April 13, 1976
Page 10721
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. DOMENICI. I assume we will discuss some of the broader issues that the Senator raised with reference to this, but I ask the Senator from Maine this question: With respect to the so-called Talmadge-Nunn proposal which the Senator from Maine has incorporated into one amendment, does it have the same purpose that the distinguished Senator from Maine first brought countercyclical revenue sharing as a concept to this body? Is it countercyclical?
Mr. MUSKIE. No. I do not describe it so.
Mr. DOMENICI. Then, the only reason why it is affixed to this is that it hangs around as part of a policy that has been enunciated by this body, by a previous vote, and the Senator from Maine chooses to incorporate two separate policies, by vote, that apparently he contends have been confirmed by vote here. Is that the reason for the approach?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am not entirely certain that I understand the reason the Senator would like to attribute to me, but I would be glad to give him the reason I have.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me clarify it.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator has put a question to me, and I am going to answer it in my terms.
The reason why these are put together is that this package was worked out carefully over weeks and months. It is the kind of legislative policy that just grew, in the way it often grows in this body. It was so solidly supported by Congress in the override, that it seems to me it merited putting together for another test — hopefully, with changes that would commend it to the President. That is the reason, and I believe that is as valid and legitimate and non-parochial a reason as any which motivates anyone else who is supporting any part of the measure which is before the Senate.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask another question of the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee: Is there any urgency, as the Senator sees it, to the Talmadge-Nunn approach, with reference to it being voted upon by the U.S. Senate and taken to the other House?
Mr. MUSKIE. I say to the Senator that when the Talmadge-Nunn amendment was offered on the floor last year, I argued that there was no urgency. However, two-thirds of my colleagues disagreed with me and jeopardized the program in my State and in several other States which were the beneficiaries of the existing statutory formula. I do not want to restore that condition of jeopardy. If it is the view of the U.S. Senate that the formula we finally voted on in the override vote, together with the existing water pollution program, does represent equity, then I would like to get that condition of equity established in the law, so that my State and other States in like position are not vulnerable again and not in jeopardy again. That is my reason.
I believe that is urgent. By the end of this year, all industrial sources of water pollution in my State will be in compliance with the 1972 law. I doubt that many States can match that. I do not want that put in jeopardy by leaving this issue hanging.
When I realize that two-thirds of my colleagues support the Talmadge-Nunn approach, I am interested in giving them equity so that they do not do inequity to me.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to my good friend from Maine, and he knows of my great respect for his work on the Committee on the Budget. He knows that I have spent a great deal of time on that process, as he has. I want to close this dialog with the distinguished Senator just on that portion of the amendment that he offered, the Talmadge-Nunn amendment.
I say this is the same good faith that he makes his argument: I absolutely see no reason why an anti-recessionary bill reported to the floor of the Senate that affects public works in an accelerated, triggered manner, consistent with a countercyclical approach, I see no reason why the $1.4 billion authorizing legislation to change the pattern of funding for water and sewer in this country belongs together.
If the only reason is that we started a package through this body and it went through the House, and it ended up with Congress voting on a conference report which had three thrusts: a public works bill that has been greatly modified here, countercyclical revenue sharing, which has been greatly modified here — and as we go into the details, the Senator will acknowledge that it is significantly different from the countercyclical thrust he brought to us, but it is still the concept and I shall not argue that point with him. Then, because we added on a thrust that we voted on with reference to changing the approach to funding water and sewer so we got the best of both worlds — the old needs formula and we got another one, mixed together if the only reason that we ought to vote a package is because we start the package out, I just want to express my views that that part does not belong on this bill. For those who want accelerated public works for those who have been hounding the halls of Congress — and we know that in Public Works and they know it in the House — those unemployed of the country who are in the construction industry have legislatively made a point that they should be the subject matter of targeting of public works projects. When we bring that kind of bill here after diligent work under the leadership of the distinguished Senator who is my senior colleague from New Mexico, we just ought to know that we are not adding the distinguished Senator's countercyclical in a new approach to water and sewer funding.
We are not adding them for the same reason that the bill originally comes to the floor from the committee; we are adding them for the reasons described by my good friend from Maine. And sometimes they are consistent and many times they are inconsistent with the thrust of the bill that we bring here.
One final remark. The Senator knows how I support the budget process in the functional areas. I have just a couple of statements with reference to countercyclical revenue sharing.
