March 28, 1968
8162
AMENDMENT NO. 675
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 675. The amendment is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] proposes an amendment for himself, Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, and Mr. MUSKIE, beginning on page 4, line 9, to strike out all to and including line 16, page 6.
The language proposed to be stricken out is as follows:
SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal department or agency shall, during the period in which this section is in effect
(A) initiate the planning or construction of any public works project (including projects for recreational facilities but excluding projects for highways), or
(B) make any grant to any State or local government agency for initiating the planning or construction of any such public works project.
(2) Upon request of the head of the Federal department or agency concerned, the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning shall investigate a public works project with respect to which paragraph (1) applies for the purpose of determining whether the delay in planning or construction of such public works project required by paragraph (1) will cause irreparable damage to the public health or welfare. If with respect to any planning or construction of any such public works project, the Director determines that such delay will cause such irreparable damage, paragraph (1) shall cease to apply with respect to such planning or construction effective on the date on which the Director publishes such determination.
(3) The Director shall report, from time to time, the results of his investigations and determinations under paragraph (2) to the President and the Congress.
(b) (1) The Director of the Office of Emergency Planning shall make an investigation of all public works projects (including projects for recreational facilities but excluding highway projects), the planning or construction of which has been initiated on or before the date of the enactment of this Act and is being carried out by a Federal department or agency or by a State or local government agency with Federal assistance, for the purpose of determining what planning and construction on such public works projects can be temporarily halted without causing irreparable damage to the public health or welfare.
(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal department or agency shall
(A) continue any planning or construction, or
(B) make any grant (or payment of a grant previously made) to any State or local government agency for continuing any planning or construction, which the Director determines under paragraph (1) can be so temporarily halted during the remainder of the period in which this section is in effect beginning with the day after the date on which the Director publishes such determination.
(3) The Director shall, as soon as practicable, report the results of his investigation and determinations under paragraph (2) to the President and the Congress.
(c) This section shall apply during the period beginning on the day after the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on the last day on which the tax required to be deducted and withheld on wages under section 3402 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 includes any amount attributable to the tax surcharge imposed by section 51 of such Code.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon I placed on the desk of each Senator a brief memorandum setting forth some of the implications of section 3 of the Williams-Smathers amendment, the "Moratorium on Public Works Projects."
In the memorandum I indicated that there was a need for clarification of some of the subject matter which had been acted on in the Senate in prior votes.
This afternoon I want to further clarify the memorandum and to enlarge upon it. I am very grateful for the privilege of discussing this amendment, which is cosponsored by my able colleague, Senator BYRD of West Virginia, and Senator MUSKIE of Maine.
I shall address myself first to the comments of the Bureau of the Budget concerning this section in reply to a request of the Committee on Finance, chaired by the able Senator from Louisiana [Mr. LONG]. That request was in connection with a report on S. 2902, a bill introduced by the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS], which contains essentially the language embodied in section 3 of the pending measure, sponsored by Senators WILLIAMS of Delaware and SMATHERS.
The proposed moratorium is offered as an economy measure. However, I think Members of the Senate who are conversant with the construction activities of the Federal Government are aware that a stop-and-go approach is infinitely more costly than the orderly procedures established by the Congress to guide the administration of these programs.
In this regard, the Bureau of the Budget commented in the following words:
The proposed moratorium on public works projects would be costly and difficult to administer. It would require uneconomic actions to stop many worthwhile projects already underway if large reductions in expenditures were to be achieved.
That is the end of the quotation from the Bureau of the Budget in reporting on the original bill offered by the Senator from Delaware.
Senators have previously heard during the debate on this matter references to the action by President Truman in curtailing public works construction during the crisis in Korea. However, I would point out that even during that period, when the relative wartime demands on the economy were much greater than they are today, the actions of the administration were far less stringent and extreme than those that are proposed in the pending measure.
Mr. President, to quote again from the report of the Bureau of the Budget: Contracts were generally allowed to be completed on less essential projects before placing the projects on the standby basis. The present bill would require cancellation of existing contracts.
I underscore that language. The present bill would require cancellation of existing contracts.
The report of the Bureau of the Budget refers to five specific difficulties created by the language proposed in section 3 of the pending measure.
First, economically it would be very costly and wasteful to the Federal Government and to our State and local governments, for it would require additional costs to place projects on a standby basis, and would subject Federal agencies to damage claims for the cancellation of construction contracts.
Second, cancellation of planning on projects would be severely damaging. I think this is important to underscore -- not only the projects that are in being, but the projects that are in the planning stage would be affected. This would of course damage programs of the Federal Government as well as State and local programs, and would result in the loss of highly skilled planning staffs, who could not readily be recovered for work after July 1 of 1969, when the moratorium would presumably be lifted.
It would be doubtful, of course, just how quickly we could pull those people back. But I think it is even more important to note that a moratorium on planning would be in direct violation of the recommendations of the Bureau of the Budget to maintain a high level of planning activity at periods of relative cutbacks in construction level, so that these highly skilled teams can be held together.
