May 4, 1977
Page 13424
PRESIDENT CARTER, AND THE HONEYMOONERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. SYMMS) is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. SYMMS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we were told, top congressional Democrats met with President Carter to urge that he spend less attention to fighting inflation and more to spending proposals which liberals have had on the back burner for a few years. The message was clear: Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead with the spending programs.
Not that Mr. Carter is a slouch in that department. He will probably add about $25 or $30 billion to the spending level that was advocated by President Ford for his last fiscal year, one that is shared with incoming President Carter. But to many congressional Democrats, that extra deficit spending is not enough. I am reminded by some of the older and wiser heads around this body that we saw the same thing in 1961. The Kennedy administration added huge spending increases in the first few months of 1961 and then later would refer back to "the last year of the Eisenhower administration's spending record."
The April 15 issue of National Review has an excellent article which hits the nail right on the head. Mr. Carter's honeymoon with the spenders in Congress will be short if Senator CRANSTON and others who attended the powwow with the President yesterday, the spending bloc in Congress, wins out and program after program is enacted which liberals advocate. Look at the list; guaranteed incomes, socialistic compulsory health insurance, more funding for education as the NEA union lobby advocates — the list can go on and on.
John Drake and Svend Peterson analyze in great detail the spending proposals of members of this body. This article should be read by all who have more than a passing interest in winning the battle against inflation and big government. The article follows:
WHO WANTS TO SPEND YOUR MONEY? PRESIDENT CARTER AND THE HONEYMOONERS
(By John Drake and Svend Petersen)
One thing there would seem to be no shortage of is congressional rating indexes. There are already the ADA, COPE, ACA, NSI, NAB, LCV, and CFA indexes, to name just a few.
However, although the indexers come to a wide variety of conclusions, they all start by using the same method: they decide which is the "correct" way to vote on several key bills, and they then give each congressman a numerical rating which consists of his percentage of "correct" votes.
Our index, on the other hand, concerns itself exclusively with the spending of tax dollars; and it rates congressmen not on how they voted on other people's bills, but on the spending bills they themselves sponsored or cosponsored. There are two ways in which this index should be useful:
1) it will tell us who is responsible for initiating big spending bills, and we can then alert the voters in these congressmen's districts so that they know whom to blame when their taxes go up;
2) it will provide an early warning of the kind of spending legislation which is being considered, providing an opportunity to intervene in the legislative process before the legislation is enacted.
In this initial report we have looked only at the House of Representatives, and we have concentrated on the biggest of the big potential spenders. Only bills which have not become law are included, because we are interested in determining who is introducing big spending bills which are not yet acceptable to majorities in both Houses of Congress. We then determined how much spending would have been required in each fiscal year from 1975 to 1980 if each of the bills introduced during the 94th Congress had been passed. Finally, we determined the sponsor and cosponsor of each bill, and compiled a masters list of bills and an individual file for each congressman.
The results show that by about mid 1978 (when our monitoring had to be suspended), the 94th Congress had proposed bills that would have cost a staggering $943,934,496.000 through 1980. Since this nearly $1 trillion is in addition to the normal federal operating budget, it's easy to imagine what enactment would do to the average household's taxes. For example, in fiscal 1975 each household would have had to pay almost $3,000 additional tax to the Federal Government; each household would have had to pay an average of almost $2,200 additional tax each year from 1975 to 1980. And of course, if the spenders got their way over this legislation, still more legislation not yet even proposed would be added to this burden over the years.
Before looking at the specific measures which would lead to these catastrophic increases in federal spending, let's turn to the list of those proposing the legislation. The big spenders, a round dozen, are listed (in order) in the table below. (The 13th on the list, had she been reelected, would have been Bella Abzug, D., N.Y., with 469.3) .
Congressman: Billions of dollars
Augustus F. Hawkins 510.2
Stephen J. Solarz 506:1
Michael J. Harrington 504:1
Don Edwards 495.7
Frederick W. Richmond 491.1
Herman Badillo 490.0
Robert F. Drinan 487.7
John M. Murphy 486.9
Robert A. Roe 483 1
Elizabeth Holtzman 480.7
James C. Corman 476.5
Thomas L. Ashley 470,7
All the congressmen on the list are Democrats; with two exceptions they come from three states (five from New York, three from California, and two from Massachusetts's) and each sponsored or cosponsored at least half of the total dollar value of all the legislation proposed. This listing will probably confirm the suspicion of most readers that a rather small number of congressmen from these three states play a very important role in steering Congress toward ever larger federal spending programs.
If we look at the number of spending bills sponsored and cosponsored instead of at the dollar value, many of the same names appear; but, as the table at the top of this page shows, the order is somewhat different. (If Bella Abzug had been reelected, she would have been listed second with 53 bills.)
[Table omitted]
Again, the additions to the list come mainly from New York and California. However New Jersey now has two entries (Roe, Rodino), and is tied with Massachusetts.
