Dr. OKUN. His facts are correct. If you viewed this budget in terms of the old administrative budget concept, you would find it very, very substantially in deficit.

Now, the unified budget is not a creation of the Nixon administra tion. Indeed, I am proud to say it was something that was adopted under the Johnson administration. President Johnson picked a very wise and effective head of that Commission who is now President Nixon's Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Kennedy, and it is my impres sion Mr. Mahon himself was a member of that Commission and signed the report.

My good friend and present colleague, Charles Shultze, Director of the Budget under President Johnson, also found that this report was a constructive one.

There is an important message in the unified budget concept; namely, that you have to look at the Federal Government's revenue raising and spending activities in toto if you are appraising their effect on the economy and the money markets. That means that you should be looking at the trust funds as well as the administrative budget.

Now, there is a problem of budgetary allocation, which I think really is dramatized by Mr. Mahon's point. We are running a very large surplus in our trust funds and running a deficit on the rest of our budget.

But from the economist's point of view, Federal tax dollars are coming out of taxpayers' pockets whether they go into the highway trust fund or social security, or whether they go into the general fund. Federal expenditures are expenditures whether they are paid for social security benefits or for general fund purposes. Hence adding this up, as the unified budget does, gives us the best single answer we can get about the total economic impact of the budget.

Now, we do have to distinguish what the budget does to the economy from what the economy does to the budget. If we have an economic slowdown and corporate profits start falling and personal incomes don't rise much, Federal revenues slow down and that tends to put the budget in deficit. That is the kind of a deficit we should accept.

If we have a weaker economy and get lower revenue, we shouldn't want to cut expenditures all the more in order to offset that, because that would make the economy even weaker under those circumstances.

So if we set a budget that will balance, if the economy works out right, I think we have done a reasonably good job. If the economy is weak, it will go into deficit. If the economy is unusually strong, it will go into surplus, because the profits and incomes will generate more taxes. I think this is a reasonable strategy.

Mr. GAYDOS. Apparently he has had a change of heart since he is now criticizing the procedure, regardless of who perpetrated the fraud. He is now questioning the advisability of that approach.

Dr. OKUN. I think it is important to look at that criticism as a budget allocation question. Does the Congress wish to maintain a situation in which it is building up more revenues than it needs for current outlays in the trust funds and basically spending that surplus on other programs? In some instances it would be fair to say that some of ou social security taxes are used for defense spending. I don't think it wa Congress' original intent to finance defense with social security.

I think those are important issues. But I do think the unified budg et's basic message is the right message about overall economic impact. In days gone by when we did focus on the administrative budget alone, I think we got a misleading picture of the Federal impact on the economy. We need different budget concepts for different purposes, and for the economist's purpose, the unified concept does work best. Mr. STEIGER. Thank you, Dr. Okun. Thank you very much for coming, and we appreciate your helpful testimony and your willingness to stay and respond to questions.

The subcommittee stands adjourned subject to call.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.)

44-425-70-pt. 1-31

MANPOWER ACT OF 1969

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1970

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dominick V. Daniels (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Perkins, Daniels, Hawkins, Meeds, Scherle, and Steiger.

Staff members present: Daniel H. Krivit, counsel; Sue Nelson, research assistant; Cathy Romano, research assistant; and Charles W. Radcliffe, minority counsel for education.

Mr. DANIELS. The Select Subcommittee on Labor will come to order. This morning we will continue with hearings on the various manpower bills that are pending before this committee, and which we have had under consideration for some time.

I am pleased to welcome the Honorable Quentin N. Burdick, Senator from the great State of North Dakota, a former colleague in the House, who has won the esteem and affection of not only his colleagues in the House, but in the other body, and who has always had a great interest in the problems of his constituents, particularly the Indians of his State.

Senator, I wonder if you would step forward to the witness table, together with your constituent.

Before you proceed, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the Honorable Carl

Perkins.

Mr. PERKINS. I want to concur in everything that our distinguished chairman, Congressman Dominick Daniels, has stated about you, Senator Burdick. It was a great pleasure for me to serve with your distinguished father in the House of Representatives. We have never had a more dedicated gentleman to serve in the Congress than your distinguished father, nor a more colorful figure. I was proud to see you succeed him in the House of Representatives, and I have followed your career in the other body with great interest.

You have made a great contribution to our legislative bodies. I am delighted to join with the distinguished subcommittee chairman in welcoming you here this morning.

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, first of all, I would like to thank my former colleagues for those kind words,

and as you know I had 18 or 19 months in the House. I enjoyed that period very much. As you know, events occurred that compelled me to seek the other body, but I haven't forgotten my association over here in the House with its great Members.

At this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Jamerson, who sits at my right, and Mr. Ankle, who sits at his right.

Mr. Jamerson is one of our outstanding Indian leaders. He is a former tribal chairman and a former tribal councilman. He is a veteran of World War II, a veteran of the Korean conflict, and presently he is coordinator for the United Tribes Employment Training Center at Bismarck, N. Dak.

The United Tribes is an organization that brings together the four major reservations in North Dakota, Fort Totten, Fort Yates, what we call Turtle Mountain Chippewa, and the three affiliated tribes.

The Indian people in North Dakota, through this association, have formed a unity, and they more or less speak as one today concerning their problems, their futures, and their hopes.

So, I give you Mr. Jamerson, who I consider a good friend, a thoroughly qualified man, and I know the subject matter he deals with will be something he knows from experience, and knows something about.

So, with a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Chairman, I present to you Mr. Jamerson.

STATEMENT OF THEODORE JAMERSON, COORDINATOR, UNITED TRIBES EMPLOYMENT TRAINING CENTER, BISMARCK, N. DAK.; ACCOMPANIED BY THEODORE ANKLE, CAP DIRECTOR, STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE, FORT YATES, N. DAK.; AND JAMES MCLAIN, TRIBAL COUNCIL, STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE, WAKPALA, S. DAK.

Mr. DANIELS. Mr. Jamerson, we extend you a most cordial welcome. You may proceed with your statement. I do not know if you have a prepared statement. If you do, you may read it or summarize it. Mr. JAMERSON. I do.

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of Congress, friends, officials: It is indeed a pleasure today to have you extend to us this privilege of appearing before you. I have to my right, Senator Burdick, who is a real friend of the Indian people, said, Mr. Ted Ankle, who is our program director for the Standing Rock Indian Reservation; Mr. Ankle is a member of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, graduated from college, has been in business for 19 years, and now has come back to the reservation to help his people.

I bring to you today, distinguished Members of Congress, a message from our Indian people. I am speaking in their behalf, authorized by the United Tribes of North Dakota, to represent them today.

I address this to the Select Labor Subcommittee, Education and Labor Committee, attention, Mr. Dominick V. Daniels, chairman, Member of Congress, from Theodore Jamerson, coordinator, United Tribes of North Dakota, United Tribes Employment Training Center, subject, Senate bill 2838 and House bill 13472.