July 29, 1975
Page 25728
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GARY W. HART) . The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. LONG. 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 5, beginning with line 8, strike out through page 18, line 19 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
(a) State Allocation.—The Secretary shall allocate from the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization in section 202 for calendar quarter, an amount determined under section 107 of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972.
(b) Local Governments.—The Secretary shall allocate from the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization in section 202 for a calendar quarter, an amount determined under section 108 of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972.
(c) Definition.—For purposes of this section–
(1) The term entitlement in sections 107 and 108 of the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 shall refer to a calendar.
(2) The terms "State government" and "local government" have the same definitions as they have in the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972.
(d) Regulations.—The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of the section.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, this amendment is offered to do one thing: It would substitute the revenue-sharing formula for the formula in this bill, as it should be, for a very simple reason.
The revenue-sharing formula on which we had vote after vote after vote had logic which recommended it, and the formula in this bill is nothing but a crazy-quilt arrangement.
Let me provide an example.
Under this bill, Alaska with 11.8 percent unemployment would receive a great deal less help than Florida with 9.8 percent. You may wonder how it could be that way.
Well, according to Senator Muskie's amendment, Florida has 7 percent excess unemployment, while Alaska would have 2 percent excess unemployment, even though Alaska actually has a higher unemployment rate than Florida.
Now, how does this occur? Well, because Alaska had 9 percent of its people unemployed between 1967 and 1969, you do not count the first 9 percent Alaska had out of work, you only count the 2 percent displaced since that time,and assume 9 percent is a normal rate of unemployment in Alaska.
The same is true for West Virginia. That State is third from the bottom on the list. It has 8.3 percent unemployed, but receives a lower percentage of funds than almost any other State except South Dakota and Wyoming. And why should they do so poorly? For instance, West Virginia, with a higher amount of unemployment, let us say, than New Hampshire, with 7.1 percent unemployment, receives a smaller percentage of funds than does New Hampshire. This occurs because during the base period West Virginia had a 6 percent unemployment rate and under Senator Muskie's amendment it is assumed that is normal unemployment there. During the same period, New Hampshire had a 2 percent unemployment rate, which is presumed to be normal for that State.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the base period unemployment rates and "excess unemployment" factors which have been computed for purposes of the formula contained in the Muskie amendment, which in my opinion defy logic in many instances and work some rather harsh inequities.
There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Tables omitted]
Mr. LONG.. Mr. President, Senators can go through this list and find first one anomaly and then another, due to the way the base period is set. Go through the list and look at State after State, to see how the base period works. Compare Virginia, for example, with West Virginia. West Virginia has 25 percent more unemployment, and yet its multiplying factor is only half that of the State of Virginia. It does not make any sense at all, because the base period requires an assumption that the amount of unemployment a State had between 1967 and 1969 is normal, even though for many States that level was very high.
There is also another multiplying factor. That is adjusted taxes. This factor, rather than the factor the Finance Committee recommended — tax effort — has been used in the proposed amendment. Tax effort, unlike adjusted taxes, takes into account taxes paid and then relates that to the per capita income of the people, to measure the people's ability to pay those taxes. That has been left out of this proposal. To leave it out favors high-income States at the expense of low- income States. By the time they get through with all this, Mr. President, the advocates of this measure have worked it out so that 20 States win under their formula. and 30 States lose; and some of the losers are low-income States with the highest levels of unemployment. That does not make any sense at all.
Additionally, this program does not require that anyone be put to work at all. The whole $2 billion could be used for a pay raise for employees. It could be used to reduce the debt any State or local government owes to the banks, for that matter. So it is purely and simply a revenue- sharing program going by way of appropriations on an annual basis rather than a continuing-type revenue-sharing program of the type with which the Senate is familiar.
Mr. President, we would do better to legislate specifically for a few hard-pressed States, such as Rhode Island and Michigan, rather than approving a program which for States like Kentucky would provide only about one-half as much as under the general revenue-sharing formula, like Wyoming, that would get only about 10 percent, like South Dakota; which would receive less than 50 percent, and so it goes. With very few exceptions, the low-income States fare very badly, and Senators can look at the chart before us. I ask unanimous consent that this table be printed in the RECORD showing how much low-income States lose compared with their percentage allocations under general revenue sharing.