Yes, the functions that the Senator refers to will accommodate them. But I think my good friend from Maine, who argues that these functions, as we consider them in Congress, are subject to the will of the Senate as to what makes them up — I think that is still an issue here. There are those who can legitimately support the total functional amount in function 450 and still have some reservations as to whether countercyclical revenue sharing, as proposed here today, is the mandated approach by the budget process. And he knows that early on, many of us said, "Let us explore it." Many of us voted with the Senator on the original authorizing concept. But I do not think it is fair to say that those who support the budget process and the functional target limits, because we said revenue sharing of his type would fit, should be considered to be breaching our commitment to the budget process and the functional limits by saying we have serious questions about attaching it to an accelerated public works bill.
I hope my good friend understands that. As we proceed through the afternoon, we can go into more detail, but I want him to understand that view on my part early on, because it might be the view of many who support the budget process. I thank my good friend from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand it very well, may I say to the Senator. I wish the Senator had made it clear to me before the debate yesterday, or before the debate on Friday.
The question of when is a good time to support principles to be incorporated in a budget resolution is a very interesting one. We were urged by some very eloquent spokesmen yesterday on that count. The interesting thing I find is that when I support the numbers in the defense fund, whatever my doubts or whatever my votes in the committee, that is hailed as an act of statesmanship and a commitment to the budget process. But when I ask for reciprocity with respect to an objective of this kind, then we have to look at the details; this is not the place that we ought to offer it.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. But with respect, may I say, to the Talmadge-Nunn part of this amendment, have I lost touch? Have I lost touch, or is not the construction of waste treatment facilities a public work? Now, the Senator from New Mexico says that because he put the word "accelerated" into the bill that has come out of committee, somehow, it is a different kind of public work. Well, I say to the Senator from New Mexico that since 1972, we have been committed to catching up to the backlog of untreated waterways. We were delayed by the impoundment of half of that money, and the delay was such that many States, including mine, designed and developed projects and put them on the shelves, ready to go as soon as there was funding. They were ready to accelerate. And they did, in my State.
Now, what in heaven's name makes the acceleration of a water treatment project different than the acceleration of a library or a piece of road or anything else the Senator may have in mind?
Talmadge-Nunn made the argument last summer that because the formula was inequitable from their point of view, they were not able to move as fast as they would like, so I assume that they are prepared to accelerate their waste treatment projects. Now, what in heaven's name puts them in a different category? I mean, is there a prohibition in this bill against accelerating the construction of waste treatment plants? What kind of cynicism is that?
Nunn-Talmadge happens to serve two purposes. I am amazed that the Senator does not recognize it. One is to meet the argument of Talmadge-Nunn; and, two it happened to coincide with the objective of the bill, which was to accelerate the construction of public works. Now we are told by EPA that the waste treatment program has produced 1 million jobs — 1 million jobs. I see nothing wrong with including the program that has that demonstrated capacity to generate jobs. But excluding that program from this bill, I simply do not see it.
The Senator can be as cynical as he would like about the fact that these are put together. I have been a member of the Committee on Public Works for many, many years. I have participated in the construction of public works legislation, and I have supported it all, as the distinguished chairman of the committee (Mr. RANDOLPH) can attest.
I know how accelerated public works bills are put together. They are put together in a pragmatic fashion designed to accelerate the construction of public works as much as possible. The one criticism that they draw is that they never accelerate enough. Nevertheless, I have supported them.
The 1962 accelerated public works bill took 8 years before the project was completed. The 1962 recession was long gone by that time. But I supported the bill. Not all the public works that are generated by the committee bill, no matter how carefully we have drafted it, are going to be actually constructed and placed on the face of the Earth in the context of the after effects of this recession. The Senator knows that. This public works program will stretch out for more than the next year or two or three, unless it is drastically different from any other that I have ever known.
But I still support it. But then to argue that, somehow, that bill has an acceleration factor in it so markedly different from the acceleration of waste treatment projects that the latter ought not to be put in the same piece of legislation with the former — that takes quite a trick of mental gymnastics to reach that conclusion.
Talmadge-Nunn is one thing; waste treatment public works programs are another. The Talmadge-Nunn formula is not one that I generated. I opposed it at the time. Two-thirds of the Senate supported it, so the Senate adopted the formula.
