls, with Mail-O-Grams and correspondence in June. It was not brought to this Board's attention until July 3, at which time we started our objections.
Several Counties are in agreement with Citrus County. Following is a list with whom I spoke: Sumter County Commissioner, Eunice Neville; Lake County Commissioner, Evan Porter; Collier County Commissioner Russ Wimer, and Orange County Commissioner, Lamar Thomas and Jim Harris, County Administrator. I have also talked to Senator Stone's Office. Miss Gloria Van Treese; Governor Graham's Office, Mr. Ron Villella; plus speaking in person to Congressman Richard Kelly; State Senator Alan Trask and State Representative Gene Hodges.
Congressman Kelly stated this excess spending has been caused by local politicians using CETA as a vote getting process. I objected to this at the time, and certainly believe that if this is true, then let's discontinue this bureaucratic monster before it consumes all of us.
Our CETA Director, Mrs. Helene Worthington has already forwarded copies of her objections to this program, with documents to support her concern, to your, office.
We in Citrus County pray that you will investigate and discontinue not only this program, but any other that is throwing our beautiful country into more and more debt. The people in Citrus County are behind this investigation 100%; therefore, we are depending on you.
Sincerely,
MRS. JEAN GRANT,
Chairman, Citrus County Board of Commissioners.
JULY 10, 1979.
Mr. ERNEST S. URASSA,
Program Administrator,
Balance of State Department of Community Affairs,
Office of Manpower Planning, Tallahassee, Fla.
DEAR MR. URASSA: The Citrus County Board of Commissioners voted July 3, 1979, not to participate in the build-up of Public Service Employment positions. We feel this is a deliberate throw away of public funds, with absolutely no benefit to anyone.
Mrs. Helene Worthington, CETA Director for the County, advised us of the disregard for following proper guidelines in advertising, screening and hiring on the above date; therefore our County does not wish to be a part of this program.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. JEAN GRANT,
Chairman, Citrus County
Board of Commissioners.
JUNE 1, 1979.
Mr. ALLEN ARTHUR, Jr.,
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners,
Orange County/Orlando Training and Employment Office,
Orlando, Fla.
DEAR Mr. ARTHUR: A review of the performance of Orange/Orlando Title II-D and VI Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) program reveals that the program has not been able to achieve the enrollment levels called for by the approved plan. As a result, excess funds are being generated.
It is imperative that you take actions which may be necessary to increase the actual enrollment to the level called for by the approved plan. My office stands ready to provide you with any assistance possible to help you achieve this level, or to resolve this matter in any way which is mutually agreeable. If progress is such that the actual enrollment level is not at least at 90 percent of plan by June 30, 1979, it will be necessary to take appropriate reallocation actions in accordance with Section 676.47, of the CETA regulations. We estimate the amount subject to possible reallocation to be no less than $141,990 for Title II-D and no less than $176,933 for Title VI for a minimum total of $318,923.
I would appreciate any comments you may have concerning this proposed reallocation. Your comments should be addressed to my attention and should be received by June 15, 1979. If I can provide you with any additional information regarding this proposed action, please let me know.
Sincerely,
DAVID T. DUNCAN, Regional Administrator.
Mr. DAVID T: DUNCAN,
Regional Administrator, Employment and Training Administration,
Atlanta, Ga.
DEAR MR. DUNCAN: I received your letter dated June 11, 1979, on June 14, 1979. In your letter you request any comments we might have concerning a de-obligation of approximately $318,923 from the Orange County-Orlando Consortium Title II-D and Title VI Grants. You asked that we respond to the letter in sufficient time so as to reach you by June 15, 1979. Unfortunately, we have not been able to meet that schedule.
As early as August of 1978, we had determined that Orange County and Orlando Government utilization of public service employment would be reduced by 40 percent. This step was necessary in order to insure that we did not became dependent on PSE participants to provide services and then lose them due to a program reduction, to say nothing of having to terminate large numbers of people.
This position took on more significance when the Federal Government imposed a $6,630 average wage limit within our County. When one considers that Orange County has been enjoying the most successful business year that we have ever had, it becomes difficult to find a large number of economically disadvantaged people who have any semblance of a work ethic or a visible skill who will work for wages below all but a few jobs in the public sector. In order to place these individuals in even a simple job, we must provide them some basic training. This is what we are doing. We are concentrating on bringing people up to an employable level then moving them into whatever segment of CETA that will produce an early placement of the individuals in unsubsidized employment.
Mr. Duncan, we recognize the desirability of putting people to work and we are certainly doing everything within our power to do so. We believe that it is imperative to develop a jobs program which is consistent, one wherein we can count on having the positions for more than just a few months. We planned such a program; it was submitted and approved by the Department of Labor. Due to the low unemployment rate which we have enjoyed over the past year, and due to the low average wage authorized for PSE, we fell below our plan as did many other regions within our county. It was while we were in this posture that we were, for all intents and purposes, allocated a higher objective for Title II-D and Title VI.
In fact, we had planned to support 550 participants in Title, II-D; this level was boosted to 630. In Title VI, our level was moved from 955 to 1,014. Our CETA Manager initiated an all out media blitz. He developed additional jobs. As a result, we are processing about 200 or more people a week. (Of course, the fact that school is out and our economy is beginning to cool down to some degree has made an impact on this operation.)
Now we have received our planning budget for FY 1980. We are to plan on receiving $4,130,233 for Title II-D, just a small reduction over the $4,406,270 for FY 1979. So, Title II-D does not present a problem as far as continuity is concerned particularly if we have a 10 percent carryover. But, in Title VI, we must plan on only $3,371,851 for FY 1980. This is roughly half the $6,630,964 we had in FY 1979. Even with a 10 percent carryin, we will be faced with an extremely large reduction in force if we attain the 1,014 level in Title VI participation we are expected to reach by June 30, 1979.
We feel that we could probably use about $200,000 of the Title II-D or Title VI monies in our Summer Youth Employment Program. This program is shaping up in good fashion. There are better work sites than we have had in past years; there is a much tighter, professional staff managing the program and I am told that we can do more in this all important sector.
We recognize our responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves and will provide services which will lead to unsubsidized permanent employment. To achieve this goal, it is imperative that we have a consistent, stable program which leads each individual from whatever his entry level might be through our World of Work and other programs, whether it is PSE, Vocational Education, OJT, etc. to the goal established for him.
Such an approach cannot be founded on constantly changing ground rules and grants. As a consequence, we have no objection to the reallocation of the $319,000 plus or minus that you have indicated in your letter referenced above. We do believe, however, that we can effectively utilize about $200,000 of this money in our Summer Youth Employment Plan.
We will await a reply from you as to what action is now necessary. Your early attentionto this matter will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
ALLEN ARTHUR, Chairman,
Board of County Commissioners.
APRIL 20, 1979.
President JIMMY CARTER,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We on the Orange County, County Commission have noted with interest that the CETA prime sponsors will have underspent CETA Public Service Employment monies to the level of from $4,004,600 million by the end of fiscal year 1979. As a consequence of this underspending the Department of Labor is requiring each prime sponsor to modify its Title Il and VI plans to hire more people into PSE positions just to insure that there is not an excessive carry-in of PSE monies into FY 1980.
This need to spend money (nothing has been said about serving people) was highlighted early in March 1979 when Ernest Green, Assistant Labor Secretary for Employment and Training stated, "The entire CETA system is on a very thin thread." In large part, this is due to the many unfilled slots in the Public Service Employment Program. Fewer than 520,000 slots are filled now, yet the program was expected to average 625,000 slots this year. The failure to fill those slots may be "jeopardizing the entire CETA program and especially PSE," Green said. Now we are to fill the existing surplus of slots, if only to spend the money.
It is incomprehensible to us that such a travesty of good fiscal management can be foisted on the people of the county.
Mr. President why not reduce the program by the $400 million and return it to the Treasury or apply the money in an area where it can be effectively utilized, not just spent so that the Department of Labor can meet an estimated level of employment.
Sincerely yours,
LEE CHIRA, County Commissioner.
JUNE 13, 1979.
DEAR MR. CHIRA: This is in further response to your letter to the President regarding the CETA program.
It is true that some excess funds have accumulated in programs funded under Titles II-D and VI of the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) because of a greater than planned decrease in the level of public service employment (PSE) participants.