There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. LONG. If we are to have something like this, we ought to have the kind of formula we have voted on time and time again, looking at tax effort rather than tax collections as a simple dollar figure, so that per capita income can be used to relate adjusted taxes to an area's overall problems. This would be vastly better than a formula where the percentage of people who were out of work during a base period of 1967 through 1969 is deemed to be normal, with all the built-in inequities present in it.
It would have made a great deal more sense to start out by assuming a certain percentage of unemployment is normal and apply that across the. board to everyone; but that was not done. The result is that the formula before us is one that no two people on this floor could have conceivably devised and agreed upon, unless they had sat down and talked this over, and thought in terms of, "Let me see, who is it that we must by all means care for, and how can we work this out so we fellows on the committee can agree on the situation in each of those?"
Mr. President, I submit that the revenue-sharing formula is far more equitable. Thirty States would be better off. Missouri, for example, would get 50 percent more than under the formula in this bill. The revenue-sharing formula is a formula on which the Senate has had a chance to vote for substitute after substitute, or without finding one any better. If we should find that some particular State — and there may be one or two — has a very high amount of unemployment, then I suggest that we try to legislate specifically for them, but otherwise let's distribute this money in the same way we distribute general revenue-sharing.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
I have listened to quite a bit that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana has had to say about the pending bill this afternoon, and I am delighted that there are more Senators present now, so that my concept of this measure can be tested against his.
Let us make one point very clear. This is not a revenue-sharing bill. I had something to do with the origins of revenue sharing and I had something to do with the origins of this measure. They are not the same. They are not built to serve the same purpose, and I think the Senator understands that; but he does not want the Senate to understand it.
The Senator indicated some irritation that the bill was not referred to the Finance Committee, because he says it is revenue sharing. Well, if this is revenue sharing, so are all the education programs. So are all the health programs. So is any program of grants to States and local governments, because that is all this is. It is a grant program. It is not revenue sharing.
The whole concept of revenue sharing was that State and local governments ought to share, on a continuing basis, a certain percentage of Federal revenues generated within their borders. That is not this bill.
The Senator puts up these charts at the back of the Senate Chamber as though countercyclical assistance is an alternative to and a substitute for revenue sharing. That is true only if the Senator and his committee make it so.
I am for revenue sharing. I have been for it from the beginning, and I doubt that any Senator in the room has been for it before I was.
I am not offering this as a substitute for revenue sharing. The Committee on Finance could decide, if we approve this program, that it will not enact general revenue sharing. That is the Senator's prerogative, but that is not this bill. This bill is not revenue sharing. It is countercyclical assistance, or to use the language of the bill, it is anti-recession assistance, directed at those State and local governments which are hardest hit by recession, by unemployment, and by the social cost they must bear to meet the problems of the unemployed.
This is not intended to deal with structural unemployment. We have had other programs to do that. We are not going to correct structural unemployment in an anti-recession bill. I have tried to do a lot with a single piece of legislation, but I am not going to try to do all that, and I challenge the Senator from Louisiana to propose a bill that would do all that.
The purpose of this bill is very narrow and very focused: Anti-recession help to State and local governments. Do they need help?
I have this letter from the mayor of New Orleans, Moon Landrieu. He has come before my committee on this bill and he cries for help because of the recession-oriented costs that his city has to try to bear. He thinks this is good. He finds no fault with the formula. He likes the general revenue sharing. He is for that, also. He does not see them as alternative programs, as the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG) sees them.
So do not confuse the two. If the Senators reject this one, do not reject it because somebody tells us it is a substitute for general revenue sharing. It is not.
If the Senators reject it, reject it because they think States and cities do not need the help.
Of course, if this is not aimed at structural unemployment but simply anti-recession help, the formula for assistance is based upon the impact of the recession and what that does to unemployment, not to basic structural causes that are a built in sort of permanent unemployment in places here and there.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. We have the largest unemployment, and I am not boasting about this; I am weeping about it. We have the largest unemployment in the Nation. Is that the reason why we are at the top of the list here?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is one of the reasons, yes.
Mr. PASTORE. I hope it is the one big reason.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is one of the reasons the State of Rhode Island is at the top of the list because they are heavily impacted by the recession, and Rhode Island is the hardest hit of the States.
