October 6, 1977
Page 32683
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the righteous indignation expressed by the Senator from New Mexico and other Members of this body. I do not suppose there is a Member of this body who indulges in righteous indignation more than does the Senator from Maine. I am not going to do so in connection with this amendment, or the Hart amendment.
I voted for the Hart amendment yesterday, because I recognized the problem that it sought to address, but not because I thought it had resolved all the questions raised about its effectiveness, about the precision of its targeting, and so on.
The Hart amendment is not my first exposure to the so-called "lifeline" approach to utility rate making. I have had occasion to consider it before. It has been considered by the Maine Legislature; it has been considered by the Maine Public Utilities Commission; and its objective is one with which no one in this body can quarrel. I certainly do not.
My principal concern about it, or one of my concerns about it, is the one so eloquently expressed by my good friend from New Mexico (Mr. DOMENICI) . We are not dealing, in this lifeline amendment, with public funds. When you are dealing with public funds and public programs, to know whether or not you have a means test is a legitimate question. A lot of these programs have no means test, because a means test, when used in connection with a public program of assistance to groups whose case has struck us as meritorious, can often be used to deny assistance to people who, under the merits of a particular case, deserve assistance. So means tests, we have found, are two-edged swords, and we tend to go against means tests for programs to fit situations in which our so-called senior citizens find themselves and in which other citizens find themselves.
What troubles me about the Hart amendment is not its purpose. I voted for it because I applaud its purpose. But I am concerned about it, first because it is financed by rates paid by users of electricity, whoever they are. It is not Government funds we are talking about. We are talking about shifting the cost of service from one group of ratepayers to another group of ratepayers.
I am not expert enough on the rate structures of all 50 States to assure myself that each of those 50 commissions will make that shift in an equitable fashion. I have seen that sort of shift made in inequitable ways too many times to believe it is going to be done in an equitable fashion. I find it difficult to comprehend the possibility that a general mandate of this kind by the Congress of the United States will result, in each of those commissions, in an equitable distribution of the cost of the utility system in each of the 50 States. I just find that very difficult to comprehend.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I will not take more than another minute. Not all of those who are burdened by unacceptably heavy utility costs will be benefitted by the Hart amendment. Rather, they are going to have the carry the rate burden of the Hart amendment.
Senators may say it is insignificant. But if it is insignificant for the poor who will not be benefitted, then the argument should be made that it is insignificant for the elderly whom it would seek to help. Again, it cannot be significant for the poor who are beneficiaries and insignificant for the poor who have to carry the burden. I find that a very difficult kind of a balance to strike, on any scale.
Because of the unknowns as to what will happen, I am deeply troubled about whether or not the Hart amendment is the best way to deal with the problem, which ought to be dealt with.
Last year I was the originator of a program called SCIP. SCIP means "special crisis intervention, program." Sometimes we get off the bench in the titles we designate for these programs.
Congress provided $200 million last year to help the poor with the cost of keeping warm last winter. We were so long in approving the program that it actually did not come on until spring; yet it was used, and on the whole used very effectively, to help about 2 million Americans with unexpectedly high utility bills and other fuel bills. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD a State by State and region by region worksheet which shows how these funds were distributed to the poor.
There being no objection, the worksheet was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. MUSKIE. I would hope, Mr. President, that that program might be continued in the winter that is coming, because the predictions are that this coming winter will be colder than normal, although not as cold as last year. The problem will be with us next year, and the SCIP program is one way of meeting it.
In addition, the administration has only recently proposed to provide assistance to low income persons through the Department of HEW. That proposal would expand the existing emergency assistance program under title IV of the Social Security Act. Currently, title IV emergency assistance is available only to needy families with dependent children. It provides only short term assistance, 30 consecutive days in any 12 month period, and requires a 50 percent State match. Beyond that, 30 States currently do not participate in the program.
The administration proposes to modify the eligibility criteria and include low income families without children, and also individuals.
That program is designed to become another approach to the problem of assisting low income persons, whether elderly or not, to help meet these unprecedentedly high utility bills which are such a burden on them.
The Hart proposal is another legitimate proposal. I do not quarrel with its legitimacy. I joined with Senator BUMPERS in this amendment because it strikes me that the Bumpers amendment goes some way — not totally; I am sure refinements could occur to us indefinitely — toward targeting the Hart amendment to those who are really needy, excluding those who are not. The Hart amendment would include me, I say to the Senator from Colorado. I am 63. I assume I am eligible under the Hart amendment. My heating bill in Maine in June of this year was $200, so I could use some help. I would be eligible.
On the other hand, the intent of the Bumpers proposal is to exclude those who do not need this kind of assistance and, since the purpose of the Hart amendment is to focus on those who do need such assistance, to include others who also need it.
It does complicate the administration, of course, in the sense that some more thought has to be given to the guidelines for the rate structure, and that may not be possible. It may not be possible to administer a rate structure in such a way as to focus rates precisely to need, as the Bumpers amendment attempts to do. But as long as we are attempting to make this kind of approach work, I am sympathetic to the Bumpers objective, just as I am sympathetic to the Hart objective. It is for that reason that I join in this amendment.