Third, the Bureau of the Budget criticized the language of S. 2902 as not having clear definitions.
The pending measure, I say, has not been improved -- and I say that with good conscience and good grace -- in this regard. The concept of irreparable damage to public health and welfare is probably without meaning, since it is doubtful that anyone could make a judgment that the failure to construct a hospital or to build a dam or to erect a vocational educational facility would be damaging beyond repair to the public health or welfare.
Fourth, I quote again from the report of the Bureau of the Budget: Investigations of the projects being planned or under consideration before a determination to stop a project would require a time-consuming investigation period. The application of the moratorium to all going projects could well take several years, by which time some of these projects would already be completed. If an investigation of going projects were to be required, it is questionable whether OEP is the proper agency –
Of course, I too think the Office of Emergency Planning, without disparagement of it, is not the agency with which the authors of the amendment should have entrusted the making of decisions.
But, to continue –
It is questionable whether OEP is the proper agency to review agency proposals and make the final determination as to what is essential to the public health and welfare.
Finally, there is a serious question of equity involved in section 3, since many of the programs which would be covered by the proposed moratorium are identical to programs financed with Federal loans, which would not be affected.
I now direct the attention of Senators to the all-encompassing scope of the term "public works."
As I have stated in the memorandum to which I have called attention, title 40, United States Code, section 460, defines public works as "any public works other than housing."
The Special Analyses of the Budget of the United States for fiscal year 1969 has a separate chapter entitled "Federal Activities in Public Works." I call attention to table G-2, page 79, which presents a summary of direct Federal public works expenditures in 1969 under new obligational authority. I remind Senators that this table includes none of the Federal grant-in-aid programs. I shall not read it, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the entire list, presented in table G-2, page 79 of the aforementioned document.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows
[Table omitted]
Mr. RANDOLPH. I mention the Forest Service as an example. There was mention, earlier today, by the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, concerning programs in the Forest Service.
The Public Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Coast Guard, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Veterans' Administration, and others -- some 18 or 20 in all -- have civil works construction programs. Those civil public works activities are under planning and construction, and would be killed by the moratorium which is envisaged in the Williams-Smathers amendment.
The total expenditures in 1967 for all of these agencies, some of which I have mentioned, were $4.483 billion. The estimated expenditures for fiscal year 1968 are $4.489 billion.
Because of the time lag between the obligations, the expenditures, and the completion of construction, in all probability a large part of the funds for fiscal 1967 and possibly all of the funds for fiscal 1968 are still under contract, and much of this contracting would have to be postponed, under the terms of the moratorium proposed in section 3 of the amendment of the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Florida.
I thus point out again that the proposed moratorium would make a shambles of the activities of every major agency in the U.S. Government engaged in construction.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the Senator be kind enough to explain to me precisely what his amendment would do with respect to the moratorium?
Do I correctly understand that the Senator's amendment would exempt construction contracts that are underway, that have been started but are incomplete?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct. I would delete in its entirety section 3 from the bill.
Mr. CHURCH. How would the Senator's amendment affect new starts in the field of construction?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The administration would be able to go ahead with the planning and construction of projects that have been authorized by the Congress and for which funds have been or will be appropriated.
Mr. CHURCH. Would it be possible, also, if the Senator's amendment is agreed to, for new construction starts to begin in the coming fiscal year?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It would be possible, though I think that would be very improbable. I point out that the administration's proposed budget for fiscal year 1969 has already cut deeply into these programs, and, of course, the Appropriations Committees will exercise their judgment on these matters.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, the effect of this amendment cannot be determined as we discuss it on the floor of the Senate.
To consider only one small item that would be affected, I call the attention of the Senator from Idaho to the construction involved under the general item of Corps of Engineers, Civil Functions, appropriations. I refer to a request for $904 million. Out of that total, about $100 million can be classified as controllable. The remainder will be required for payment under existing, continuing contracts or for the initiation of other phases of the work which, if not awarded, would require the contracting officers to stop work on the existing contract.
Let us suppose that there is a valid contract for the construction of a dam. Unless contracts are amended for the necessary relocation of the facilities which would be flooded by the impoundment, the Corps would have to suspend the contract to closure in order to avoid damages to a highway, let us say, or to property located within the reservoir or lake area that has not yet been acquired.
Very few if any of these public works projects would qualify as being essential to the public health or welfare. However, the cancellation of the existing contracts in the guise of saving money could be very expensive to the Government and to the taxpayers of the United States and would defeat the very purpose which the authors of the pending measure seek to serve.
I feel that it should be rejected.
Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I refer to the grant-in-aid programs for such projects as water and sewage treatment. This will be discussed in greater detail by the able Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution. I refer also to the programs for vocational schools, public hospitals, medical health centers, and airports, all of which would fall under the proposed moratorium.
How many Senators are aware at this point that 41,000 persons are employed at the J. F. K. International Airport in the New York City area in both direct and indirect employment? It is the largest single employer at one site in New York City.