As we learned in a vote taken earlier this afternoon on the waste treatment program, formulas do not work exact justice across the board, and the Senate did not work exact justice on that one this afternoon.
So, when the Senator from Louisiana stands here and tells us that this formula does not work exact justice, he is not making any new discovery. I do not find exact justice in many of the tax bills that he reports to the Chamber of the Senate. I do not expect to. This is a legislative process, not a miracle making process. But this is geared to the unemployment rate. It is geared to the fact that unemployment was created by this recession. It turns off when unemployment turns off. That is all it is.
It is a very simple idea. It does not need to be distorted into the kind of a monster that the Senator from Louisiana tries to make it out to be.
It has the support of some good people.
Mr. HUMPHREY addressed the Chair.
Mr. MUSKIE. Arthur Burns, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, this morning in testimony before the committee chaired by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, supports this idea. The Committee on Government Operations, a substantial majority across party lines, supports this idea.
The administration, which initially opposed it, is now reconsidering its view because it sees merit to this idea.
So, it has the support of a lot of good people. It has the support of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and its president, Moon Landrieu, the mayor of New Orleans.
It has the support of the National Association of Counties. It has the support of other organizations concerned with the problems of local government. It has the support of labor organizations whose employees are being impacted by layoffs at the level of local government and the high unemployment States.
The Senator can say there is no problem serious enough to deal with. That is the first question the Senator has to answer.
This basic bill, public works, is aimed at what? Helping local governments. To do what? To create jobs. Why? Because there is a recession, and there is a 6.5-percent unemployment trigger in it, I say to the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG), a 6.5-percent unemployment figure in the basic bill.
I also say this to the good Senator from Louisiana: this same proposal was before the Senate in the Mondale amendment to the budget resolution in May of this year, and the Senator from Louisiana was recorded in support of it, recorded in support of the public works feature, recorded in support of this one, this particular bill which was the subject of the Mondale amendment.
This was not some sudden surprise that was sprung on the Senate of the United States in this last week of July 1975. It was studied in the Committee on the Budget. It was studied in the Chamber of the Senate at the time the budget resolution was before us. It was debated. It was brought back from conference with the House of Representatives and discussed then. It was introduced early this year, referred to the Committee on Government Operations. We have held 6 days of hearings that were well covered in the press.
We invited inputs from everyone. Our jurisdiction was never challenged until this afternoon. As the Senator is always willing to remind us, he is ready to receive testimony from us in the Committee on Finance, we were ready to receive testimony from him in the Committee on Government Operations.
This has been a well-digested idea, and no amount of ridicule can dismiss it.
When the Senator has a purpose so narrowly focused as on unemployment, of course, the assistance is going to go to those places whose unemployment experience has worsened by this recession.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 10 minutes have expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, the Senator said I was talking about some irrelevant things. He did his share.
What I have said has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to have this program. All I am talking about is which formula we ought to have.
He mentioned Moon Landrieu. Moon Landrieu would be tickled to death to know that the Long amendment has been agreed to because New Orleans would get a lot more if this amendment is agreed to than it would under the amendment of Senator MUSKIE.
All we are talking about now is modifying a formula that makes very little sense.
All of these mayors will be for the bill in any event. If a Senator happens to represent one of those 30 States that suffer under the Muskie amendment, compared to the general revenue sharing formula that Congress has previously passed, the Senator's mayors will applaud him, and if he is one of those mayors, frankly I think he would find difficulty in understanding why the Senator would not vote for an amendment that would give him a larger share.
Let me point out again that the amendment is not really geared to the unemployment problem at all. It. speaks in terms of excess unemployment, which is only the extent to which unemployment for the latest quarter exceeds a fixed base period rate of unemployment.
If a State happens to be so fortunate that unemployment actually declined, it would receive no funds at all, even if it had 9 percent of its people unemployed so long as that rate did not exceed its base period rate of unemployment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. LONG. That is how it is defined right here. I say to the Senator, let me make my statement.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator would like to have the facts, would he not?
Mr. LONG. I say to the Senator to please let me make my statement and he may say whatever he wants to after that. Then I will yield if he wants. He still has time remaining.
