August 5, 1971
Page 30132
ORDER FOR STAR PRINT OF COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 92-337 ON S. 2393
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that a star print of Committee Report No. 92-337 to accompany S. 2393 be prepared.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Economic Disaster Relief Act of 1971 (S. 2393) attacks the problems of chronic and sudden unemployment. It includes an amendment I offered in committee assuring that the assistance provided in S. 2393 be available to areas that have experienced high and persistent unemployment. S. 2393 amends the "Disaster Relief Act of 1970" by expanding the definition of a major disaster area to include areas that have experienced an unemployment rate 50 percent above the national average for 6 of the 12 preceding months or a 10 percent increase in unemployment to a rate higher than 6 percent over the 12 preceding months. An area, community, or neighborhood where such conditions exist can be designated without regard to political boundaries.
In trying to help the unemployed we must not be stopped by political boundaries or statistical abstractions. Unemployment does not stop at any State boundary, nor is it neatly contained in any statistical formula like major labor areas. The problem of unemployment is as varied as the men involved. Government programs should be flexible to seek out and destroy unemployment where it exists. Unfortunately, present Government programs all too frequently do not have the necessary flexibility to combat unemployment where it exists.
But for this amendment to expand the availability of assistance to communities, and neighborhoods, and under this bill would be limited to so-called "major labor areas."
A "major labor area," as defined by the Department of Labor, consists of a central city or cities and the surrounding territory within commuting distance.
As one can readily see, the definition of "major labor areas," and its use in determining eligibility for a variety of Federal programs do not take into account the existence of severe pockets of unemployment in many of our central cities. These poverty pockets are often masked by relatively full employment elsewhere in the "major labor area."
The Los Angeles area provides a good example of this condition. The Los Angeles-Long Beach labor area – including all of Los Angeles County – is not currently eligible for assistance under title I of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, even though the Watts area of Los Angeles has unemployment of 18 to 20 percent, and the Mexican-American community of East Los Angeles has unemployment estimated at 15 percent. These areas have had high unemployment rates for years and suffered disproportionately during the recent recession. A "major labor area" approach to Federal disaster relief would not provide relief for these areas of severe economic hardship unless the labor area as a whole had high unemployment. This, I believe, is unacceptable. Urgently needed aid should not be withheld from the jobless in our cities merely because they live in a neighborhood surrounded by areas of full employment.
Assistance of this kind must be available to concentrations of the unemployed and their communities regardless of political boundaries or the relative prosperity of nearby areas.
Once an area has been designated an economic disaster area, individuals in those areas would qualify for a variety of aid already available to victims of natural disasters. This aid would include:
Temporary housing or emergency shelter;
Mortgage or rental payments up to a year upon written notice of foreclosure or eviction; and
Food coupon allotments and surplus commodities.
Individuals would receive expanded unemployment compensation under this bill. Both those who have exhausted their eligibility and those not otherwise eligible would receive unemployment compensation as long as the area is designated as a major disaster, unless re-employed.
A new section added by this bill would authorize relocation assistance to unemployed individuals in disaster areas, including costs of seeking a job in another area and moving to a new job.
New authority would be given to the President to provide medical services in major disaster areas, without regard to ability to pay, utilizing Public Health Service, military and State facilities and personnel.
Aid to major sources of employment under section 237 of the Disaster Relief Act would be expanded to include loans to enterprises which have the potential to be a major source of employment in a disaster area, as well as those which have been major employers and are out of operation because of the disaster.
Communities with economic disasters could receive grants to take the place of lost property tax revenues. Also, as under existing law for natural disasters, in economic disaster areas Federal agencies could waive or modify administrative procedural conditions for assistance, and the President could take steps to avert or lessen an imminent economic disaster before its actual occurrence.
Clearly this bill provides a wide range of new assistance to areas experiencing intolerably high levels of unemployment throughout this country. Unfortunately, there are far too many of these areas. As of June 1971, 5.5 million Americans were cut off work. The continued sluggish recovery – the index of leading business indicators which generally foreshadows movements in the general economy declined in June – means that the problem of unemployment is not being solved.
For months the Senate has been debating what should be done. The Economic Disaster Area Relief Act of 1971 answers that question. It will bring much needed relief and help to areas like Seattle, Wash.; Anchorage, Alaska; Wichita, Kans.; and Southern California. Areas which are clearly experiencing an economic disaster.
In Wichita, Kans., unemployment rose from 7,400 in January 1970, to 16,700 in January 1971. Today unemployment is over 10 percent in Wichita.
Two years ago, only 66,000 people were unemployed in the State of Washington; today there are at least 160,000 people unemployed.
Unemployment for April in Los Angeles County was estimated at 264,000. For the same month, unemployment rates in Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska's major labor areas, were 12.3 and 14.4 percent, respectively.
The approach recommended by this bill recognizes that our economy is like a seamless web, that between the parts there is an interdependence and connection that we ignore at our peril. For an economy to be truly prosperous, each of its parts must be prosperous. This bill goes to the tap-well of our problems providing assistance where it is needed.
Areas of chronic unemployment particularly need the assistance provided by this bill. Their problems are seriously aggrevated by the recent recession and the present slack in our economy. These areas have suffered the consequences of unemployment longer and harder than the rest of the country. Slack unemployment in urban poverty neighborhoods is now at an intolerable 11.9 percent rate. The fact that these areas and these people have endured more should not be made the reason to exclude them from the provisions of this bill. To exclude areas of chronic unemployment from the relief offered by this bill would be neither logical nor compassionate. It is not humane to say to a man out of work that we are helping some unemployed Americans but not him, because he did not become unemployed in the right way. This would seem to suggest that we have two kinds of unemployed Americans – the deserving unemployed and the undeserving unemployed. Such a distinction is not humane to the man out of work nor to his family that he must provide for and feed.
Also such a distinction is not logical. First, it forgets that areas of this country are not separate from each other. They are, in fact, part of the same whole. If John Donne can say that no man is an island, certainly we can say that Detroit is not an island, that Los Angeles is not an island. If our economy is to have real prosperity, then these areas must prosper.
Second, it is not logical because such a distinction assumes that there is a fundamental economy difference between the two kinds of areas. In fact, the fundamental flaw causing the problem is the same. An area that has suffered extensive and sudden unemployment needs to create a broad-based economy just as much as areas of chronic unemployment. Both areas suffer from a lack of a truly suitable economy. Both areas need the assistance provided by this bill. Both areas need the economic foundations provided by this bill.
The "Economic Disaster Relief Act of 1971" will provide the desperately needed assistance that so many Americans must have because of local economic conditions, and it will provide relief to areas in need regardless of political boundaries. I support the bill and will oppose all attempts to limit the relief provided in the bill.