In response to this situation, the Department of Labor did develop a plan for increasing Titles II-D and VI enrollments to the levels called for by the final budget authorization. This plan did not require the prime sponsors to modify their Titles II-D and VI plans in order just to hire more people into PSE positions. The prime sponsors were in the process of modifying their grants at the time this plan was issued to bring their programs into compliance with those portions of the amended Act which became effective April 1, 1979 (concerning maximum and average wages which can be paid to PSE participants). The plan did call for assuring that the planned enrollment levels in the modifications were consistent with the levels which could be supported with the funds available.
More importantly, the plan specifically stated that special attention should be paid to creating appropriate jobs that will enable the individuals filling the positions to, at the completion of the PSE period, make a transition into appropriate non-CETA funded employment. In addition, the plan required that special care be taken to assure that the individuals selected to participate are those most in need of CETA services, as identified by the Act. Finally, the plan stated that the PSE efforts undertaken must be aimed at providing real and necessary locally needed public services.
With respect to your comments regarding alternative methods for using the excess funds generated by the under-enrollment, consideration was given to both of your suggestions.
However, since there are so many people in need of and eligible for CETA-type services, it was decided to utilize the existing reallocation procedures rather than return the excess funds to the Treasury. Under the reallocation procedures, excess funds in one area can be and are being moved to areas which can effectively utilize such funds. In fact, the Department has encouraged prime sponsors which cannot utilize available funds within a reasonable time period to agree to a voluntary reallocation of such funds.
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write on the issue.
Warm regards.
Sincerely,
JACK H. WATSON. Jr.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, at the same time, I find that this pressure really is working, though, because many of the areas do not want to see all of their funds cut off, and they have been told:
Unless you retain that high a goal, we are going to take away all the funds from you, and we will just send that money somewhere else and you will not get any money.
That fear, that goes out to people who are legitimately trying help people in their communities and provide jobs, has worked. We see them actually taking people off of the title II program where they are getting job training, and switching them over to the title VI program, which I think is the worst thing they could be doing, but doing that so that the enrollment numbers will show up well on the title VI program.
One of the best statements of the need to redirect CETA by cutting back title VI was written to the Department of Labor's regional administrator by Mr. Allen Arthur, chairman of the Orange County, Fla., Board of Commissioners, on June 18. After detailing how the Department pressured them to increase their job slots, then criticized them for underhiring, Mr. Arthur wrote:
We recognize our responsibility to those less fortunate than ourselves and will provide services which will lead to unsubsidized permanent employment. To achieve this goal, it is imperative that we have a consistent, stable program which leads each individual from whatever his entry level might be, through our world of work and other programs, whether it is public service employment, vocational education, on-job-training, etc., to the goal established for him.
The point is, Mr. President, that a good CETA program is a lot more than just public jobs. It means training in basic skills, literacy, mathematics, and specific job skills. It means counseling and retraining. The continued emphasis on public service jobs is not doing a service to the people holding those jobs, or a service to the community. What we need is job training, so that those people can compete in the private sector. We need to get people out of deadend job opportunities, and into the growing parts of the economy.
The President intended a reduction of 158,000 jobs over the course of 1980, but since the Department of Labor over-estimated the number of jobs filled in 1979, the level of 200,000 by the end of 1980 would cut no more than 70,000 new jobs. That is less than half of what the President's plan was.
The amendment I have introduced reduces the jobs to 100,000 by the end of 1980. That would be a reduction of 170,000, and that is closer to the President's plan.
This can be achieved, Mr. President, without any layoffs. In fact, the CBO calculated that if the attrition continues at the same rate that it has followed through the first part of 1979, the job slots will be down to 236,000 rather than 270,000 as estimated by the subcommittee, and that would save an additional $200 million.
However, we have kept to the cautious side, and used the subcommittee's estimate of 270,000 jobs by the end of 1979. This would not affect the continuing buildup to 267,000 public service jobs for the hardcore unemployed under the new title II-D, which will spend $2.5 billion in 1980.
I ask unanimous consent that a table showing public service slot levels under various proposals for title VI be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. CHILES. I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am on the amendment as a cosponsor, but I would like to put it in the context of the budget situation at this point, taking the pending bill into account.
The funds provided for the pending bill as reported, plus other actions completed or underway, put the subcommittee $1.9 billion under its 302(B) budget authority allocation and $300 million under its outlay allocation. So at this point the subcommittee would be this amount under the budget allocation. But I call attention to the fact that possible later requirements known at this time could boost the subcommittee $1.2 billion above its budget authority allocation and $1.7 billion above its outlay allocation. This outcome would seriously threaten the targets in the first budget resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the relationship of this bill and possible later requirements to the subcommittee allocation be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. The Appropriations Committee has demonstrated fiscal restraint in reporting this bill at levels below both the President's request and theHouse-passed bill. Further, the funding levels in this bill are not largely inconsistent with assumptions in the first concurrent resolution.
The main reason that the bill exceeds the subcommittee's allocation is that the full Appropriations Committee chose to allocate funds among subcommittees in a different manner than assumed in the budget resolution.
However, this reality makes even more pressing the point I made in regard to the energy and agriculture appropriations bills. We now have two subcommittees which are likely to exceed their 302(b) allocations. Several other subcommittees are likely to exceed theirs. It does not appear that other subcommitees will have sufficient surpluses within their 302 (b) allocations to compensate for these excesses.
It now appears that the Appropriations Committee may actually exceed the amount allocated to it in the budget resolution by up to $5.4 billion in budget authority and $4.7 billion in outlays when all the regular appropriations bills and all the 1980 supplemental requirements are taken into account.
We now face the prospect that these appropriations may increase the 1980 deficit by as much as $4 to $5 billion. In fact, the combination of these additional appropriations and the apparent economic slowdown threaten to drive the deficit higher than 1979.
Mr. President, this problem has four causes. First, some other committees have failed to make about $1 billion in legislative savings contemplated by the budget resolution in appropriated programs. This is a serious problem caused by the entitlement nature of many Federal programs. I am writing to the committees in question; calling this situation to their attention.
Second, costs for some programs sanctioned by the resolution have risen unforeseeably.
Third, the President's new energy initiatives exceed those contemplated in the budget resolution by up to $2.9 billion in budget authority and $1.2 billion in outlays.
And, fourth, Mr. President, for reasons apart from these first three causes, the Appropriations Committee itself may spend as much as $1.3 billion in budget authority and $1.2 billion in outlays in excess of the budget resolution allocation to it.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a table outlining this potential Appropriations Committee overage.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator MAGNUSON, who is also a valued member of the Budget Committee, has demonstrated repeatedly his determination to hold Federal spending in check and to balance the Federal budget. I know he deplores the situation in which the Appropriations Committee and the Congress find themselves as much as any other Senator.
I am sure that he will do what he can to make sure that the total cost of all appropriations bills remain within the congressional budget targets.
Indeed, he has so assured me privately.
With respect to the pending amendment, I think Senator CHILES' proposed cuts exceed the cuts that are necessary to fall within the assumptions of the budget resolution with respect to this particular program which he has described. But nevertheless I think as a signal to the Appropriations Committee and to the Senate as a whole of the need to exercise the kind of restraint that we must in order to meet the budget resolution targets and not create the danger of a larger deficit which I have described, it may be appropriate to support even the number offered by the distinguished Senator from Florida, who, is himself, a most valued member of the Budget Committee. I rely heavily upon him and his efforts to keep the budget in line.
I compliment him on his effort. I think he was sensitized largely by the considerations affecting the total appropriations to which I have referred in this statement. With that I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator from Florida yield 2 minutes?
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, how much time has the Senator from Florida remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has just under 14 minutes.
Mr. CHILES. I yield 2 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for yielding 2 minutes.