Furthermore, this formula has a multiplying factor. First we use "excess unemployment" which in my judgment is not right at all. Alaska had 9 percent of their people unemployed during the base period. They would not get credit for that. They just subtract all that and only get 2 percent that go out of work thereafter.
West Virginia started out with 6.1 percent unemployed to begin with when the average was 4.5 in the country. They get no credit for that. They are second from the bottom of the list for that multiplying factor.
Then what is done? You would multiply that illogical figure by another illogical figure. What is that illogical figure? That is tax collections, leaving out what is collected for education.
We in the Committee on Finance expressly rejected that because that figure has no meaning, unless it is related to the ability of those people to pay those taxes. We call that tax effort which is defined in the revenue-sharing law on the books now.
Senators tried to change that tax effort formula and could not change it for the simple reason it made sense.
But this amendment, generally speaking, badly discriminates against low income States because it refuses to look at the fact they are paying a great deal of what little they have to pay with and only rewards States for the total dollars they are collecting. That is how we arrive at the figure we are entitled to.
One illogical figure, excess unemployment, which gives no credit for the fact there were too many people out of work already, multiplied by another illogical figure, adjusted taxes, that fails to account for the fact that poor people are paying through the nose with what little they have to pay with.
So one illogical figure multiplied by another illogical figure determines what each recipient gets, and 30 States suffer under that formula.
If a Senator wants to cut his State by one-half or 80 percent by substituting a figure where two illogical things can be multiplied in order to penalize his own State, he should feel free to do so. The chart at the rear of the Chamber shows what the State will lose. Senators can explain it to their mayors. When Senators had a chance to vote to take into account the tremendous effort people were making in those States to provide for the needs of the people, Senators can explain why they voted not to do so; why they voted for other States to get more than theirs; and why they do not get their proportionate share according to a formula that has been approved by the Senate and the House and signed by the President.
I submit that it makes a lot more sense to follow a formula that was considered carefully by both the Senate and the House, something of a compromise in the end, rather than take a formula in which one illogical factor is multiplied by another.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I see we are having a little trouble deciding whether or not this is a revenue sharing bill or an anti-recession bill. Perhaps we should state it once again.
I joined the distinguished Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) in being a cosponsor of revenue sharing in this body some years ago. We supported it and it is needed. Recession or no recession, it is needed. It is a part of the revenue base of State and local governments. It is a decision that was made by Congress in cooperation with the President of the United States to increase the revenues of local and State governments – to be available for whatever services or purposes they wish to use it. We did not put any strings on it. But it is not an anti-recession bill. Today we have an excellent bill known as the accelerated public works bill. What is the purpose of it? Why is it accelerated? Because there is a recession. Otherwise, we would still have an ordinary public works bill, if we had one at all.
Why do we have public service jobs? Because there is a recession. Why did we give them a tax break? Because there is a recession. Why are we on the back of Arthur Burns, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, to ease up on monetary policy and to increase the amount of credit and to lower interest rates? Because there is a recession.
Let us take a look at what is happening to the cities — where people live. I come from Minnesota — a rural State. That may be true, but we also have people living in our cities. The majority of the people in the State of Minnesota would not be benefited directly by this proposal.
But I call to the attention of the Senate a headline in the paper from Philadelphia today: "Jobless Rate Here Hits 11.4 Percent."
I also call the Senate's attention to the fact that Philadelphia has a high rating for municipal bonds. I also call the Senate's attention to the fact that in the last week, Philadelphia paid 8.66 percent for a tax-exempt municipal bond, which is unprecedented. Do Senators want to know why? 11.4 percent unemployment. And that 8.66 percent interest rate is saddled on those people for 30 years.
I call to the attention of this body that Detroit paid 9.8 percent on tax-exempt municipal bonds. Do Senators want to know why? Because Detroit has an unemployment rate, my fellow Americans, of 21.6 percent. More than one out of every five available workers is unemployed.
Senators can say, "Well, that isn't my town." But I am here to tell Senators that unemployment has become a pervasive, all embracing, social and economic problem in this country.
For example, in Detroit, 650 municipal buildings will be without maintenance or care because they have no money.
In Detroit last night there was a riot. The mayor of that city came here and warned us and said, "You can't do this. You can't leave us like this." But we have.