If we change our focus from individual members of Congress to state congressional delegations, a similar pattern of big spending states emerges. (To be included in the table above, a congressman had to sponsor or cosponsor at least $400 billion worth of legislation.)
What emerges from this table is that every single big spending congressman is a Democrat, and that 80 per cent of the big spenders are from eight states: four in the Northeast, three in the Midwest, and California. Looking at these numbers from another angle, over one-third of all congressmen and over one-half of all Democrats from these eight states are on the list. (The names of all eighty congressmen are included at the end of this article, lest their constituents not know what they have been up to.)
To consider the problem in terms of the legislation itself, there are six major bills that have been sponsored or cosponsored by a large percentage of the eighty congressmen; another five are sufficiently important to deserve mention even though few of the eighty congressmen have sponsored or cosponsored them. These 11 bills account for a total of almost $600 billion, or just short of two-thirds of the total proposed spending. The largest of them is the House version of
Senator Edward Kennedy's Health Security Act. Had it been enacted in the last Congress,the conservative estimate is that it would have cost $100 billion each year commencing with fiscal 1977. This single bill thus accounts for just over 40 per cent of the total proposed spending; since it is such an important contribution to the total, no congressman was able to sponsor or cosponsor sufficient legislation to qualify for the big spending list if he had not associated his name with this bill.
The table below sets out the 11 bills; but first, we should emphasize that a bill is not necessarily without merit simply because it is on the list. No attempt has been made to evaluate the efficacy of the bills or to determine whether they fulfill a legitimate need; the sole qualifying characteristic is that they involve the expenditure of large sums of money. A summary of each of these bills (two of them in their better known Senate versions) appears at the end of this article.
DESCRIPTION OF BILLS
1. Health Security Act. Kennedy. Finance. Provides that all residents of the United States are eligible for comprehensive health care protection administered by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The bill would be financed by payroll taxes which would be matched dollar for dollar by general revenue contributions to the Health Security Trust Fund. The employer would pay a 3.5 per cent tax on his payroll and the employee would pay a 1 per cent tax on his total income up to 150 per cent of the Social Security taxable earnings base. All unearned income would be taxed at the rate of 2.5 per cent if it amounted to over $400 in a given year. Self-employed persons would pay a 2.5 per cent tax on the same taxable base as ordinary employees. The Fund would be given a two year period to build up a reserve before it would be obliged to pay out any monies for benefits.
2. Public Service Employment Act. Hawkins. Education and Labor. Declares that many persons who have become unemployed or underemployed as a result of technological changes or as a result of shifts in the pattern of federal expenditures could be usefully employed. This Act employs such persons in jobs supplying needed public services, and provides appropriate training and related services. Establishes a special economic development assistance program and authorizes the Secretary of Labor to use not more than 10 per cent of the funds available under this Act for each fiscal year to provide financial assistance to eligible applicants for economic development, low cost housing, public works, and economic opportunity programs designed to assist in the long range improvement of the economy in areas of substantial unemployment. Directs the Secretary to carry out pilot projects and a program of research into alternative ways and means to reach full employment.
3. National Energy and Conservation Corporation Act. McFall. Interior and Insular Affairs, Science, and Technology. Establishes a National Energy and Conservation Corporation to achieve specific goals, including: 1) the exploration and development of public lands and tideland oil, natural gas, oil shale, and coal, either independently or in partnership with private industry; and 2) the acceleration of the creation and demonstration of specified technologies. Declares it to be the policy of Congress that costs of production of offshore oil and natural gas and the manufacture of liquid and gaseous fuels from oil shale and coal will be funded through appropriations should such costs exceed market prices.
The Corporation may conduct research and development with a view toward improving the technology related to the use of oil shale, gasification of coal, geothermal steam, and solar energy as sources of energy for domestic and industrial uses in the United States. The Corporation is authorized to issue bonds, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury (not to exceed $30 billion outstanding at any one time) , in order to obtain funds to carry out the provisions of this Act. Payment of interest and principal on such bonds shall be guaranteed by the United States. Authorizes $5 billion for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
4. National Electrical Energy Conservation Act. Ottinger, Interstate and Foreign. Commerce. Title I creates a National Power Grid Corporation to establish and operate a national power grid system consisting of electric power generating facilities and a system of very high voltage transmission lines which shall connect such facilities and the transmission systems of each regional corporation established by the Corporation pursuant to this Act. Provides that such regional corporations shall be the exclusive marketing agency for the National Grid in that region. Authorizes electrical utilities, publicly or privately owned, to enter into agreements for services with the regional corporations. Directs the National Grid to carry out a program of research and development in the area of electric power generation and transmission, giving preference to environmental protection and land use research priorities. Authorizes up to $250 million per fiscal year to carry out such programs. Title II authorizes each corporation to issue and sell bonds for financing its activities, providing that the aggregate total of outstanding bonds shall not exceed $32 billion.