Mr. President, I want to indicate my strong support for the Chiles amendment. I am an original cosponsor. As the Senate knows, Senator CHILES has played a leading role in molding and making the CETA act responsive to the needs of our hardcore unemployed individuals who need training in order to get jobs. He has been trying to make that law innovative and one that will work. At the same time, he has taken the lead in trying to rid the act of those sections that do not work, are wasteful, or have been abused. I am certain that his amendment should not be construed as an effort to do violence to the CETA act. In fact, he has chosen the sections very carefully, because he, as much as anyone else involved with this program, wants a strong CETA program which helps those who are in need. But he recognizes we cannot break the budget in the process. I hope the Senate will support him and set limits which are well within the budget, which are doable, and thus meet the challenge that a targeted employment program gives to America.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator from Florida yield me 5 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator from Florida yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. CHILES. I yield.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I support the Chiles amendment, and I am proud to be a coauthor of the amendment. In its work on the first budget resolution, the Senate decided that inflation is a major threat to the progress and stability of the country. Therefore, the Senate voted to reduce the Federal deficit in fiscal 1980 — and adopted a 3-year plan which leads to balancing the budget in fiscal year 1981. The question now is whether — in spite of the energy crisis, and in spite of the more pessimistic economic forecasts — the Senate is prepared to stick to those objectives.
Mr. President, the Chiles amendment would reduce to 100,000 the number of countercyclical jobs under title VI of CETA, by the end of fiscal 1980. This was a specific assumption, endorsed by the Senate, when we adopted the budget resolution in May. If we now approve this bill — and fund 200,000 title VI jobs as of the end of fiscal 1980 — we will have added $1 billion to the fiscal year 1981 budget. Mr. President, that would add $1 billion to the deficit and increase inflationary pressures.
There are those who will argue that we should not be reducing countercyclical jobs when we are forecasting an economic downturn. But let us look more closely at those forecasts: Mr. President, CBO predicts — and many private economists agree — that the economy will start rebounding by the first quarter of calendar 1980. The Chiles amendment does not propose to reduce the number of title VI jobs at the beginning of fiscal 1980. By the time the main impact of the Chiles amendment is felt — reducing the number of subsidized jobs at the end of the fiscal year — the economy will be in its third quarter of recovery, according to CBO and many other economic forecasters.
There are other considerations, Mr. President, which argue for further reductions in the title VI CETA program. This program is not an effective countercyclical tool. It distributes funds to every prime sponsor in the country, no matter how low their unemployment rates. In Oklahoma, our unemployment rate is 3.9 percent; yet we have over 2,000 CETA title VI jobs in Oklahoma.
Montgomery County, Md., right here in the Washington metropolitan area, has an unemployment rate of just over 3 percent — full employment by anyone's definition. And yet, that county has money for about 265 title VI jobs. Mr. President, that does not make sense. We do not have a cyclical unemployment problem in most parts of Oklahoma or in Montgomery County, Md. and yet that is where a lot of the money is going, to situations like those.
Only 8 percent of the title VI jobs are in distressed cities. To deal effectively with temporary, cyclical unemployment countercyclical programs must be targeted to areas suffering economic distress. This program presently is not well-targeted, and I see no persuasive agreement, therefore, to continue the present program at the level the bill proposes.
Last year, Mr. President, we made an important decision to change the emphasis in our employment and training programs to focus on the structurally unemployed. These people include recipients of welfare payments — people who cannot compete in the job market even when there are jobs available — people who are the very last hired, and the first fired. These are the people most in need of help; and they are not well-served by the title VI program. As a result of last year's CETA amendments, we now have a large, new public jobs program — with a strong training component — for the structurally unemployed under title II-D of CETA. That program, and the training programs under the other parts of title II and the CETA youth programs, and the employment tax credits and other incentives for the private sector are where we should be putting our emphasis.
The Chiles amendment, Mr. President, protects these needed programs but it does get at the kind of waste I talked about earlier, where the present CETA program puts jobs into areas where there is simply no need.
Mr. President, we cannot do everything for everyone and still ever hope to hold down the budget and bring inflation under control. I believe Senator CHILES is offering a reasonable reduction, a reduction in line with the decision the Senate made only 2 short months ago when we adopted the first budget resolution. The Senate must not now prematurely abandon the well thought out plan we adopted in May. Unless we stand fast by our original decision, we will continue on the easy but deadly path of huge budget deficits and runaway double digit inflation which injures the retired people, low income people, and others less able to defend themselves.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator MAGNUSON, as it were, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. President, if a stranger walked into the gallery 45 minutes or so ago to listen to the discussion that has been had thus far on this matter, I think that individual might believe that he was in some kind of a fictional dream world. AsI have heard the debate thus far, it seems to be that everybody thinks that the country is economically in sound and solid shape; that unemployment is obviously going to get much, much lower; that the CETA programs that are designed to assist individuals in gaining jobs, gaining skills, and feeding their families, are no longer necessary because our economy is so solid and so vibrant, and that everything is optimistic and upbeat from here on out. This defies what is the unanimous projection of every economist that I have read about in the past months as to what is going to be the nature of the American economy from here and as we get into the year 1980.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield to me at that point?
Mr. EAGLETON. Yes.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I expect to speak, and I shall simply deduct this from my time.
One thing has come out today here. That is that our gross national product is down over 3 percent and it is confidently expected and counted on by our administration that we will have a million more unemployed in the very period that this amendment is intended to affect. I simply could not agree with the Senator more.
How much on our heads can we stand? We shall only pay this out in welfare and unemployment compensation. Would we rather do that? That is the issue.
Mr. EAGLETON. The Senator from New York, as he does so often, has hit the nail precisely on the head.
Every economist, Mr. President, says we are in a recession. Some say in a hopeful way that maybe it will not be terribly deep or terribly prolonged. Others, like Walter Heller, think it is sufficiently alarming, the economic posture that we are in, that we ought to be thinking of an instant tax cut even now.
Milton Friedman, the most conservative of economists, says we are in a recession. So there is unanimity on one point: we are in one, and the unemployment figure, which is today 5.6 percent, is going to rise, probably as high as 6.9 percent, in the opinion of some.
I think that is the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office, Ms. Alice Rivlin. No, that is the administration's estimate, 6.9 percent.
Administrations that are contemplating being reelected in 1980 do not usually give estimates on the high side so far as unemployment is concerned. So I think one can say that 6.9 percent is a conservative estimate as to how far unemployment is going to go.
I always enjoy listening to the Senator from Maine. He is a good, dear friend of mine. He takes his responsibilities with respect to the budget resolution most seriously, and he should. The Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) does likewise. I do not challenge their motives or the role that they play. But what they are doing here in giving us all kinds of estimates about budget resolutions and outlays and all of the sophisticated analysis that goes into figures and numbers is exercising a degree of pencil pushing at the expense of the unemployed.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield tome briefly?
Mr. EAGLETON. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. No. 1, that is not the exercise in which this Senator is involved. I do not disagree whatsoever with the Senator's description of the range of economic opinion that we are asked to take into account as we plan for calendar 1980.
Frankly, if one sat through all of the economic testimony we have heard — and it is all consistent with what we have said — one would know they end up admitting that we are between a rock and a hard place. Not one of them projects a deep recession. Not one of them expects a prolonged recession. Most of them project the beginning of recovery early in Calendar 1980. So the decision with which the Budget Committee was confronted — and we shared that with the entire Senate in the spring — was whether or not we begin putting into place stimulus programs which may be irrelevant by the time the money begins to be spent and whether what we would have done is exacerbate the inflation problem.
Now, we are not sure of that, and neither is any economist sure of it. The interesting thing about economists is that they can tell you without any qualification that their current economic forecasts are correct; then they will explain why their last month's economic forecast was incorrect. That is true of politicians, too.
I concede the Senator's point that you can project almost any variation in the picture that you wish. I do not take issue with the Senator's choice of economic policy. That is his prerogative. It is not an easy choice.
I do want to make clear that we are not just arbitrarily insisting on some numbers that we put in the May 15 budget resolution for the sake of insisting on numbers. We are making a deliberate choice.
Second, I make the point that the Budget Committee is entering its markup on the second budget resolution next week and some of these issues will be re-debated then. I do not really presume to prejudge what the committee will decide. But we are not really in disagreement, I say to the Senator, except as to what we ought to do right now with respect to economic policy.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, I have a particular point I want to make to Senator MUSKIE because I, like Senator EAGLETON, have the highest regard for him, and I think my record shows that, in the very tough ones between Budget and Finance, I generally have supported the Budget Committee.