Having adopted the formula it divided the money to implement it. It is a legitimate thing to include in this bill, and I myself am not persuaded by the argument that somehow it is alien, so irrelevant, to the purpose of the bill that it should not be included.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have listened carefully to the argument advanced by the distinguished Senator from Maine, and I am sympathetic to his motives and the purposes which he states, which are laudable and with which, in most part, I agree.
We disagree in point of fact on the method and technique we may use to accomplish these purposes. But none of us really, I think, have a different point of view. We are here to try to help those economically disadvantaged who must be helped and who ought to be helped, and that is precisely why this bill is on the floor — to help people.
Mr. President, the best way to help people is to get a bill passed, and I do not want to belabor the issue except to say that the surest way not to get a bill passed into law is to get it vetoed. I think there ought not to be any assurance that there will be enough votes to override a veto. There were not enough votes last time; and I am not certain there will be enough votes on a second veto. The issue we are involved with here and now is whether we pass a bill the President will sign and all of us join in or whether we are going to add new funds to the committee bill until it gets pumped up into another multi-billion dollar bill that the President is going to veto.
Let me make it entirely clear that I am not trying to use this as a stick over anyone's head. I am not trying to intimidate anyone. But I want to tell you first hand that if we pump this bill up again — if we adopt this amendment which includes the countercyclical proposal and the Talmadge-Nunn proposal the President is going to veto this bill. I am sure to a moral certainty that is going to happen.
I have made it my business, as the ranking Republican member of this committee, to try to ascertain the administration's position, and that is my appraisal. If this complex and costly amendment is adopted, the President is going to veto the measure. That is not the way, I think, to help people — because that way we are not going to get any bill.
It is possible, obviously, that the Congress can vote to override the veto. But we cannot be sure of it, and I do not think we will, Mr. President.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Does the Senator have a commitment from the President not to veto the committee bill?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have never represented that I have a commitment from the President in any respect. I will say to my colleague from Maine, however, that, at the same time I inquired about the President's attitude on this amendment, I also inquired about the President's attitude on the bill as reported by the Public Works Committee. It is my judgment, based on that inquiry, that the President would sign the bill the committee brought to the Senate. I cannot represent to you that the President has told me that, but I can tell you that I have done my best to find out. It is my best judgment that he would.
Now, you know, the President is like the 13th juror in trying a lawsuit. He is not going to try the whole thing, he is not the ultimate determinant factor, but he is part of the legislative department in the exercise of his veto, or his signature on a bill or permitting a bill to become law without his signature.
All I can do is tell my friend from Maine that it is my best judgment, after diligent inquiry, that if we adopt this amendment, adding the Talmadge-Nunn and countercyclical proposals, the President will veto the package. If we pass the committee bill without amendment, and it negotiates the rocks and shoals of the legislative process in essentially the same form the Senate Public Works Committee reported it, I think he will sign it.
Mr. MUSKIE. With all respect to my good friend from Tennessee, and he knows I hold him in the highest esteem, let me say that that is not the general kind of impression I have.
The second point I would like to make and to ask the Senator about is this: In his veto message, the only part of the vetoed bill the President had any positive thing at all to say about was the countercyclical part. It is my impression that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget thinks very highly of the countercyclical approach as a matter of principle, and the distinguished Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board has testified before the Budget Committee his very strong and positive attitude about the countercyclical approach.
If we really want to assure the veto proof nature of the legislation, it would seem to me we should include those positive things the President has said publicly about that part of the bill which is not included in the committee bill.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I cannot speak for the President except to say I have done my best and, I believe, I have acted responsibly to find out the administration's position, meaning the President's position, on this issue.
It is my honest judgment, based on all of those facts, that he will veto it if this amendment is added. This amendment, by the way, would take the bill up from a functional equivalent of about $1.4 billion at present unemployment levels to a level of $5.3 billion. It is my best judgment that he will veto it.
It is my best judgment he will sign the committee bill if we do not add new programs and additional funds and the Senate bill survives essentially intact. That is all I can say without representing to you beyond the scope of my authority to represent what the President's position is on this matter. But I am sure, to the point of my own moral certainty and moral satisfaction, that that is the situation.
In that respect, Mr. President, we get to a very serious matter, and that is what are we doing here.
I think we are deciding whether or not there is still a need for some sort of public works jobs program and whether there is a need for a program to move those already approved public works projects where you do not have local matching funds. I think there is. I think we ought to go forward with the committee bill of about $1.4 billion, based on today's unemployment, and get that money into the lifeblood of this country to accelerate public works and to alleviate unemployment.