We bail out the railroads. They come down here to Congress. We do not have any talk about revenue sharing. We do not have anybody getting up and saying, "What is the jurisdiction of the committee." No. Penn Central comes in, and we say, "Get the money scoop; give it out."
[Laughter.]
We say we have to do it – that we cannot afford to let Penn Central go down the drain.
The Federal Reserve Board bailed out Franklin National Bank with a loan of $1.2 billion. Why?
Because they said that if that was not done, the whole banking structure might fall apart.
Look down the cities on the list here and see what the rate of unemployment is. It is staggering.
The Joint Economic Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Committee on Government Operations have listened for weeks to witness after witness telling us, "See what is happening to your country." And here it is.
Wayne County, 17.1; Providence, R.I., 17.1. It may be up even more than that.
Mr. PASTORE. How about Newport?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Newport is not on this particular list, because we have only a selective list, but it may be more or less.
Buffalo, 16.5; Wilmington. 14.5; Atlanta, 12.7 ; Hartford, 11.9.
Go down the list, city after city, and they are falling apart financially. Why? Because of mismanagement? City governments frequently are better managed than State governments or Federal Government, because city governments are compelled by their constitutions to have balanced budgets. The mayors of those cities have already cut and cut. The city councils are doing the same.
Detroit, with 21.5 percent unemployment, is cutting its garbage collections and cutting the repair of alleys. They repair an alley in Detroit only if a garbage truck cannot get through. Detroit closed up its swimming pools in a hot summer, when kids are roaming the streets. In that city, 50 percent of all black teenagers are unemployed. And it is not just Detroit. It is Los Angeles; it is San Francisco; it is Denver; it is Seattle; it is Atlanta; it is Miami; it is Phoenix; it is Wilmington; it is Cleveland; it is Cincinnati. It is all across this country.
People say, "Well, we have to argue about committee jurisdiction around here." Well, they can argue all they want. But I have seen too many times in my years in the Senate a situation in which somebody comes on the floor of the Senate, offers an amendment, committee jurisdiction or no committee jurisdiction — boom. It is passed.
I prefer, if there is an argument over committee jurisdiction, that it work itself out. But the Parliamentarian said that this bill was to go to the Government Operations Committee.
Senator MUSKIE did not come around here and say, "I don't want the Finance Committee to get it." He came over here and did what we are supposed to do. He put a bill on the desk, on behalf of himself and others, and I was one of the others. The Parliamentarian said that the bill goes to the Committee on Government Operations.
The hearings were held. The Joint Economic Committee, which is not a legislative committee, made its recommendations. We presented our testimony. The mayors came here and met with the leadership of this body. The mayors met with the President.
Is it not interesting that a Chief Economic Adviser to the President, the head of the Federal Reserve System in this country, testified this morning that of all the proposals, the one that makes sense is the Countercyclical Assistance Act? I do not say that that makes it all it should be, but at least it is an endorsement.
Mr. President, what I ask is that we do something to help these cities. We are not helping brick and mortar. We are helping people. We are helping people who are being laid off by the thousands. Who else are we helping? Every family.
When the police department has to be reduced; when health officers have to be laid off, when the garbage collectors have to be fired, when the recreation department in a city has to be cut in half, whois being hurt? Everybody — not just low-income people but middle-income people as well.
America should be proud of its cities. We help cities all over the world. Now our own cities are in trouble. They are in desperate trouble. But we are saying to ourselves, "We are going to have a fight in the Senate about jurisdiction. You cities just wait; you cannot die now, because we have to have a little more time to find out which committee is going to handle this."
I think that is just Jim Dandy if we want to go through an academic exercise. But the simple fact of the matter is that if this is revenue sharing, so is the accelerated public works program. Thank goodness, we know better. The general revenue program is separate and distinct from a countercyclical assistance program — just exactly as the public service jobs program is separate and distinct from an education program.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator from Louisiana impressed me with his concept. He is talking in terms of a chronic unemployment figure, that is the basic figure, that is the starting point. Why is it this point has not been addressed in this bill? Is it correct that it only takes that percentage of the unemployment that the framers of this amendment associate with the recession? Why should we not include those who are chronically unemployed, or, even worse, those in an area where they have been unemployed so long that they are no longer even statistics in the unemployment situation? The only fair thing, I think, is to count all unemployed. Why take this arbitrary figure that is the top portion of the unemployment concept and say, those are the people we are going to deal with in a countercyclical program such as this?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I grant you that is a very genuine concern. In looking at this bill, a base line had to be established. That base line was a period called full employment on a nationwide basis, 1967-69. The unemployment that the Senator refers to is also unemployment; no matter what we call it. That is for what we are talking about here, termed structural unemployment. That is a residual, a base that was there. What we have done is taken the current unemployment rate which is affected by the recession, and subtracted the structural or base-line unemployment. We have said, let us try to be of some help for the loss of income and the loss of jobs that has taken place in those 2 years.