But there is one factor which the Senator's analysis overlooks. That, is the following:
We have deliberately, and now, with Bill Miller in the Treasury, I think it is fair to say I can underline that, we have undertaken the policy of bringing down inflation at the price of unemployment. That is what is omitted, because Ms. Rivlin herself says, in this latest document — which, by the way, is the most recent statement on the subject, July 1979, on page 38:
Reflecting the weakness in real activity, the unemployment rate will rise slowly through the year, reaching the 6.4 to 7.4 range by the fourth quarter
Which negates exactly what Senator BELLMON was just saying: that this will only grab hold toward the end. That is when we are going to be hit. That is what she says. And I think she is right.
The point which we make is of all the sensitive matters in which to get a little insurance, this is the most sensitive, because that is where the shoe is going to pinch the hardest.
I say to my colleague, too, that he knows, running the Budget Committee, if we do not do this, we are simply going to spend the same money in unemployment compensation. I sponsored all those bills. We have never hesitated to pay that when we have an unemployment situation.
For those reasons, Mr. President, with all respect to Senator MUSKIE, whom, as I say, I admire enormously, I think this is hitting at the most sensitive part of our defense against this recession and its manifestation, which will be unemployment.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, I have not overlooked the point that the Senator makes, and neither does Dr. Rivlin. If the Senator will read the entire statement of Dr. Rivlin, he will find that she concludes that we ought not to embark on additional stimulus now.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that pages 8, 9, and 10 of her statement before the Committee on the Budget be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD. as follows:
EXCERPTS OF STATEMENT
UNCERTAINTY
It is always difficult to forecast turning points of the business cycle with accuracy,and there are more uncertainties now than usual. Thus, while most forecasters are not optimistic about the near term outlook for real growth, a quick resurgence of final demands cannot be ruled out. If this happens, real output would be higher this year than CBO expects and unemployment would be lower. At present, however, there appears to be a greater chance that the outcome could be worse than forecast by CBO. Possible events that could weaken the outlook over the next year include:
Further supply shocks such as a severe fuel shortage or poor harvests that raise prices further than expected and curtail output;
A prolonged strike in a critical area suchas the automobile industry; or
A sharp drop in the exchange value of the dollar.
Moreover, the assumption that monetary policy will be eased toward the end of this year may prove unrealistic. The Federal Reserve may give greater priority to anti-inflationary policies, especially if it fears that an easier policy would threaten the exchange value of the dollar.
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
If the economy weakens, the increased slack in product and labor markets will help mitigate inflationary pressures. The rise in unemployment, however, would present the Congress with a very difficult policy dilemma. One response to a rise in the jobless rate would be greater fiscal stimulus. But such a response could aggravate the already high inflation. In this situation, the Congress may want to examine closely the policy option of continuing current policy and making no immediate change. An argument for no immediate change in fiscal policy is the great uncertainty in the economic outlook. As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to forecast unemployment and inflation with accuracy. The jobless rate has not yet risen, and the consensus outlook for an increase in unemployment could be wrong. Toward the end of the year, the course of the economy should become more clear. At that point, if the unemployment rate appears headed toward an unacceptably high level, the Congress may then want to consider a more stimulative fiscal policy.
One thing that can be done now is to begin work on a contingency plan for fiscal stimulus that could be used should the unemployment rate rise to an unacceptable level. In developing such a plan, the Congress will want to keep in mind that inflation likely will remain high for some time and that it may be worthwhile to link any fiscal stimulus to measures that also reduce inflation.
This might be accomplished by a cut in payroll taxes or by tax incentives to hold down wage demands. In addition, business income tax cuts might improve productivity in the long run, thereby contributing both to a reduction in inflation and to higher economic growth. Supplemental unemployment insurance benefits or other measures to mitigate the hardship of unemployment might also be considered.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement this morning. I will be happy to answer any questions you or Members of the Committee have.
Mr. MUSKIE. She says, "One thing that can be done now is to begin work on a contingency plan for fiscal stimulus that could be used should the unemployment rate rise to an unacceptable level."
The fact is that the unemployment rate has not yet begun to rise. Now, her concern, and it was our concern, too, was that if we shift to a stimulating policy before the bad news begins to come, before the unemployment rates begin to rise, that will signal to the country that we have abandoned the program of restraint and that we are going to be shifting the policy from inflation to an unemployment problem that has not yet materialized, and that we have ample time between now and the first of the year to do that if it becomes necessary.
Mr. JAVITS. Now, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. And the Budget Act provides for budget resolutions to give us the flexibility to do that.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield to allow me to answer that?
Mr. MUSKIE. Of course.
Mr. JAVITS. All right.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is not my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TSONGAS) . The Senator from Missouri has the time.
Mr. JAVITS. Well, this is elucidating the subject.
The point is that this is an amendment to cut, not an amendment to add. If the Senator were arguing it is an amendment to add, that would be different.
But the committee has come out with 200,000 jobs, which is, by the way, less than half what it was 2 years ago, when it was 460,000. It has come down to 200,000 jobs and this amendment is to cut it further.
What we are arguing is that to cut it further in the teeth of the gathering storm respecting unemployment, the very thing this is directed toward, is a great mistake.
So it is not stimulative at all. It just cuts what the committee has agreed is the way to deal with the existing situation.
Mr. MUSKIE addressed the Chair.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Will the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I have 2 minutes?
Mr. CHILES. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not want to use the Senator's time.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Will the Senator yield? I want to correct the figures.
Mr. MUSKIE. First of all, I want to respond to Senator JAVITS.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I want to correct the figures.
Mr. MUSKIE. Could I just respond to Senator JAVITS for 2 minutes.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I want to correct it. The program is cut from 600,000 2 years ago down to 200,000, not 400,000 as the Senator from New York said.
That is what I wanted to point out and then the Senator may go ahead. Six hundred thousand jobs 2 years ago and we cut it down to 200,000.
Mr. MUSKIE. But the budget resolution was based on the assumption—
Mr. MAGNUSON. I do not care what the Budget Committee staff assumes. I am talking about what we did on appropriations.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand. I am not challenging that. But we specifically assumed in the budget resolution we would cut to 100,000. I do not think we need cut as much as Senator CHILES proposes.
Mr. MAGNUSON. That is a line item. We do not line item in the Budget Committee.
Mr. MUSKIE. I fully understand that. The Senator and I have had that argument over and over again. But, nevertheless — nevertheless — the economic policy for which the Budget Committee has responsibility has to be based upon some assumptions about what needs to be done.
I fully understand that the Appropriations Committee is the line item committee. But when the Budget Committee knows by adding the figures that the appropriations numbers are going to exceed the budget resolution, somebody, unfortunately, has the responsibility of pointing that out, and, equally unfortunately, I happen to be that person.
What I rose to say this afternoon was not to specifically support the Chiles amendment, but to point out that, as it looks now, unless we are able to get surpluses from some other appropriations subcommittees, that we are going to exceed the budget levels by $5.4 billion in budget authority and $2.9 billion in outlays.
Now, that is the strongest signal. That is the signal I am worried about. That is the signal I am worried about.
Incidentally, the Chiles amendment undertakes to cut back to the 100,000 the Budget Committee assumed, and I concede Senator MAGNUSON's point, that is the Appropriations Committee function, a line item. I do not challenge it.
But I also recognize the responsibility of the Budget Committee to follow the numbers and alert the Senate as to where the numbers appear to be going.
Senator MAGNUSON has assured me privately, and I said that when he was not on the floor, that the final numbers produced by the Appropriations Committee will be under the budget resolution totals.
But, in all frankness, and we have got some pretty good numbers people, of course, on our staff, that is not the way it looks from our perspective.
I am just saying that if that result is achieved, fine. But if it is not, if the projections, the potential projections I have outlined this afternoon materialize, somebody is going to say to me, if I have not said a word about it, "Muskie, why didn't you warn us?"
That is my job. It is not always pleasant. Certainly, it is not pleasant to be at odds with my good friend from Washington, who has been, I think, an outstanding chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he has been committed to budget prudence and budget restraint.
I am not really at odds with him. We just happen, apparently, at this point, not to agree as to the projections of what we have already done.
I am giving the Senate my views. and they are the views of our numbers people, and my principal purpose was not the Chiles amendment so much as it was to present this total picture.
I apologize to my good friend from Missouri for diverting him from his argument.