We have to think in terms of a continuing program and facilities for the movement of aircraft so that we may not only move people and products, but may also consider the safety of the people of the United States. Certainly their safety should be protected.
I remind the Senate that the several States and thousands of counties and municipal governments have already made their financing plans and predicated those plans on the good faith of the Federal Government.
The Federal dollars to be expended for such projects are to be matched in many instances by funds raised by bond issues that have not been easy of passage at the local and State level. This applies equally to projects that are already under construction as well as to those authorized and in the planning and preplanning stages mentioned by the able Senator from Idaho.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Lousiana. Mr. President, the Senator is to be applauded for offering this amendment. The cosponsors are also to be commended.
In the absence of the Senator's amendment, if the Williams-Smathers substitute should prevail, public works, a very ancient and honorable undertaking of the Government, would be placed in an inferior status in comparison with other kinds of spending for the Great Society. Let it be understood that I am not here to criticize the Great Society programs, I voted for most of the programs suggested by President Johnson. I refer to programs such as VISTA, Headstart, the poverty program, and the various other related programs. I assert, however, that no evidence can be produced to prove that they are any more worthy than the many desirable public works projects.
Is it not correct that, without this amendment, desirable public works, properly recommended and voted on by Congress and for which money would otherwise be appropriated, would be placed in a status inferior to that of other types of spending?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I agree with the statement of the Senator from Louisiana that the so-called old line programs are valuable. They have been tested. However, there is a mixture involved here. We find that the mental health facilities, vocational education, and higher educational facilities are also involved. I think we might call these a part of the Great Society.
However, there is no need to downgrade other programs that have been proven over the years, programs of which Congress has a commitment and, in fact, a responsibility. We must be responsible to the American people.
I agree with the statement of the Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, is it not the case that all programs proposed in the budget will be carefully scrutinized by the Senate, including the public works recommendations?
Naturally, the latter are likely to be cut below the President's recommendations, as are a lot of other requests. However, is not the amendment proposed as a substitute for the pending bill guilty of the charge that it overkills? It just kills all public works in sight. A conscientious administrator would be forced to stop virtually all activity under the language of the amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct. It is sad to say it, but this is a meat axe approach rather than the approach of a careful and skilled surgeon in an attempt to find whether there might be improvements made or programs eliminated.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. It is an overkill. What conscientious administrator could certify that any delay in a particular program would irreparably damage public health or welfare? When could he say that if we spend money later, even if it costs three times as much later, we could not possibly overcome the damage that had been done?
Mr. RANDOLPH. It could not apply. The Senator is correct. I agree with him completely.
Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. MONRONEY. I am distinctly disturbed about a reference that this bill would do serious damage to our greatly needed airport program and would further postpone, for a period of many, many months, even the projection of planning for and getting ready for the construction of airports.
The Senator, who was active in writing the general airport bill when President Truman was in office, and who is completely familiar with this matter, knows that usually there is a period of perhaps 6 years between the inception of an airport and the time it is receiving planes.
As I read this amendment, we would jeopardize the program, for whatever period this freeze is on, or whatever the disposition is of the genius who is set up to administer it and to decide what is right and what is wrong with respect to public expenditures.
Can the Senator from West Virginia inform me as to the situation?
Mr. RANDOLPH. The Senator is correct. It takes 3 to 5 years to do an airport project. We know that, and we know that the needs run into the thousands -- not only for the convenience and the comfort but also for the safety of the people of the United States as they move about, and also for the products that are shipped by the people of this country.
I referred earlier to the employment of 41,000 persons at J. F. K. International Airport, just to show the impact of this industry.
I believe it is also important to show the airline passenger growth in this country. In 1967, we had 126 million passengers on our scheduled airlines. The projected figure for 1973, as the Senator knows, is 248 million passengers, and by 1979 we project 444 million passengers.
America needs, as the Senator from Oklahoma has said, a continuing program of improvements for the convenience, comfort, and safety of the American people.
Mr. MONRONEY. The Senator is correct. He is aware -- I presume he has referred to it -- that the 747 jumbo jet will be unloading 450 people from its doors when it lands at the already overcrowded facilities in many cities, on the already overtaxed runways, and the same situation will apply to the 250-passenger DC-10, and the Lockheed Sky Bus, the 1011.
Mr. RANDOLPH. The FAA construction program in 1967 was only $62 million, and the projected figures are $79 million for 1968 and $102 million for 1969. Even these amounts, while substantial, are inadequate to meet our air transportation needs. The Senator knows that to be true.
Mr. MONRONEY. The program would be jeopardized unless the amendment is adopted.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. President, is the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] in the Chamber? Are we limited to 1 hour on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the time limitation on the amendment. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I will have control of the time in opposition to the amendment. I shall not need the full 30 minutes to explain my position. If the Senator from West Virginia needs an extra 5 minutes, I will yield him 5 minutes of my time at this time or later, although I shall oppose his amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I believe that the Senator from Delaware might well proceed at this time, and then we could, by his gracious consent, give the Senator from Maine an opportunity to speak. Could that be done?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I will yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine at this time, if he wishes, or I will yield the time later.
