September 14, 1976
Page 30327
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the bill pending before the Senate would extend and amend the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 which established the general revenue sharing program. That program has authorized the return of $30.2 billion in funds to State and local governments, and will expire at the end of this calendar year unless it is extended.
I am and have been a strong supporter of revenue sharing. I consider it the cornerstone in meeting the needs of local governments. I support the extension of the revenue sharing program.
Today, 5 years after its enactment, general revenue sharing has proven to be a shot in the arm for our federal system of government. Throughout the country, revenue sharing funds have provided for useful, needed community projects — chosen by local officials, on the basis of local priorities.
These days, just about everything the Federal Government does is very complicated. Most of Federal programs which provide aid of one sort or another to State and local governments involve lengthy application processes and stringent rules and regulations as to how the money must be spent. Local officials in Maine are forever providing me with examples of how Federal programs are administrative nightmares for them.
In the midst of all this confusion, revenue sharing stands out as the beleaguered State or local official's dream program.
Revenue sharing also has had the healthy side effect of providing balance to a Federal grant-in-aid structure which, over the last decade, has become increasingly oriented toward narrow programmatic goals with ever greater control by Washington.
By its very existence, revenue sharing is testimony to our recognition that the integrity of our federal system demands greater State and local control over the determination of local spending priorities.
I know that people in Maine welcome this recognition that we in Washington do not always know what is best for them. And I am sure that communities in every other State feel the same.
As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee I would like to comment on the budget implications of this bill.
The general revenue sharing level for fiscal 1976 was $6.355 million in budget authority. The soon-to-expire program has provided increases in revenue sharing payments of $150 million per year beginning in fiscal 1974. Under existing law, the program level for the transition quarter and the first quarter of fiscal 1977 is about $75 million in budget authority above the fourth quarter level for fiscal 1976.
The President has proposed to extend the general revenue sharing program for 5 years. He proposes $6,542 million for fiscal 1977 — an increase of $187 million above the fiscal 1976 level. Because of the timing factors involved in extending the program, however, the President's proposal would result in lower payments in the last three quarters of fiscal 1977 than in the first quarter.
The Senate Finance Committee amended version of H.R. 13367 would extend general revenue sharing for 5 years and it would provide $6.65 billion in budget authority for fiscal 1977. This amount is about $110 million above the President's request.
How do these amounts relate to the congressional budget?
The Senate Budget Committee in its markup of the second budget resolution assumed in its recommended ceiling $6.65 billion in budget authority, or about $110 million above the first budget resolution assumptions. The Senate Budget Committee increased the ceiling to prevent the reduction that would otherwise occur in the last three quarters of fiscal 1977 under the President's budget request.
So I am pleased that Senator LONG for the Finance Committee proposed and the Senate adopted yesterday an amendment to set the fiscal year 1977 revenue sharing level at $6.65 billion, the level assumed in the second budget resolution and provided in the House-passed bill.
I am also pleased that Senator LONG'S amendment, while it provides about $1.2 billion more in budget authority than the House-passed bill for fiscal years 1978, 1979, and 1980, is still about $450 million less in budget authority than the Finance Committee reported bill for those fiscal years. The Long amendment makes a total reduction of about $750 million when compared with the Finance Committee reported bill for all fiscal years.
With three-fourths of Federal spending locked into place before each fiscal year begins, I am always hesitant to increase those uncontrollable commitments, as this amendment still does. However, I feel some increase in later years is needed, and since the House-passed bill provides none, the Senate does need some leverage for negotiation with the House. Given the efforts of the Finance Committee to comply with the spending ceilings in the second budget resolution, and given the likelihood of some reduction in the later year increases I believe the bill that will emerge from conference will have reasonable revenue sharing budget levels.
What I am saying is that we can pass a general revenue sharing bill with funds at the level proposed in this amendment, stay within the tight ceilings of the second budget resolution, and not exceed the deficit set out in the resolution.
There was another matter in the committee reported bill which concerned me. As reported, the bill contained an authorization for appropriations for fiscal 1977 for the establishment of a National Commission on Revenue Sharing and Federalism. That authorization was in violation of the May 15 reporting date of section 402 of the Budget Act because it became effective on February 1, 1977. Moreover, the bill established a new commission to do a study which could well be done by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations with funds already authorized. That problem has now been corrected by the amendment which Senator HATHAWAY and I offered and which has now been adopted.
Mr. President, this amendment provides some $300 million more for general revenue sharing in fiscal 1977 than State and local governments received in fiscal 1976, and that is all that can be realistically provided under the ceilings of the second budget resolution. As a strong supporter of the general revenue sharing program, I personally would like to see more money provided to State and local governments, but I am unwilling to raise the deficit of the second budget resolution.