Mr. President, I said earlier in my preliminary remarks, before my friend from Maine introduced his amendment, that I not only sympathized with his purpose but was in substantial agreement with the philosophy of countercyclical funding, but that I thought it ought not to be added to this bill just as I do not think that additional authorizations for waste water treatment ought to be added to this bill in a Christmas tree approach.
That is still true. I hope finally in the ordinary and routine course of legislative affairs that we have a chance to consider those two measures on their own merits. Some of my colleagues will recall when I spoke in support of the President's veto message I represented to the Senate that the President was willing to consider each of these elements on its own. I stated that it was my opinion that each one should stand on its own. I still believe in that approach. I would like to see the countercyclical proposal considered on its own merits. I would like to see us make a careful evaluation of the need for additional funding or changed allocation formula in the waste water treatment program in the Talmadge-Nunn vein. But I do not want to see them added onto the bill and take the entire boat to the bottom, which is what I believe we are about to do.
Regarding the countercyclical program, Mr. President, I have a great devotion to general revenue sharing. The first bill I ever introduced in the Senate was a general revenue sharing bill in February of 1967 as a freshman Senator. I stood in the back row and made my maiden speech.
My friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator PASTORE, stood up and said, "I am glad to have a colleague on the floor with whom I can see eye to eye." I thought for one great moment he was agreeing with me, but he was not. He was speaking of the fact that we were both about 5 feet 6 inches tall. [Laughter.]
Since that maiden speech, I have held a longtime devotion to general revenue sharing, and still do. But I would no more want to see general revenue sharing added onto and considered as part of this proposal than I would these other add-ons.
But this is not a countercyclical assistance program. With all due deference and respect to the Senator from Maine, it started out as a countercyclical program, and it still has that name, but it has changed. It is revenue sharing or it is that equivalent. The proposal is still tied to an index of unemployment, but instead of stopping at high unemployment, at 6 percent or 6.5 percent, it now goes down to 4.5 percent. A State or community with 4.5 percent unemployment could still participate in the program. I do not call that countercyclical assistance. In addition, the formula is no longer tied to tax effort as the original countercyclical proposal. It is, instead, based on the formula for allocation and distribution of the general revenue sharing statute.
Mr. President, that is what we have. We have apples and oranges. We have an accelerated public works bill, a jobs bill, that came out of the Committee in a very responsible way under the leadership of the chairman of the Public Works Committee (Mr. RANDOLPH) in a form and manner that I believe, in an ecumenical spirit, Republicans and Democrats can jointly support. The bill was reported unanimously by the committee. I represent that the President will sign the bill, in my judgment. On the other hand, we have an effort to add a revision or change of the fundamental revenue sharing act, and to increase the wastewater treatment funds available for 1977.
We have opportunities to fund waste water treatment projects in this bill. This $1.5 billion in the bill can be used by communities for wastewater treatment facilities. The bill also provides that first priority be given already approved but stymied federal public works such as wastewater treatment facilities, water systems and similar programs.
Many of these projects are ready to go but the local government, because of economic distress, cannot put up their matching share. Funds available under this bill will provide the local matching share for them and get work underway quickly.
I believe this provision in the Committee bill does a better job of accelerating the rate of construction of wastewater treatment facilities than just the addition of funds under the Talmadge-Nunn formula.
Mr. President, I hate to reiterate what I have now said for a number of times, but I feel I should.
I am committed to the idea that there is a need for a jobs bill, for a public works bill. I believe the Public Works Committee, Republicans and Democrats, did a good job in unanimously reporting a bill the President can and ought to sign.
I believe the President will sign such a bill if we do not pump it up with an extra $2.8 billion, which would be the net effect of this amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back.
Mr. JAVITS. I will get the floor myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. LAXALT). The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. JAVITS. I would like to ask the Senator from Maine, with whom I have been in accord, on the countercyclical provision, how he does justify the changes to which Senator BAKER has called proper attention, that is, the 4.5 percent employment trigger and the change in the formula relating to tax effort.
Is or is this not really simply an extension of revenue sharing, which I would not for a minute denigrate, we need it badly in the great cities, but could we know what his reasons were for revising these essential elements of the formula as he did in view of the fact that he is maintaining his fidelity to the countercyclical concept?
Mr. MUSKIE. Very simply, to get support for the bill so we can get those three votes we did not have.
Mr. JAVITS. I think that is very fair.