Mr. MAGNUSON. If the Senator will yield, the Appropriations Committee has to deal with things as they are now, with the normal running of the Government, and we have dealt with that and we have cut. I think we will cut close to $3 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. I certainly hope they will.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The economic assumptions are another story. The Appropriations Committee can't be blamed for changing economic assumptions because we look at things as they are now and the assumptions will have to be taken care of by the second budget resolution.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Does the Senator agree with me?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MAGNUSON. And the fault has been with the authorizing committees.
Mr. MUSKIE. As I said in my amendment—
Mr. MAGNUSON. I am sorry I was not here just at that moment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The fault has been with the authorizing committees and they have delayed and delayed. We just take things as we see them because, after all, the bottom line of all budgets is how much we appropriate; is it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. And that is the line that is the Senator's responsibility.
Mr. MAGNUSON. How much comes out of the Federal till at a given time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree.
Mr. MAGNUSON. And on October 1, at a given time, we go down to the till and look, and we are going to be $3 billion under.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is the trip I want to take with the Senator.
Mr. MAGNUSON. The Senator has a staff that assumes everything.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is our responsibility.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I know. But sometimes it is the Senator's responsibility to tell us this, but to publicize it like some of them do, I think is wrong.
Mr. MUSKIE. We produce a weekly scorekeeping report, and we are required to, in order to give Senators some notion of what is coming. So that we are not caught by surprise, we have to make assumptions.
I will say for the record, we have been doing this for 5 years and these have been pretty good, they have been pretty good on the mark, these weekly tables of assumptions.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes. But the staff of the Budget Committee is assuming a lot of authorizing legislation that may not happen.
Mr. MUSKIE. It also assumes some appropriations
Mr. MAGNUSON. Just take the Finance Committee. They assume we will make some cuts, and this, and that. I do not know whether we will or not.
I have to deal with the till, as we look into it on October 1, and what we appropriate, that is the bottom line.
We can talk about balancing the budget, assumptions, and everything else. It is what we dip into the till and take out in taxpayers' money.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand.
Mr. MAGNUSON. That is what counts on October 1.
Now, after October 1, the Senator can assume all he wants.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will not yield that point completely.
For example, in order to put the pressure on authorizing committees to achieve some legislative savings in laws that would have to be changed in order to achieve them, we assume legislative savings of a billion dollars. That has not been done. Because it has not been done is one of the reasons—
Mr. MAGNUSON. So we have to pick up the tab.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. That is exactly right. I sympathize with the Senator from Washington when he is faced with that dilemma.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I know that.
Mr. MUSKIE But I have to present that to the Senate so that the Senate can decide whether or not it will make cuts elsewhere because we failed to achieve those savings, or whether we are going to breach the budget. If the Senate chooses the second course, that is the Senate's prerogative; but it is my responsibility at least to lay the facts on the table.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from Missouri yield?
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I will speak for an additional minute or two, and then I will be delighted to yield to the Senator from Maryland. I want to get back to my train of thought of several minutes ago.
This program already has been slashed.There is no other word for it. Last year, for fiscal year 1979, on title VI, we spent 3.4 billion. The President, in his budget, cut that to $2.2 billion, a cut of one-third. The House cut it to $1.8 billion. The Senate HEW committee cut it to $1.6 billion.
So as the bill stands now, even before the Chiles amendment, it is less than half of what was appropriated last year.
As the Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITS) points out, this is not adding additional stimulus. He points out, quite properly, that if the Chiles amendment were to add a half billion dollars or a billion dollars or $2 billion, then a persuasive argument could be made that this was ill-timed additional stimulus.
This is an additional sock in the face to the jobless; that is what it is. It does not stimulate anything except putting people out of work and putting them on welfare thereby upping that account, increasing the food stamp account, and increasing the unemployment compensation account. That is what this amendment will stimulate.
It will stimulate more expenditure in the jobless account rather than in the gainfully employed account. That is what it boils down to.
There may be no economic problem in Oklahoma. Senator BELLMON says everything is lovely there and he does not want any of this money and he should not have it.
I live in Montgomery County, and I agree that it should not get one dime of this nor one dime of impact aid. But if you try to exclude Montgomery County and Oklahoma, then what do you have? "I've got to get a piece of this action. I can't vote for something that is going to help all these other States."
Sure, Montgomery County should not get one penny of this money. In order to cure that ill, you want to take the money out of New York City, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Newark, Buffalo, Kansas City — on and on — places where there is horrendous unemployment that is going to get worse. Every person in this room knows it is going to get worse.
So this is the time we sharpen the pencils, get out our weekly budget scorekeeping card, fiddle around with a few figures, and tell people we are going to induce more joblessness by cutting the CETA program.
I cannot think of a more inopportune time to be trying to take people out of gainful employment and knowingly transfer them into the category of unemployed. That is the net result of the Chiles amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, how much time remains to the Senator from Washington?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. MAGNUSON. How much time doI have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three minutes.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have 5 minutes, which I will gladly yield to the Senator.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes be added to each side on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I appreciate the graciousness of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
I rise in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) .
This is precisely the wrong time to be talking about cutting a program that directly provides jobs to unemployed Americans.
The Nation is heading into a recession.There is virtually unanimous agreement among the authorities on that. Even the President has used the word "recession" to describe the immediate economic prospects — and for good reason.
In terms of unemployment, prospects for the next 6 months are bleak. The President's mid-session budget review forecasts that the national unemployment rate will rise a full percentage point by the end of this year. If that occurs, more than a million additional workers will be counted as unemployed just as the winter season moves in over us.
Against this background, it simply does not make good sense for the Senate to be saying that public service jobs programs should be cut by 100,000 positions.
Aside from the dictates of common sense, there are other good reasons for not cutting more deeply into the reservoir of public service jobs.
First, the amendment would destroy the countercyclical nature of the title VI program under CETA. The Congress, just last year, deliberately designed the title VI program to provide additional jobs when unemployment rises and then fewer as joblessness declines. The amendment would completely thwart this purpose, requiring the layoff of tens of thousands of CETA workers during a time when virtually everybody agrees unemployment will be on the rise.
Second, the amendment would cut into the bone of a program that is providing jobs mainly for the economically disadvantaged. Secretary of Labor Marshall has testified before the Joint Economic Committee that 80 percent of title VI participants are from low income families. I should also like to note that a recent study by the Bureau of Census has documented what we knew from experience to be the case, that in a recession, the burden of unemployment falls most harshly upon the poor, particularly members of minority groups.
Third, I should like to point out that the CETA amendments, enacted last October, authorize the appropriation of sufficient funds to provide one public service job under title VI for every five persons unemployed in excess of a national unemployment rate of 4 percent. This is more than a statutory authorization — it is a congressional commitment stated as a specific purpose of the title VI program.
Under the terms of section 602 of CETA, the President is required to provide periodic reports on unemployment prospects for the impending fiscal year, and on the basis of those reports, the goal of the program and the authorization level are established.
On July 12, 1979, the President once again fulfilled his responsibilities under section 602. In his mid-session budget review document, he reported as follows:
That the unemployment rate for 1980 is now estimated to be 6.8 percent; that the number of unemployed in excess of 4 percent of the labor force is estimated to be 2.94 million;
That the average cost per year of a public service employment opportunity is estimated to be $9,500; and
That the amount needed to be appropriated to provide public service jobs under title VI is $5.3 billion.
Mr. President, the Senator from Florida contends that his goal is to reduce the title VI program to 100,000 jobs by the end of fiscal year 1980. In point of fact, his amendment would reduce the program well below that level.
The Appropriations Committee has ready reduced funding for title VI by $188 million, on the assumption that enrollment in the program would be 270,000 on October 1 — rather than 300,000 as assumed by the House.
However, reports from the field — received after the committee acted on its report — now show that the decline in title VI enrollments has stopped, and in fact, has risen slightly to nearly 325,000. With this new information, it seems apparent that we will enter the new fiscal year with 300,000 participants on board in title VI.
The Senator from Florida now proposes a further cut of roughly $500 million in available funds. If adopted, the combination of this reduction and the committee's reduction — totaling $690 million — can be expected to require extra layoffs, and to drive enrollment down to about 70,000 by the end of fiscal year 1980.
My major concern is that, with a national program that small, many prime sponsors will receive so little funds that they will simply close out the program altogether, rather than endure the rigorous administrative difficulties involved in conducting it.