When it comes to fighting unemployment, I will take a back seat to no one. I happen to believe that we ought to have lots more public service jobs than we have here. I believe we ought to have a larger amount of credit and at lower rates of interest. I support projects and programs in this body that will create jobs. But we have here a special problem, a problem that has afflicted these cities in the last 2 years over and beyond anything they ever knew before.
We gave general revenue sharing some years back to help all States and localities when they were running short of revenue. That is what general revenue sharing was for. Now we have before us a kind of emergency assistance.
I say to the Senator, if the Senator is perfectly willing to expand this bill and thinks we can get it by the President to make it for larger amounts, to get at the whole subject of unemployment, I join him. I do not even think we ought to have 4 percent unemployment. I think it is a terrible waste of resources.
Mr. STEVENS. I am not one who believes we can spend our way out of a recession. Our friend, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG), impressed me with his facts about those States which have had sustained chronic unemployment — I remember the city of Seattle when the Boeing plant closed, I remember the Los Angeles area when the aircraft industry started shutting down. I knew of my own State when they closed 36 of 40 canneries. We had some 33,000 Native people out of work. That was recession for us.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes, sir.
Mr. STEVENS. We were trying to deal with programs that dealt with the whole country at the time. We did not get any special treatment.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Oh, they did, though.
Mr. STEVENS. Now comes the situation that, because the recession has in fact hit the populous cities, suddenly, we are going to have a special program that deals only with the populous cities, and those of us who have been suffering chronic unemployment for years are going to find that our States are treated at the low end of the scale.
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUMPHREY. Yes; I yield, of course.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have a State that is not exactly the most vital economic State in the Nation. We have areas where unemployment runs 15 to 20 percent.
Mr. STEVENS. We have one that has 85 percent.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is year in and year out. We understand those problems. I have worked on programs to deal with those problems, beginning with the Area Redevelopment Administration, the Economic Development Administration, the Appalachia program, the title V commission program in New England and the Ozarks and other regions of this country. I am for developing those. This is not a substitute for those in Maine or in Alaska. But we can still use this on top of those because of the percentage.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me say to both of my friends, I have sat on the Committee on Appropriations and seen that we have not funded the Rural Development Act, we have not funded many of these acts we have written in the last 4 or 5 years. I view this as another act to authorize more money that will lead people into believing that it is coming, and it is not coming. That is the problem with some of the bills we are passing. I am most disturbed to think that we already have laws on the books that we cannot fund. We just got through marking up the HEW bill. We are not funding up to the total authorization of the bills that are already on the books. Here is another one that is going to tell people, "Look, help is coming because we are going to appropriate more money after we pass this authorization bill." I wonder if the Committee on the Budget is going to go over its budget by the amount that is authorized in this bill.
I wonder if we really believe that we are going to deliver the help that this bill says we will deliver. We would deliver a lot more help if we would find some way to take some of the burden off existing business and get them back to the point where they can rehire these people in Detroit and in the big cities and in the cities that the Senator is mentioning in Minnesota.
I think the time has to come sometime when we face up to it and say that the country is, the economy is not going to right itself if we do not stop. We are putting a weight on the left-hand side of the ship one week and a weight on the right-hand side the next week, and never let the economy right itself because we, here in Congress, keep shifting back and forth in our solutions.
We are going to go home for a month. It may well be that in that month, this country will recover much more because we are not here. I really think this amendment is going in the opposite direction in trying to solve some of the problems of the country, be it the approach of the Senator from Minnesota or of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I would like to say to the Senator, I do not think money is everything. But when it comes to paying bills, it is first. Let me assure the Senator that these cities we are talking about cannot pay their bills unless they continue to raise their property taxes to prohibitive levels. That destroys enterprise, injures old people, and is the most unfair tax we can have.