Mr. MUSKIE. It might be just as well if the Senator went ahead at this time, and I will take my time later.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. All right. I yield myself 10 minutes at this time. Mr. President, the Senator from West Virginia has very properly pointed out that the Bureau of the Budget objects most strenuously to this amendment, which is in the Williams-Smathers package. There is no question about that. I spoke with the Director of the Budget yesterday at noon; in fact, I spoke with him several times in the last few days. I asked him particularly, after the Senate had had a couple of votes of rather great importance in connection with this bill, just what the position of the administration was in connection with the package before the Senate.
Mr. Zwick, the Director of the Budget, made it clear that the administration is unalterably opposed to the package before the Senator. They said they would like to have a tax increase, but they are unalterably opposed to each and every section in the bill -- 1, 2, 3, 4 -- which has any connection at all with controlling expenditures, not only the section with respect to public works, but the one with respect to controlling employment as well. They are against any control of or a ceiling on expenditures. They are against every proposal in this package which deals with controlling expenditures. They gave me the clear impression that they will do everything they can to defeat it. So there is no question about their position. We are in complete agreement that the Johnson administration is definitely opposed to any control of or any reduction in spending, but they do want the tax increase.
The suggestion has been made that the language is not quite proper and that the bill is not well drawn. I introduced this bill on January 31, and within 24 hours I submitted it to the Director of the Budget and asked him for their comments together with their recommendations for any change in the language. As of this moment, with but one exception, I have not received any suggestions for changes in the language, and I am glad to make that exception because it tightened the language.
They said -- as the Senator from West Virginia pointed out -- on page 4, line 16, after the word "grant," we should have included "loan"; otherwise, some of them would be left out. So an amendment will be offered in a moment which will put loans in since it was intended that they be covered in the first place. That was an unintentional omission on our part.
I thank the Budget Bureau for giving us that very constructive suggestion to tighten the language. That will be done, so it will be all inclusive.
With respect to the suggestion that the language is cloudy I was asked, "How do you define 'project' and how do you define 'public works'?"
This afternoon an argument is made that the language embraces all the employees at Kennedy Airport, and they now claim that 41,000 people are working there who would be seriously jeopardized and that thousands of people and the great growth of airports would be jeopardized. That is a ridiculous argument.
In fact, I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia, speaking for the administration, overlooked one point he could have made. Our population during this period has been growing at the rate of 2½ million a year. I suppose some will argue that, too, will be jeopardized if we cut back on spending, because it is the only thing I know of, except the kitchen sink, that was not thrown in as an objection to this proposal. Then we hear the argument that the word "project" is not defined.
Now any bureaucrat or any Member of Congress knows what a public work project is. The word "project" is defined in Webster's Dictionary. One definition is that a project is a plan or a proposal, a planned undertaking. Another definition for the same spelling -- pronounced differently -- is to throw away or to cast about.
I do not know whether they figure that these projects are something the administration wants to throw away. Maybe that has been the confusion. If the words "public works" are put in front of it, it merely means that it is a public works project and that the American taxpayers are paying for it. Every Senator knows that.
The Senator from West Virginia has enumerated the sewerage and the airports as projects that would be stopped, and there are those in the executive branch who use the same argument. But I will say that the executive branch never raised one question about these projects being involved until this week when the Senate rejected the Long amendment to delete them from the bill.
They were so sure they were going to knock it out that they did not bother to raise a question.
Then, and only then, did they suddenly come up with a list of projects that they claim will be affected.
I am reminded of what happened a couple of years ago when we were debating in the Committee on Finance -- the chairman will remember this -- about whether or not we should extend the debt ceiling by a certain amount. The Secretary of the Treasury, in order to stimulate interest in Congress, made the statement that if Congress did not give them what they asked for by a certain date every social security check in America and all veterans pension funds were going to be stopped. He later admitted that was an off-the-cuff statement and that it was ridiculous and absurd. Veterans benefits are payable under law and the social security checks come out of a trust fund. Neither of those benefits would have been affected by the delay. Those were scare tactics which were being employed then, and that is what we are seeing here this afternoon.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I will yield in just a moment. To reach a compromise the Senator from Florida and I have agreed to reduce the coverage to those projects which are new starts. The part of the amendment in which we were primarily interested was new construction and new starts. We will compromise on this basis.
In a moment we are going to offer as a substitute an amendment which would confine this moratorium solely to new starts, which will eliminate all of the argument we have just heard. It would limit the proposal to new projects started from here on.
Even then, if the Office of Emergency Planning decided that a continuation or initiation of that project was in the best interests of that country it could go ahead.