Closing out the title VI program in any area — in the face of a recession — is tantamount to abandoning our first-line weapon against rising joblessness.
I remind my colleagues that the title VI program is the only significant, standby countercyclical program that has authorization for fiscal year 1980.
We should no more shut it down — even in those areas that have relatively low unemployment at this time — than we would close down the production line fora first-line military weapons system when we are on the verge of war.
Mr. President, despite my apprehensions that there are insufficient funds in the bill for public service employment, I do not intend to offer an amendment to increase the level of funding, for the following reasons:
First, the bill as passed by the House contains an additional $188 million for public service employment under title VI of CETA. And I am hopeful that the conferees on the part of the Senate will be influenced by the recent forecasts of the impending high unemployment to accept the higher House levels for this program.
Second, I believe the Committee on Appropriations has provided a very positive directive to the Secretary of Labor with respect to the reallocation of unutilized funds in the current fiscal year.
The committee has directed the Secretary of Labor to consider reallocating some portion of the unutilized funds for both the title II-D and the title VI public service employment programs to prime sponsor areas experiencing severe unemployment. I joined with Senator JAVITS and others in recommending this course of action, the purpose of which is to transfer funds that are unutilized mainly because the employment situation in some areas improved significantly over recent months, to prime sponsor areas where unemployment continues to be severe despite the improvement of the overall national unemployment rate.
Third, the president has indicated that, in connection with plans he is making to ameliorate the effect of the impending recession, he will consider recommending an increase in the title VI public service jobs program with a supplemental request for funds. I know that the distinguished Senator from Washington and his committee, will give every consideration to such request.
Finally, Mr. President, I should like to remind my colleagues that the title VI program is the only significant, standby authority for providing jobs quickly and in proportion to a rising need. It is a truly countercyclical program, standing ready to move into action.
On the basis of the President's July 12 report, it now has an authorization of $5.3 billion.
With the new eligibility requirements assuring that the jobs go only to the economically disadvantaged, it is focused on those who will be hardest hit by rising unemployment.
The Senator from Florida says his proposed jobs cut can be accomplished "without any layoffs," and he bases his assertion on the assumption that attrition will continue on the course it took during the first two quarters of this fiscal year.
But, participation has stopped its decline, and in fact, enrollments in title VI rose slightly in June after holding steady in May.
So attrition cannot be depended upon to provide the phase down. Layoffs of tens of thousands would be required under the amendment of the Senator from Florida.
Mr. President, I wish to associate myself with the points made with great force, in my judgment, and with complete effectiveness by the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from New York.
It is manifest that in a period when we are all directed toward budgetary restraint, fiscal restraint, appropriations moderation, we certainly have a measure from our Appropriations Committee that goes far, far down the road to moderation and restraint.
In fiscal 1979, we enacted $3.4 billion for title VI public service jobs and then came into this year's legislative activity with the President's budget suggestion of $2.2 billion. Then we saw the House act to reduce it to $1.8 billion, and then the Senate committee coming down to $1.6 billion. Now this amendment would reduce it to $1.1 billion.
As has been said forcefully, at a time when it is understood that we are moving into difficult times, there is within this title VI that element of response to rising unemployment, a countercyclical program to make some opportunities available, as the economic cycle turns down.
I think the Senator from Oklahoma stated it precisely, last year at this time, in speaking about an amendment to cut title VI program funds, when he said:
I hope that the Members will realize this (amendment to cut the title VI program) is what the countercyclical was about: When unemployment was high, we put up money to provide these jobs, and now that the employment picture is brighter, we should expect to reduce them.
That was a year ago. Now the situation has turned about on us, and all reliable economic forecasters tell us we are heading into increased unemployment. So the countercyclical feature should be operative, and we should be providing more jobs, not less.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I suggest that the Budget Committee should not come in with its weight in support of the amendment. I can appreciate the Budget Committee pointing out where they think the appropriations are going. But if they are not to line item every aspect of the budget, it seems to me that they simply would raise that warning and not endorse particular amendments.
I can see the Senator from Maine opposing any amendment that would increase, if that was taking us beyond the budget, but we could come in with an alternative amendment cutting somewhere else. What would the Budget Committee do then? It could raise a warning signal. But to then specifically endorse this particular amendment, it seems to me, is to go one step beyond. Especially, it gets us into the very substance of these amendments.
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly how will I then implement my concern about the overall numbers? I have to vote. What am I going to do — tell the Senate that we are threatened with overages of billions of dollars and then vote for appropriations bills so I will not be throwing my weight behind the Senator's particular cut? What kind of action would that be, and where would my credibility be?
I am against across-the-board meat-ax cuts, because I think they should be selective, because we do not know what is going to be hurt with across-the-board cuts. Now the Senator tells me I should not vote for specific cuts.
Just how do I express a concern in a meaningful way? The Senator from Maryland is free to vote as his conscience tells him, but he is telling me that I should not vote for a cut because I am throwing the weight of the Budget Committee behind it.
Mr. SARBANES. No. The Senator from Maine will have to vote one way or the other on the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have to explain it.
Mr. SARBANES. But to invoke the budget process to underscore the opposition to this particular amendment is to carry the Budget Committee into the line item aspects of making a budget, as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee pointed out.
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, I did not do that. I did not make a speech for this amendment. I made a speech — the Senator from Maryland can read the written copy; there is not a reference to the Chiles amendment in it — simply pointing out the overall picture with respect to the appropriations bills as I saw them, and then I was asked questions.
Mr. SARBANES. Then, perhaps I misheard the Senator.
My understanding was that the Senator said that the Chiles amendment actually went further than he thought, in any event, it should have gone, but that he was going to support the Chiles amendment as a way of getting at his objective.
Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right. Whatever remarks I make in response to a question are not remarks that I came to the Chamber to make. So when a question is put to me that requires me to go on record with respect to the amendment, obviously I have to be frank about how I am going to vote.
But my speech was to apprise the Senate of the total picture with respect to appropriations. Then, in order to be credible, I have to vote for some cuts somewhere. I voted against the Morgan amendment. I voted against the Roth across-the-board amendment. And then I get up and make a speech saying we are threatened with serious overages in the order of billions of dollars on appropriations as a whole. What anyone reading the RECORD at that point could wellsay is: "To me, Senator, if you are so concerned about the fact that the budget is threatened, why did you vote against this cut? Why did you vote against that cut? Why are you voting against the Chiles cut?"
Where do I establish my credibility?
Mr. SARBANES. Is the Senator's position that he will vote for all cuts and no increases?
Mr. MUSKIE. I voted against all the cuts proposed up to this point.
Mr. SARBANES. No. Is the Senator's position that he will vote for all cuts?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. I just said I voted against them.
Mr. SARBANES. How did he pick which ones he is going to vote for and come to the Chamber and say, "I voted against that cut and I voted against this cut?"
But now I am telling the Senator he should vote for this cut, when we come to an amendment that involves jobs, when we are moving into a recessionary period and we are failing to meet this program. That is going to lead us into a deficit anyhow.
Mr. MUSKIE. Now, I say to the Senator—
Mr. SARBANES. How does the Senator pick and choose?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will be glad to take someone's time to reexplain what I think I have already explained.
No. 1, the budget resolution established the target of 100,000 CETA title VI jobs by the end of fiscal year 1980. That is No. 1. And this bill cuts only to 200,000.
So there is a budget resolution objective — if I may finish. The Senator has tried to put me on the grill and he wants to monitor my votes so let me explain them.
Mr. SARBANES. I am not anxious to monitor the Senator's votes.
Mr. MUSKIE. But he is. So I have a right to explain.
Mr. SARBANES. I want to monitor the budget process.
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish?
That is a specific budget resolution target — specific — not that we have the right of the Appropriations Committee to implement it. But it was specific when we adopted the budget: 100,000 jobs. So an amendment to implement that would be perfectly proper.
Any Senator is free to oppose it, but it is perfectly proper as implementation of a budget resolution that this Senate adopted. That is the first point.
Now the Chiles cut, in my judgment, and there is argument about the figures, goes further than that. It goes further than restoring the 100,000.
Mr. SARBANES., Mr. President, will the Senator yield for this question?
Mr. MUSKIE. May I finish answering the first question?