I would like to remind the Senator that every one of these cities has had to pare down its budget. That is fine to a point. But then it comes to a point where we have to ask ourselves what kind of services are we going to have left?
A city like Detroit, that has 21 percent unemployment, is as if an earthquake hit it. I remember when earthquakes hit, we go and help. It is exactly like the flood that took place up in Pennsylvania. We did not stand idly by. We went in and helped.
We had some chickens, down in Alabama and Mississippi, that got a disease and they all were wiped out. And the Senate voted money to relieve the chicken farmers. I was right here when they did it and I voted for it.
But, Mr. President, is it not funny that when it comes around to cities, where millions of people live, we do not provide assistance? There are more unemployed people today in New York City than there are in the total population of a number of States, but it is not New York's fault. It is not New York City's fault that they have high rates of unemployment. It is not Detroit's fault that they have high rates of unemployment. They did not figure it out and plan it. It is not as if the mayors sat back in the corner and said, "How can we figure out how to get ourselves in trouble?"
The automobile industry is down. The housing industry is down. This country is in economic trouble. The cities are out there as if a disaster had befallen them. And it has, recession.
I am here to tell the Senate that if an earthquake took place in New York or Detroit right now, the Senate would respond immediately and say, "We have to help them."
Well, there has been an economic earthquake, and it has shaken them down to their foundations.
We do not have many cities in Minnesota which will qualify for this particular assistance. So what? We are dependent upon the rest of the Nation, and the rest of the Nation is dependent upon us.
I want to go back to the time we voted for chicken assistance. [Laughter.] If you can vote to bail out people who lost their chickens because of some kind of natural disaster, you can vote to bail out a city that is the victim of an economic recession second only to the Great Depression.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator enlighten the Senate as to the reverberations to the entire social and economic fabric of this Nation if our major cities went bankrupt.
Mr. HUMPHREY. As we listened to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board this morning, he frankly confessed that these bond rates were going up because of the instability of our cities' finances. If these cities would go bankrupt — if the city of New York would go bankrupt — it would be a major economic disaster. The reverberations would be felt internationally — not nationally but internationally — because the bonded indebtedness of that city is held throughout the entire world.
Mr. RIBICOFF. What would happen socially to the entire Nation if the Detroits, the Clevelands, the Los Angeleses, the Hartfords, the New York Cities went bankrupt and services were completely destroyed and garbage was not collected, and if there were epidemics; does the Senator think you can confine an epidemic to New York City, Detroit or Cleveland without having an impact over the entire Nation?
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am sure the Senator knows the health of this country is measured in a large way by the health of our cities. Our cities represent overwhelmingly the majority of the population in this country. I happen to believe that the health of our rural areas affects the health of our cities. That is why I come in here asking the Senate to help us in our rural areas, and I am happy to say the Senate has responded. Now I think it is our turn. It is our turn to help the cities. They have come in here to ask for help. When our rural areas get in trouble they have a right to come in and ask for help. So do the urban areas. We are one country tied together.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I take a moment to ask a few questions of the distinguished Senator from Maine? I have the highest respect for my distinguished chairman, the distinguished Senator from Louisiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has expired. The Senator from Louisiana has 60 minutes.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, will our distinguished chairman allow me to ask the distinguished other chairman some questions against his interests?
Mr. LONG. I yield the Senator 5 minutes of my time.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Is it not true that the distinguished Senator from Maine was really the father of revenue sharing?
Mr. MUSKIE. I did not originate the idea, but we held the first hearings on the legislation.
Mr. RIBICOFF. And the Senator developed the concept in his committee, and there was no question that once a concept was developed that it went over to the Finance Committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. Not at all. We did not claim jurisdiction. All we were trying to do was to foster the idea, develop it, and the Ways and Means Committee on the House side took it up and it came over here, and the Finance Committee handled it. We had no quarrel with it.
Mr. RIBICOFF. The concept that is before us is not revenue sharing but basically an anti-recession measure, is it not?
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. RIBICOFF. And the distinguished Senator from Maine was very, very careful to make sure that he was not invading the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee?