The suggestion was made that the Office of Emergency Planning was not the proper agency. I do not care what agency is named. If anyone has a better suggestion I would accept it. I did ask the administration which office they think would be most appropriate to which to delegate this authority.
While it was clear that they were against the amendment, they said the Office of Emergency Planning was the most appropriate agency if it were to be approved. It was on their suggestion that we put in the Office of Emergency Planning. As I have said, if any Senator has a better suggestion I would welcome it.
But let us face it, this argument, like the others, was only an excuse to object to a plan they were determined to oppose anyway.
Confining the amendment solely to new construction projects would achieve the objective we seek and at the same time it is a proposal which the administration has said they could live with.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for 4 minutes? I am on the other side, but the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] has no time remaining.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I would be glad to yield to the Senator from Oregon for 4 minutes if he will wait for a moment.
Mr. MORSE. I am sorry. I thought the Senator had completed his remarks.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Is it the proposal of the Senator from Delaware that his amendment would allow the administration to go forward with all projects which have already been approved and which are underway?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MONDALE in the chair). The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. No, Mr. President. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes of his 20 minutes. The Senator has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 6 additional minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, is it the position of the Senator from Delaware that those projects which have been planned and are underway shall not be interrupted by his amendment?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator is correct.
Mr. LAUSCHE. And even beyond that, new projects which the Office of Emergency Planning deems are in the interest of the country in the nature of new projects may go forward.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator is correct, just as they had under President Truman during the Korean war.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Is it the position of the Senator from Delaware that the stability of the dollar is of such grave importance that we must do something to demonstrate to the world that the Congress of the United States and the administration contemplate following the fiscal policy that will establish stability to the dollar?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator is correct. If we are going to start exempting public work projects the next step would be to exempt education, poverty programs, foreign aid, and agriculture. If we start this practice of exemptions we would be defeating the purpose of the bill.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a question?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. SMATHERS. It is also a fact, is it not, that Secretary Fowler, in commenting with respect to this kind of amendment we are now talking about said -- and I shall read the letter into the RECORD because I think it is important: The proposed moratorium on public works projects would be costly and difficult to administer. It would require uneconomic actions to stop many worthwhile projects already underway if large reductions is expenditures were to be achieved.
Those were his comments on the proposal to impose a moratorium on all public works projects.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. Fowler further said:
The intent of S. 2902 in restricting new public works construction starts may be only slightly more limiting than the President's recommendations in the 1969 budget. The budget proposes very few new direct Federal projects other than those essential to the national defense and health and welfare of the public and holds going work to a minimum level.
The effect of what the Secretary of the Treasury said was that while there would be great difficulty in limiting those public works projects which are underway and for which money has been appropriated, he would be for a proposal if ongoing projects were excluded from the amendment, as we have now recommended, and limited to new starts. At least indirectly this seems to be the effect of his statements.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator is correct. It would be slightly more limiting only to the extent we would write into law.
Mr. SMATHERS. Rather than by Executive order.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. The Senator is correct.
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. I understand the Senator's amendment would prohibit construction of new projects. Would the amendment in any way prohibit the planning?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. No. That question was raised by the Senator from South Dakota earlier. He made an excellent point that it would be a good idea to continue the planning so that when this emergency is over they could have these plans on the drawing board. I discussed this with the cosponsors, and we agreed that this was a small point. We would allow them to plan, but the plans would be held in abeyance until the war is over and our budget more nearly under control. This would not restrict planning.
Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. With the understanding that planning can go forward I am pleased to support the amendment.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Assume there is a bridge vitally needed because of the dilapidated condition of the existing bridge and the inadequacy of an existing bridge to serve the needs. Would the Emergency Planning Commission under the proposal of the Senator have the right in that instance to say that this is in the interest of the security and the economy of the country and allow it to be built?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Surely, they could. It is intended that they could.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. Senator LAUSCHE has clarified an important point. Bridges which fall or become dangerous will be reconstructed.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Surely, they can. Buildings can also burn down, and they will have to be reconstructed. We cannot stop everything.
Mr. COOPER. I have the honor to serve as the ranking Republican member of the Committee on Public Works. I serve also on the Appropriations Subcommittee for Appropriations of public works. I should like to say that no one holds the chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee, Senator RANDOLPH, in higher regard than I. No one has provided more effective leadership for the construction of necessary public works than the Senator from West Virginia.
It is difficult for me to disagree with him on this subject, for we have worked together for many years, but, taking into consideration the critical financial condition of our country, the most critical I have known during my service in Congress, the war in Vietnam, the absolute necessity of getting our house in order, by the control of expenditures and the levying of taxes, to halt inflation, to prevent the drain of our gold, and to establish the confidence of the world in our financial situation, and the dollar, every program must take some reductions.
If we have to make a choice between public buildings and public works as against human needs, I want programs for human needs to be preserved.
Therefore, I shall vote for the amendment of the Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] and against the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH].
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Oregon [Mr. MORSE].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the language of the Williams amendment No. 662 states in section 3 that there shall be a moratorium on the initiation of all public works construction by the Federal Government, or by any State with Federal money, excluding highways.