Mr. SARBANES. When we adopt a budget resolution is it the Senator's view that we have adopted the assumptions of the Budget Committee in reaching the figure of the budget resolution?
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
Mr. SARBANES. Because if it is then he is line iteming the appropriations bill, as the chairman of the committee has pointed out.
Mr. MUSKIE. No.
I mean in order to come up with a total there have to be parts that add to the total. I mean we are not really suggesting that we commune with the Almighty and come up with an aggregate of $532 billion in outlays without any consideration of the parts that make it up. The Senator does not really suggest that.
Mr. SARBANES. No. What I am suggesting, though—
Mr. MUSKIE. Why does he not answer my question for a change?
Mr. SARBANES. I am going to answer.The Senator asked me if I were suggesting. I am going to answer. What I am suggesting is what this shows clearly and that is that the Budget Committee is taking its assumptions on which its resolutions are based and transforming those assumptions into a standard to be used to do line-item budgeting on the Appropriations Committee, and that is not the part of the budget process.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree it is not part of the budget process. I have said that more often than the Senator has. I have said it in the Budget Committee over and over again. I have said it in the Chamber over and over again. And I am more impressed with its validity than the Senator is. I am not doing it now. But I think that if the Senator wants to know whether or not by October 1, 1979, we are going to be above the aggregates for outlays in 1980 or below he should take into account the assumptions upon which those aggregates were based.
The Senator seems to be afraid of the information. He says, "You do not even tell us what those assumptions were. We would rather guess. We would rather vote for those attractive options without being made uncomfortable by the assumptions which the Senate accepted."
They are not binding. I have no right or power to make them binding. But I have a voice to tell Senators what they were. If the Senator wants to ignore them, all right, but to tell me that simply because I tell him what the assumptions were I am trying to line item is twisting the language beyond what I have come to expect from the Senator from Maryland. He knows the language pretty well. He knows very well, I think, what I amsaying. I do not have to put it in any simpler terms than that.
What I am saying is that the Senate adopted this year in the Debt Ceiling Act a mandate to the Budget Committee to come up with a balanced budget in 1981 and an alternative in 1982 and to tell the Senate on what assumptions we arrive atthose totals. We did that.
Now the Senator is telling me I should not even tell him what the assumptions are because they make him uncomfortable. In any case, he says that the economic game has changed and we should change our assumption.
The Senate can change them because the second budget resolution is going to be marked up in 2 weeks. The Senate can take another look at these assumptions and if there are implications when we come back after the recess that is what the process is.
I do not quarrel with the process. I try to present it.
If the Senator is really concerned about whether or not at the end of the line we are going to be within the targets that we set, we have some dangers; there are some red flags flying; I want him to know what they are.
Mr. SARBANES. I understand that and that, I think, is an important function of the Budget Committee.
How many appropriations bills have we done? I ask the chairman of the committee.
Mr. MAGNUSON. We have done three.
Mr. SARBANES. How many have we done? Is this the third one?
Mr. MAGNUSON. This is the third one.
Mr. SARBANES. This is the third one. At this point and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, as I understand it, in the colloquy that was just carried on assured the chairman of the Budget Committee that he expected the Appropriations Committee to be below the overall figure. Is that not correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand.
Mr. SARBANES. If that is correct, I mean there—
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. He said that.
Mr. SARBANES. That is right.
Mr. MUSKIE. Whether or not that happens depends on forces outside his control, as he himself will concede. One point is the legislative savings that are not being implemented by the appropriate legislative committees, thus putting more of the burden on the Appropriations Committee. There are four cases that I outline here for the reasons why the budget aggregates are challenged.
Mr. SARBANES. If this were the last or the next to the last appropriations bill I could understand in the Chamber the Senator saying: "We are getting at the end of the line. The Appropriations Committee is not going to reach its goal of coming in under our own overall target. I am now really laying it all out for the Senator."
Mr. MUSKIE. By that time it would be too late. If we are $5 billion in the hole with the last appropriations bill before us, where are our options?
Mr. SARBANES. We have 10 to go. We just started out down the path.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is that not the time to begin to look at how far you have come and whether or not you are going in the wrong direction?
Mr. SARBANES. We pointed out how far this particular program has been cut at the very time when we are moving into a situation that cries out for this program.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have had advice from economists across the board, and some of them do advocate immediate action, but the Congressional Budget Office does not. They say, "Wait until the unemployment rate begins to really deteriorate." People have been predicting the unemployment rate would deteriorate the entire year, and it has not yet.
We expect it will, but we have time to put whatever we decide are the right kinds of programs in place to deal with that. We have not ignored that. I mean the discussion here goes on the assumption that the Budget Committee somehow thinks there is no recession in the future, that everything is rosy. That is the way the Senator from Missouri described our attitude. That is not our attitude.
We have got a tough choice between inflation and unemployment and, unfortunately, an increase in employment will not reduce inflation much, and I have said that.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I said that over and overagain. Of course, I yield.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Do you not think theBudget Committee ought to change its assumptions sometimes?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is what we are going to consider in 2 weeks, Senator. But I will bet you this: If we change them then, within a month somebody will ask, "Won't you change it again?"
Mr. MAGNUSON. That is your duty.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is our duty if we see it that way. But you do not do it in connection with every spending bill that comes along, change your economic assumptions, in order to justify the spending.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I still say we have to look at the till on September 30.
Mr. MUSKIE. I hope you do.
Mr. MAGNUSON. It is already $3 billion under the budget, and we are going to be way under. Let the Budget Committee, of which I happen to be a member, change their assumptions or clarify them.
Mr. MUSKIE. Senator, if I have to change our assumptions every time I come to the floor on a spending bill just to make it more comfortable for the Senate to adopt a spending bill that falls outside the budget, I might just as well resign. What good does that do? I come here and somebody gives me a heart-rending story about the farmers' plight or some disasters
Mr. MAGNUSON. I am not suggesting that you change it every time, every day.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not going to change my assumptions every time a bill comes to the floor.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I suggest that you look at the assumptions the Budget Committee staff gives to you and gives to me, I guess. I never see them. They never show up in my office.
Mr. MUSKIE. My staff discusses thesefigures with your staff, Senator.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I know, I know.
Mr. MUSKIE. And I checked with them after our conversation of the other day and there is no disagreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. MAGNUSON. You are subject to change and you have to adjust yourself to make changes.
Mr. MUSKIE. We make changes all the time. If you look at the first and second budget resolutions of the last 5 years you will see that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. JAVITS. I will not take but 5 minutes. I think one thing that has to be emphasized is that this was a splendid debate elucidating a subject which needs to be elucidated, and that is the function of the Budget and the function of the Appropriations Committee, and we are fortunate to have bath chairmen on the floor.
But, Mr. President, the case is made on the basis of the assumptions of the Budget Committee. The assumptions of the Budget Committee were based upon the assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office and, I assume, also upon the assumptions of the Office of Management and Budget.
Both assumptions are now radically changed in the area of unemployment, which is the key area about which we are talking here.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. May I just give the facts and then I will yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. All right. I disagree with what the Senator said.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield such time as the Senator wants.
Mr. JAVITS. I will yield to you, Senator MUSKIE. Go ahead.
Mr. MUSKIE. In the first budget resolution we projected a slowdown. We projected a technical recession for two quarters. That was the CBO's projection. We projected an increase in unemployment. The picture is darker, but it is not radically different. It is darker and the timing of the recession has been advanced. I think we are now in a technical recession, no question about it. But that general picture we projected at the time, and our argument for it was that budget restraint, as an expression of our concern about inflation, was important.
Now, the Senator, who disagreed with us then voted against us, and that is fine. But there is no radical turnaround. There just has been a deepening of the bad signs.
I just wanted to make that point. May I make clear again to the Senator, as I tried to do to my good friend from Missouri, one can agree on the nature of the economic picture that we face and then arrive at a different conclusion about what ought to be done. I am not impuging the motivations or the sincerity or the concern of yourself or the Senator from Missouri or, indeed, my good friend, the chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the Senator from New York has expired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. JAVITS. Now, Mr. President, everything the Senator has said proves my thesis.