Mr. MUSKIE. Exactly.
Mr. RIBICOFF. Is it not true that as chairman of the Budget Committee the Senator has carefully considered the impact of this particular measure on the overall budget?
Mr. MUSKIE. It fits within the conference report of the budget resolution, yes.
Mr. RIBICOFF. I believe the entire Senate has confidence in the integrity of the distinguished Senator from Maine who, very, very carefully in every measure, has stood up here and laid the facts down, and out of this confidence I am sure we know the Senator from Maine has also placed his particular proposal under the same scrutiny.
Mr. MUSKIE. He certainly has, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for those questions.
Mr. RIBICOFF. May I say to my fellow Members, I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine is really an act of a genius. Its concept is to take care of one of the basic social and economic problems facing this country, and it would be tragic if a question of jurisdiction deprived the people of America of the most needed instruments it has to fight the recession of the United States of America today.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time yielded has expired.
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. LONG. Mr. President, I have complete confidence in the integrity of both Senators. But let me point out that the language of their committee report and the language of the amendment speaks for itself.
Now, Mr. President, there is nothing in this bill or in this Muskie amendment that requires that 5 cents of this money be spent to put anybody to work. It can just be placed in the bank and left there if State or local officials want to do so.
They are not even required to do the minimum that the Finance Committee required in the general revenue sharing program. They are not required to tell the people what they will do with the money, either before they spend it or after it is gone. They are not required to report its use unless the local law requires it to be so reported. Under the bill there is no–
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Is it not also true of revenue sharing?
Mr. LONG. No. It is required that States and local governments tell us what they plan to do with their funds in advance, and publish it, and also to report what they used it for after the fact. Furthermore, Mr. President–
Mr. MUSKIE. That does not happen to be the case.
Mr. LONG. Furthermore, Mr. President, there is no requirement of any public involvement whatever in this program.
In view of the fact that this money is just to be passed out to the states, passed out to all the States and passed out to the cities, and in view of the fact that the formula that is set forth fails to take into account the high degree of unemployment that had existed in many States during the base period 1967 to 1969, it would make better sense just to use the revenue sharing formula, and that is all I am talking about.
If you look at the figures, Mr. President, you will see that the great majority of the States would make out a great deal better under the general revenue sharing formula. The distinguished Senator from Colorado who presides over the Senate will know that his State would get twice as much under my amendment. Colorado has a lot of unemployment, not as much as others, I will admit, but most States have a lot more unemployment than they would like. In my own State, we have 8 percent unemployed, and we would fare much better under my amendment.
We had a higher degree of unemployment to begin with. But, Mr. President, if you make some comparisons under the proposed formula of Senator MUSKIE, New Hampshire, which, incidentally, would make out better under the Long amendment, makes an odd comparison with States like Utah, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Hawaii and Montana, which have higher rates of unemployment, and yet would get less help than the State of New Hampshire.
The amendment I am offering, the general revenue sharing formula on the books now, would do better for New Hampshire as well as 29 other States; as a matter of fact, it would do a little better for the State of Maine – not much, but a little better.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I challenge the Senator's assertion.
Mr. LONG. The Senator is not the first one.
I have many times supported things, such as provisions under the unemployment insurance program, which have made better sense even though Louisiana got less than it would under other provisions for which I could otherwise have voted.
I just point out, Mr. President, that under my amendment you have a formula that was carefully considered. Thirty States would be better off, and it has a lot more logic to recommend it than the one before us. I submit it would be a better formula to adopt. It does not have anything to do with any of the other requirements in the bill. I simply ask why not take an established formula where 30 States would be better off.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, do I have any time?
Mr. LONG. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been used or yielded back.
Mr. LONG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Mr. LONG's amendment to Mr. MUSKIE's amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 36, nays 58, as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]
So Mr. LONG's amendment to Mr. MUSKIE's amendment was rejected.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was rejected.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be a 10-minute vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Clerk will suspend. Senators will clear the well and take their seats.
This is a 10-minute roll call so will the Senators take their seats promptly? The Senate will be in order.
The Senate staff will take their seats and cease conversations or withdraw from the Chamber.
The assistant legislative clerk resumed and concluded the call of the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 58, nays 36 as follows:
[Roll call tally omitted]