5. Electric Power Production Authority Act. Murphy (N.Y.). Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Establishes an Electric Power Production Authority. Enumerates its duties, including to: 1) assure that adequate supplies of electric energy, based on proven and developed technology, are available to meet the anticipated needs of the United States; 2) continuously review the demand for and supply of electric energy in the United States and report annually to the Congress; and 3) loan to investor owned electrical utilities, as well as state and municipal power authorities, sums up to 100 percent for the costs of new electric power plant construction and electric distribution and transmission facilities. Empowers the Authority to provide loans and loan guarantees for the long term purchase of coal and nuclear fuel supplies by investor owned utilities, as well as state and municipal power authorities, and lessees of electric powerplants initially built by the Authority, for the purpose of assuring that domestic fuel supplies are developed and available in adequate amounts. Authorizes $51 billion over a ten year period to carry out the provisions of this Act.
6. Homeowners' Loan Act. (William) Ford (Mich.). Banking, Currency, and Housing. Establishes the Homeowners' Loan Corporation and authorizes it to issue bonds in an aggregate amount not to exceed $10 billion. The Corporation is authorized for a period of three years after enactment of this bill but only during any calendar quarter in which the Federal Home Loan Bank Board determines that the foreclosure rate exceeds 0.5 percent — to acquire home mortgages and other obligations and liens secured by real estate.
7. Comprehensive Child Development Act. Abzug. Education and Labor. The purpose is to establish and expand comprehensive child development programs — with emphasis on economically disadvantaged individuals, and including children of working mothers and single parents — with parents and community groups to be involved in the decision making process, and to establish the legislative framework for eventual universally available child development programs. The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is authorized to direct programs under Title I (Comprehensive Child Development Programs). Activities for which funds can be provided include: planning, development, establishment, maintenance, and operation of comprehensive programs with a broad range of activities; design, acquisition, construction, alteration, renovation, or remodeling of facilities including mobile facilities; training programs for professionals, para-professionals, parents, older family members, and prospective parents; public information activities; child advocate staff; and administrative expenses. Requires that each such plan must: (1) identify needs and goals and describe purposes for which funds will be used; (2) meet the needs of children in the area, including infant care, before and after school programs, and 24 hour childcare services; (3) give priority to economically disadvantaged children; (4) give priority thereafter to children of single parents and working mothers; (5), (6) provide free services for economically disadvantaged children, and charge others fees on a sliding scale; (7) require cooperative arrangements of state and local agencies serving the handicapped; (8) provide jobs and training so far as possible for residents of the community; (9) provide, so far as possible, for socioeconomic mixture in centers; (10), (11) provide for special needs of minority, bilingual, migrant, and Indian children in the area; (12) assure benefits for children in nonpublic preschool and school programs; (13) coordinate programs so family members relate to each other during the day; (14) provide for parental participation in plans and programs; (15) provide for paraprofessional volunteers, including parents, senior citizens, students, other children, and those preparing for child development careers; (16) provide for dissemination of program information in the language of the parents; (17) eliminate barriers pertaining to state teachers certification standards; (18) , (19), (20) assure coordination with schools and other child development programs in the community; and (21) provide that emphasis will be given to continued funding of ongoing projects. Establishes the Office of Child Development to be the principal agency to administer this Act.
Authorizes $2 billion in fiscal 1976, $3 billion in 1977, and $4 billion in 1978 to carry out the provisions of this Title. Title III (Training of Child Development Personnel) authorizes $20 million for programs to train professional and paraprofessional child development personnel under the Higher Education Act. Authorizes National Defense Education Act loans for the training of full time teachers in child development programs. Authorizes training grants to individuals and child development programs. Authorizes $15 million annually for such grants. Title IV (Federal Government Child Development Programs) authorizes direct grants to establish and operate programs for children of federal employees. Authorizes $5 million for each fiscal year to operate such programs.
8. Bill to provide useful work for unemployed. Beard (R.I.). Education and Labor. The Economic Development Administration is directed to carry out a program of providing useful work for unemployed individuals in activities on projects which promote the public welfare.
9. Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance Act. Reuss. Banking, Currency, and Housing. Establishes an Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance Board. Authorizes it to make loans to states and to guarantee the payment, in whole or in part, of interest, principal, or both of obligations of states.
10. Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act. Randolph. Public Works. The Secretary of Commerce is authorized to make grants to any state or local government for construction, renovation, repair, or other improvement of local public works projects.
11. Intergovernmental Anti-Recession Assistance Act. Muskie. Government Operations. Declares it to be the policy of the United States and the purpose of this Act to make state and local government budget-related actions more consistent with Federal Government efforts to stimulate national economic recovery; to enhance the stimulative effect of a Federal Government income tax reduction; and to enhance the job creation impact of Federal Government public service employment programs. The Secretaryof the Treasury is authorized to make emergency support grants to state and local governments to carry out the purposes of this legislation. Authorizes for each of 12 succeeding calendar quarters (beginning with the first calendar quarter after the date of enactment of this bill) $500 million when the national seasonally adjusted unemployment rate reaches 6 per cent, plus an additional $250 million for each whole percentage point over 6 per cent in the preceding calendar quarter.