The moratorium itself would mean disaster to education, health, and many of the activities of all levels of government. Only if the Office of Emergency Planning were to make general exceptions, as it is empowered to do, would the impact of this provision be alleviated. Yet the Office of Emergency Planning must make a finding that a delay in planning or construction of such a facility would "cause irreparable damage to the public health or welfare."
I find that in Vietnam pacification spending, we allocate and appropriate funds for planning and construction of many structures far less important to the people of Vietnam than are the structures forbidden the American people by this amendment. The theory of pacification in Vietnam is that we have to create a feeling of loyalty to their Government on the part of the local people. They do not have it; we have to create it with American money spent for schools, public markets, hospitals and other medical facilities, and housing.
Sidney Roche, the retired lieutenant colonel and a civilian adviser who has resigned for lack of confidence in our pacification program, cites among the instances of corruption he could no longer stomach the furnishing of cement for the patio of a province chief's brother-in-law.
It is not as though we were helping the people of Vietnam at this expense to ourselves. We are forcing our help on them, in the effort to create a feeling of nationality and cohesion with the government in Saigon that does not exist.
I simply cannot imagine what obsession we are developing when we think we have to suspend all construction by the Federal Government here in the United States in order that we can continue planning and initiating the construction of the same projects in Vietnam.
What we have in connection with the 10-percent surtax is the same situation. We all know that a tax increase is the price the European central banks are exacting as the price for stopping their run on U.S. gold. They hold vast quantities of Yankee dollars. Why? In large part because of the stationing of 330,000 American soldiers and many of their dependents across the length and breadth of Europe, except in France, where we have been kicked out. The Senator from Missouri said here yesterday that the net dollar loss to us from those soldiers is some $700 million a year.
The majority leader tells us that the total cost to U.S. taxpayers is $2.5 billion.
The Europeans who hold those dollars do not want to see them cheapened by inflation. They are going to demand gold for them unless we maintain their value by imposing a tax increase on the American people. There was no great sentiment for a tax increase in Congress until the word came from Europe that they might lose faith in the value of the billions of dollars we have spent over there to protect them.
The soldiers in the amount of 330,000 or so are not enough of a commitment to suit Western Europe. They want the value of their surplus dollars maintained, too. That is why all the furor for a tax increase in this Chamber in recent days. It is not for the protection of the American people and their confidence in the dollar. It is for the protection of the Europeans who hold dollars.
This, too, is commitment gone mad. We are taxing our own people so that Europeans can enjoy the protection of 330,000 American servicemen which they have not matched with NATO forces of their own, plus the untarnished value of the surplus dollars it costs us to keep them there.
We are being asked in the same amendment to suspend public works in this country so that they can continue in Vietnam, where the people seem less and less willing to put forth any effort to preserve a government that does not represent them.
I am aghast at the illogic and self-defeat of this entire amendment.
Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] wants to know what a substitute may be, I will give it to him:
Take $20 billion from the unjustified $79 billion recommendation of this administration for defense spending, only $26 billion of which is Vietnam connected. Cut the foreign aid bill by $2 billion. Then no one will have to cheat the American people out of needed domestic improvements, which this amendment would do, and drive thousands of workers into the streets, costing us $6 for every $1 we will save, plus precious American blood here at home as well as in Vietnam.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware for yielding me time to listen to an argument against his amendment. I appreciate his courtesy very much.
Mr. President, it has been made clear that the amendment strikes at much more than the Corps of Engineers' projects which, I suspect, most Senators had in mind as being affected by the provisions of the Williams-Smathers amendment.
I am particularly interested in the fact that the amendment, if allowed to stand, would bring to a screeching halt the sewage treatment grant program which is so vital to the fight against water pollution in this country.
To give an indication of the magnitude of the impact upon this program, let me cite some figures.
At the present time, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration has outstanding commitments amounting to $323 million to municipalities, to assist in the construction of over $1.6 billion of waste treatment facilities. These are facilities in the process of construction. We have already committed ourselves to the communities. Those commitments could not be met if the pending amendment should be adopted.
Second, under the water quality standards program which was initiated under the 1965 act, we have brought pressure upon every community in every State to begin planning sewage treatment projects and industrial waste treatment projects to meet higher standards of water quality. That is the pressure which has motivated the States to float bond issues and has motivated the communities to make investments in planning and in staffs. These are not ongoing projects, but they are projects which are the inevitable result of activities we have already stimulated under the landmark legislation of 1965 and 1966, which would be brought to a screeching halt.
In 1966, we enacted legislation to provide $6 billion -- that was in the Senate -- to help States and communities do the job.
The House forced us to reduce that figure to $3.5 billion. In the first installment of that authorization in this fiscal year, we have cut it from $450 million to $203 million. Now this amendment would force us to cut the $203 million.