In joining in it, I have no intention whatsoever to denigrate Senator HART's objective, his proposal, or his heart. He knows that. I voted with him yesterday in spite of my objections, because I am sympathetic.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President
Mr. HART. Will the Senator from Louisiana yield so I may ask a question of the Senator from Maine?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to the Senator from Colorado for one question.
Mr. HART. The Senator from Maine, as I understand it, with all the reservations he has both ways, principally argues that he is concerned about the Hart amendment because it might skew the rate base. Does he understand that the dual effect of the Bumpers amendment, as I understand it — and I am still very confused — would be not only to target, presumably, arguably, to target on impoverished older people, which I think most of us agree is the vast majority of older people, but also all impoverished people, and therefore would dramatically expand the effect of this proposal and therefore dramatically skew the rate base that he is concerned about?
Mr. MUSKIE. On that score, as I understand the Bumpers amendment, there are 14 million households it will affect. Senator HART's proposal is for 33 million individuals who are recipients of social security. I do not know how 33 million individuals can be compared to 14 million households, but the effect would seem to me to be at least equal, if not greater. But, I do not have that figure.
Mr. HART. I do not think even the sponsor does, because it has not been offered to me. But we have no idea what the Bumpers proposal would mean to consumers. The Library of Congress study I spoke of yesterday indicated that my amendment would affect 2 percent of the people.
Mr. MUSKIE. I suspect the Bumpers amendment would be no greater.
Mr. BUMPERS. The Congressional Research study the Senator speaks of did not include the 8 million people under 62.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, yesterday, when the Hart amendment was pending, one of my colleagues came up to me and said, "Bennett, you dare not oppose this; this is election year and this is goodies to the old folks." I proceeded to oppose it and got voted down. I suppose what I am going to do now is expiate my guilt with the old folks and tell them why I did it, and tell them why I oppose this amendment. I think I am right, and I think the old folks will understand.
Mr. President, the President of the United States sent down a message earlier this year, talking about the hodgepodge, about the mess that we have in welfare now. The President said that we have a mess in welfare; why? Because we have a proliferation of programs, for one thing, where some people, who are drawing up to $16,000 a year, as I recall, are eligible for food stamps.
There are all kinds of different programs, from housing allowances to medical care to food stamps, to aid to dependent children, and all the other welfare programs. The President and Mr. Califano and all the rest say that is bad, that we ought to have a uniform approach, we ought to consolidate these so that a person is given what he needs, based on his income, and so that we can have some control over that. Everybody agreed with that and we heard praise for the concept across this country. Yet, every time one of these programs comes along, we have some new patchwork put on the welfare program. And that is what this is.
To be sure, everybody is for the old folks. But the Bumpers amendment points out a very glaring fault in the Hart amendment. That fault is that it goes to everybody 62 years of age or older, whether they need the help or not. It goes to a number of our colleagues in the Senate — not very many, because most of us are very young. But it goes to one or two of us in this Chamber.
Senator BUMPERS recognizes that that is wrong.
Mr. President, what we are doing here is not only voting a benefit under the Hart amendment for people under 62 and under the Bumpers amendment, for everybody within 125 percent of the poverty level. But we are not having to pay for that. That, to a politician, is very appealing, you vote the benefit and let somebody else pay for it. As Senator DOMENICI says, all the next door neighbors are going to pay for it.
Do we really have the wisdom to supplant our knowledge for that of the State regulatory bodies?
Many of the State regulatory commissions now have lifeline rates adapted to their States, their communities, their life styles, what they perceive to be their needs. Yet we are supplanting that; saying, "No, whatever test you have is not good enough; you have to have this Federal test to supplant that."
The first question is, why 62? If a State wants to use the age of 70, for example, that the House of Representatives just used on the retirement bill — they said 65 is too young, they wanted to put it to 70 for mandatory retirement. Why should a State not be able to say 70 or 65 or 78, or some other age? Why do we have such wisdom in this body to dictate 62, inconsistently with what we have done in other areas?
Why only the poor? Why not include rich old folks? Can we say in this body that rich old people ought to be included and that their poor neighbors, people on welfare, ought to pay for the rich old folks?
Mr. MUSKIE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON. In just a moment, if the Senator will let me make a couple more points.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator might cover my question in his succeeding points.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield for one question.
Mr. MUSKIE. I just want to have it clear in my own mind what the distinguished floor manager's preferences, what his druthers, are — neither the Hart nor Bumpers amendment, one; or two, the Hart amendment, rather than the Bumpers amendment if he must have one or the other?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I do not like either one of them. We have the Hart amendment. I, frankly, toyed with the idea of accepting the Bumpers amendment because it illustrates very well that neither one is very sound because it shows that we are groping around, trying to find a formula to help people who ought to be helped. But we have not had any hearings.
Not only have we not had any hearings, but we have not made these hard choices; why 62? Why only old people who have electric meters?
Mr. MUSKIE. If the Senator will yield, I think those are legitimate questions. The purpose of the Bumpers amendment was to try to narrow the area of concerns. It does not at all eliminate all of the questions the Senator is phrasing now.
So I simply am wondering what the Senator's recommendation to the Senate would be when we come to vote. The Bumpers amendment would allow us to modify what the Senate already has done. I wonder whether the distinguished Senator from Louisiana is going to give us the benefit of a recommendation.