If the Senator will forgive me, whether the word is "deepening" or "darkening," the fact is this amendment has a very narrow focus. It is not a big amendment. It is an amendment narrowly focused on these particular jobs, and what we are arguing for — and I think we are right, with all respect — is that accepting that narrow focus the picture is darker precisely where this wants to cut, and not cut us, the Human Resources Committee, but to cut the Appropriations Committee, and to cut what the House has done. That is what we object to, and that is why we say we are not pleading for something stimulative. We are pleading against something non-stimulative and depressing in the very close, narrow area where the biggest trouble in this recession is coming, to wit, unemployment.
For the President has now endorsed that policy by appointing a man to be Secretary of the Treasury who said, "Let us consciously accept unemployment," in order to bring down inflation.
What are we arguing? We say, "OK, let us assume we go along with that. At least let us make some provision against the expected unemployment," which is going to be a million more, and instead ofmaking some provision against it, this amendment seeks to make the provision even less.
I think, therefore — and I think my colleagues should feel, therefore — it deserves to be rejected, especially in view of the fact that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is now satisfied, I believe — the Senator may not be, the chairman of the Budget Committee — about the fact that they know what he is saying, they know his caution, this is the third of 13 bills, and see that it is cared for, and there are plenty of bills in which to make the same specific cut.
I thank the Chair and I hope the Senate rejects this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. CHILES. I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. BELLMON. The Senator from New Jersey made some remarks regarding the Senator from Oklahoma and my State which I feel need to be responded to. I realize the Senator from New Jersey was not in the Chamber when I made my earlier statement, so I would like to say again what I said then.
The Chiles amendment — and perhaps, the Senator from New York will be interested in this also — does not propose to reduce the number of title VI jobs at thebeginning of 1980. I think we are all agreed we are into a recession, and it is likely to go on for two or three quarters, but probably early in 1980 the economy will begin to improve.
So by the time the impact of the Chiles amendment is really felt in this country, which will be toward the end of fiscal year 1980, the economy should be back in a healthy situation, and these jobs rather than doing the thing the Senator from New York is concerned about, which is to lessen the impact of a recession, these jobs will actually be cut back at the time the recession is over and the economy is becoming healthy again.
So I think in accordance with all that has been said about the present trends in the economy, the Chiles amendment is absolutely consistent with what we all think is likely to happen.
I would like to say one other thing to my friend from New Jersey. The comments I made about how a State like Oklahoma, where unemployment is not presently a problem, and where we have 2,000 CETA jobs available in my State, to me this says CETA ought to be targeted more tightly.
I am for it if there is a problem in New York or Cleveland or St. Louis. Why dump 2,000 CETA jobs into a State where we certainly have no problem? The same thing is true for other sections. Can we not take a look at CETA and put it into States where the problems are more severe? That is what I want to say to the Senator.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, if I could just take a moment to reply—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has the time.
Mr. CHILES. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, in the fourth quarter of 1980, unemployment will be between 6.7 and 7.7 percent. This is the unemployment picture that I was describing, that the Senator from Oklahoma understands, in terms of the need for countercyclical attention.
I am glad the Senator suggested that it is his personal feeling that we will be coming into brighter times in 1980. We have to rely on objective advice and I think the reliance on CBO is sufficient to suggest that it is not going to be that much brighter, and that countercyclical attention in this area, on a narrow focus, as the Senator from New York has suggested, is justified.
Mr. BELLMON. Can the Senator comment on the targeting problem? Can we expect CETA to be specifically targeted to areas where there is a countercyclical problem?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Title VI funds are targeted more heavily on those areas where the unemployment rates are exceptionally high. It seems to me that last year the CETA authorization legislation provided for more targeting towards those who need this kind of support. I thought we had done a pretty good job last year. I see Senator JAVITS is rising to indicate his views.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, just one point I would like to make
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, if this is on my time, I yielded 1 minute to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute?
Mr. CHILES I yield 1 minute to the Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. The committee itself provides for reallocation to relieve unemployment where it is severe, and so on. So the committee itself has done what the Senator wishes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has the chair.
Mr. CHILES. I yield to the Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment to reduce spending to public service employment under title VI of CETA.
The Congressional Budget Office estimate for unemployment as contained in their mid-year forecast released July 11, shows the unemployment is likely to rise above 7 percent in calendar year 1980, assuming that present budgetary policies remain unchanged. More specifically, CBO estimates a rise in unemployment in the 6.4- to 7.4-percent range by the last quarter of this year and to a 6.7- to 7.7-percent range by the end of 1980. Private forecasters are predicting unemployment rates for 1980 as high as 7.5 percent. Further cuts in the CETA countercyclical public service employment program, under these circumstances will severely hamper our ability to respond to rapidly worsening economic conditions. The CBO reports that their figures show that substantial layoffs could occur in two critical industries, automobiles and construction:
[t]he impact of such cutbacks would be widely felt. It is estimated that one job in either industry is associated with 1½ to 1¾ jobs in directly related industries." (CEO; The Economic Outlook for 1979-80 An Update).
In my State of Michigan, the unemployment rate for June was 7.2 percent. Given these figures, it seems to me that this would be the worse possible time to further decrease funding for title VI.
The 1978 CETA amendments targeted title VI to economically disadvantaged persons who had been unemployed for more than 10 weeks and the allocation formula targets funds to high unemployment areas. This revision along with other reforms made by the 1978 legislation corrects some of the problems in this program.
If title VI funds are cut further, the result will be higher spending on other areas of the Federal budget, notably welfare and unemployment compensation. This is to say nothing of the lost tax revenues to the Federal Government as well as our State and local governments. I would much rather have people employed than on the welfare or unemployment roles. I want to see CETA personnel continue to perform tasks like weatherizing the homes of senior citizens and low income individuals. In view of our energy crunch, this insulation program is important. I want the crime preventions programs using title VI CETA workers to continue to provide needed services to the senior citizens in the high crime areas of our country who otherwise might be victims of serious crimes. I want the program that serves senior citizens meals that in turn enables them to stay in their homes as opposed to being placed in institutions continued. That will only happen if the employees of these programs can continue receiving CETA funds. Title VI CETA workers are generally providing needed services and are better off working than drawing unemployment or welfare benefits. If the Members of the Senate take a close look at the CBO forecast, I think you will join me in agreeing, that is what will happen if title VI is cut any further.
In conclusion, I would like to commend, just briefly, our friend the Senator from Maine. The comments of Senator MUSKIE, I think, are most appropriate and most helpful, when he raises the cautionary flag. I think the debate which has taken place here this afternoon is testimony to his powers, and to the tremendous respect in which he is held by this body.
Mr: MUSKIE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am afraid I am going to lose this vote.
Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator is going to lose this vote, I am going to sit down right now. But I think it is testimony to the tremendous respect this body has for the Senator's words and the timing of his words. I am delighted to hear the Senator say the cautionary flags are not raised with reference to a particular time and place.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 1 minute has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. So I oppose this amendment. I think the comments we have heard are very helpful, and I appreciate them.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, now that I have yielded time to everybody, and the opponents have yielded all their time and the additional 15 minutes the chairman chose to yield to them, I feel obligated to make a long speech.
Suffice it to say I think this has been an interesting debate. I think we know something, perhaps, about the plight of the Appropriations Committee, and perhaps that will help our committees understand the restraints under which the Appropriations Committee is going to have to work.
Mr. President, we are talking about figures here that were actually assumptions assigned in the budget resolution. I think it is interesting that everyone wants to talk about the budget resolution, and as though this was something done by the Budget Committee and forced upon us.
I hope we will all remember that that budget resolution comes to this floor and is debated and accepted by the majority of the Senators on this floor, and those assumptions are there and available for floor debate, they are debated and voted upon, and the issue goes to conference with the House, which has a similar procedure. That conference report comes out here, and if Senators will recall, this last time we had some additional debate on the conference report, because we had to change it. Part of these changes were because the House said they wanted higher figures in the CETA program than the Senate had, so we changed those figures, and now we are up to those higher figures, which were debated and accepted by a vote of both bodies. And now people are complaining, "My goodness, this is the Budget Committee trying to ram something down our throats."
Mr. President, we are talking about action taken by the Senate, by votes of the Senate. We decided then that we were working on the basis of what this program could do. That is exactly where I think we ought to stay.
I ask for a vote on the amendment; I yield back the remainder of my time, and I ask for a roll call vote.
Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield back the remainder of my time.