Mr. President, I do not think it is necessary to impose that kind of austerity on this kind of domestic national problem, which is so clearly related to the long-range economic growth of our country.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The argument of the Senator from Maine is not at all valid. In the first place, this proposal does not stop projects which are underway. I would like to read what Secretary Fowler said in connection with the amendment now at the desk:
The intent of S. 2902 in restricting new public works construction starts may be only slightly more limiting than the President's recommendations in the 1969 budget.
As a stanch supporter of the administration, I have had this amendment drafted so that it does only what the President promised he was going to do anyway -- only I want to write it in the law.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I do not have the time.
Since this amendment does only what President Johnson said he was going to do, why is there objection? The amendment that the Senator from Florida and I are suggesting is that we write into law what President Johnson said he was going to do. Why does anyone object to writing it into law unless he thinks the President was merely making political speeches and had no intention of implementing his promises?
If the Senator from Maine thinks that President Johnson does not mean what he said, or if he thinks President Johnson wants to stop sewage plants, then he should make that accusation clear, but he should not use that argument against this bill, because it has nothing to do with it.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me so I may reply?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I have already yielded 4 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. It is important to answer that.
May I have some time on the bill?
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I yield 2 or 3 minutes on the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Three minutes.
I have disagreed with President Johnson on air and water pollution legislation for 5 years. I have taken issue with him and prevailed, because I have greater influence in the committee than he does. So I know the impact of the provisions before us on these programs. So my description of them is accurate -- they will come to a screeching halt, and the Senator's proposed no-new-starts amendment will not get to this problem.
If that is what the Senate wants to do, it is the Senate's privilege; but let me say that, in my considered judgment -- and I have checked this out with competent counsel as well as people in the administration, and formed a judgment of my own -- this is the impact. If that is what Senators want, that is the way they ought to vote, but this proposal will bring the water pollution program to a screeching halt.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, does the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE] wish me to yield?
Mr. LAUSCHE. Yes. May I ask the Senator from Delaware a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield 1 minute.
Mr. LAUSCHE. If we do not stabilize the strength of the dollar, if we allow it to collapse, what will then be the situation with respect to the water, sewerage, and air contamination programs which we have adopted? Is it not a fact that all the Senator from Delaware asks is a delay until we put our financial house in order?
The argument has been made by economists of great ability that the problem confronting us is one that may lead to calamitous consequences. It may lead to a collapse of the international fiscal system, which may lead to a collapse of stock sales, and otherwise.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. LAUSCHE. May I have 2 minutes on the bill?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes on the bill. I completely concur in what the Senator from Ohio has said.
Let me say in conclusion that the adoption of the amendment which we are proposing does not halt any planning. It does not halt a single project underway. It does not halt any projects for which commitments have been made. It does not stop any future initiation of any project which can be certified as being essential to the national interest. What more can we ask at this time?
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I want to repeat what the Senator from Delaware has said. The amendment which he proposes allows the Office of Emergency Planning to approve all projects which are deemed essential and necessary ;he interest of the people of the country.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. That is correct. Why should we not postpone projects which can be postponed at a time when we have a $28 billion deficit?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I say, not in disparagement, that there has been an omission by the authors of section 3. The language is very deficient. Now the proposal is to make changes and present a substitute and take another approach. I am thinking of programs like mass transit, public hospital facilities, mental health facilities, facilities of all types to strengthen our economy and look after human resources, and I am thinking in terms of air and water pollution. Certainly a cesspool in this country is not desirable. If we do not continue such programs, and even initiate new ones, we will be in trouble.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, which I ask to
have stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The Senator from Delaware [Mr. WILLIAMS] offers, for himself, the Senator from Florida [Mr. SMATHERS], and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. LAUSCHE], an amendment on page 4 beginning with line 9, strike out all down to and including line 9 on page 6 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SEC. 3. MORATORIUM ON PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS.
(a) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal department or agency shall, during the period in which this section is in effect
(A) initiate the construction of any public works project (including projects for recreational facilities but excluding projects for highways), or
(B) make any grant or loan to any State or local government agency for initiating the construction of any such public works project.
(2) Upon request of the head of the Federal department or agency concerned, the Director of the Office of Emergency Planning shall investigate a public works project with respect to which paragraph (1) applies for the purpose of determining whether the delay in construction of such public works project required by paragraph (1) will cause irreparable damage to the public health or welfare. If with respect to any construction of any such public works project, the Director determines that such delay will cause such irreparable damage, paragraph (l) shall cease to apply with respect to such construction effective on the date on which the Director publishes such determination.
(3) The Director shall report, from time to time, the results of his investigations and determinations under paragraph (2) to the President and the Congress.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. I should like to read again what the Secretary of the Treasury told the Finance Committee on March 12 of this year in connection with the amendment as it is now at the desk:
The intent of S. 2902 in restricting new public works construction starts may be only slightly more limiting than the President's recommendations in the 1969 budget. The budget proposes very few new direct Federal projects other than those essential to the national defense and health and welfare of the public.
The only thing limiting about this amendment is that we write into law what the President has said he is going to do. It does not stop any project which is underway. It does not halt any planning. It does not prohibit construction or the initiation of any new project if -- and I emphasize the word "if" -- that project has been certified by the Office of Emergency Planning as being essential to the national interest and public welfare.
We are speaking much here about establishing priorities. To me this will be a key vote in the Senate on this bill. Are we merely going to adopt a proposal which embraces a lot of figures about reducing the budget and at the same time insist on deleting from the bill all of those provisions which may affect some particular project we like?
I think if we are to adopt the proposed package, which would require a $6 billion reduction in spending plus an additional $10 billion reduction in the authorization for 1969, we are going to have to cut spending somewhere. Senators had just as well face up to the fact that in the months to come we are going to have to answer some roll calls and do some budget cutting; or do they wish to delegate to the President of the United States the responsibility and the authority to make the cuts?
Here is the place we can start. I think our vote here today will be understood. Mr. President, I do not think we have any choice but to agree to this amendment and then be sure it is retained in the bill.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator feel that his amendment would prohibit the improvement of veterans' facilities necessary to take care of the increasing numbers of sick and wounded veterans?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Certainly it would not. Not only that; using that argument, as they have been trying to do here today, is just as ridiculous as it was when Secretary Fowler made the threat that if we did not extend the debt ceiling by X date he would stop payment of all social security pensions in America.
That is one of the scare tactics used by an administration which does not want to cut spending. Do not overlook the fact that they have said that no matter how it is modified they do not want it.
Mr. AIKEN. Then if it is necessary to extend the facilities to meet actual needs, there is nothing in the Senator's amendment that would prohibit that?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Not only nothing in the amendment, but I say that any man who used that as an excuse ought to be impeached.
Mr. AIKEN. I would vote to impeach him.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I would, too.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, will the Senator from Delaware yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, the amendment which the Senator from Delaware, the Senator from Ohio, and I have offered seeks to put us in the position we were in during World War II and during the Korean war; to impose the same sort of rules and regulations which prevailed during these conflicts with respect to public works projects.
In other words, we say that we recognize there is some justification for not stopping ongoing public works projects, flood control projects, and things of that kind. But there is no justification, in our view, Mr. President, for starting new projects when we face the kind of emergency which we face in this country. If there should be a project of the type and character that the distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] talked about -- one that is absolutely essential -- the amendment provides that a representation to that effect may be made to the Office of Emergency Planning. If it proves necessary as claimed, then the Office of Emergency Planning will authorize it and work on it can go forward.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. SMATHERS. I am happy to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me make this point: I do not see that one sewage treatment plant is any different than another, by the measurement of irreparable damage to health. I do not think you can distinguish them on that basis.
So, in effect, the amendment would ask the Office of Emergency Planning to make the judgment we are making here this afternoon -- whether or not this program should go forward.
Mr. SMATHERS. Let me tell the Senator what the distinguishing feature is. The distinguishing feature is our $25 billion deficit. The distinguishing feature is the run on our dollar that has just occurred. The distinguishing feature is the pandemonium that will reign on Monday if we do not do something now to redeem ourselves.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SMATHERS. I am telling the Senator what is the distinguishing feature. We cannot run on a basis of business as usual. We cannot do all the things we would like to do under the conditions which prevail today. That is the reason why we have the pending substitute before us.
Anyone would agree, if we were in the position we were in, say, in 1954 and 1955, that we should go forward with public works programs. But in times when people are sacrificing overseas, in Vietnam–
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SMATHERS. No; the Senator from Maine wanted to hear the distinction, and I am going to tell him.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator has not answered my question. I shall be glad to listen to his rhetoric after he answers my question.
Mr. SMATHERS. I am answering the Senator's question. The Senator wanted to know what was the distinction. I am telling him the distinction. It is that we do not have the expenditure options we once had. We have a war going on in Vietnam. We have got to be concerned about a run on the dollar. We have got to be concerned about our gold position. We have to pull in. That is the difference.
There are times when we should go forward with the type of program the Senator is talking about. I have voted for such programs. But there comes a time when one cannot any longer, in good conscience, vote for this type of program; that time is when our fiscal situation is what it is today.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I do not think we will need all the time on this particular amendment, I would imagine that the Senator from West Virginia, even though he may later want to strike the whole amendment, would be in favor of this particular amendment. So I expect we will have a strong vote at this time.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. I yield.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, as indicated -- I shall not state by admission; I do not want to use that terminology – but certainly by the readjustment of the thinking of the Senator from Delaware, he is going a long way toward what I desired in eliminating section 3. He would eliminate the moratorium on existing contracts. But he is not going far enough. The moratorium would still have a blanket application to all planning in these programs. It is very important that we go all the way.
Mr. President, as I understand it, if the amendment which is offered by the Senator from Delaware prevails, that the Senate will then have the opportunity to vote upon my amendment; is that correct?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. That is correct.