March 10, 1977
Page 7120
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to undo the prospective action of the Executive with respect to water projects. What it would do is this:
First of all, let me say it is in five sections, and I ask that Senators give very careful attention to this, because I believe it is of extreme importance.
The first section, Mr. President, is a declaration of intent, a declaration of policy of the U.S. Senate and of the Congress of the United States. It says this:
The construction projects listed in Public Law 94-355, the Public Works for Water and Power Development and Energy Research Appropriations Act, 1977, and in Public Law 94-351, the Agriculture and Related Agencies Programs Appropriations, 1977, represent the foundation of our national public works activity. Such projects are essential to the reduction of unemployment;
It further says that:
Such projects provide long term benefits to communities, to states, and to the entire nation in terms of water management, flood control, navigation, recreation and enhanced economic activity.
It further declares:
Such projects have been authorized by the Congress after protracted hearings and consideration extended over many years. Appropriations have been made and are being made pursuant thereto.
It is the judgment of Congress that such projects should not be discontinued except by following the legislative process provided by the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of Public Law 93-344, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Mr. President, those are the findings of fact contained in this amendment. The next section, Mr. President, is a simple mandate that funds provided in the fiscal year 1977 budget shall be made available for expenditure before the end of the fiscal year. It is intended to prohibit the deferral or rescission of such funds for fiscal year 1977.
The next section, Mr. President, is in some respects duplicative of section 402, in that it intends to be operative in prospective disapproval of such deferrals or rescissions, should they be made. Actually section 403 is not necessary unless there is something legally wrong with section 402, and we do not believe there is.
Section 404 provides for the interest rates under which these projects shall be considered. I think Congress is well aware that the public laws of the United States presently provide and establish an interest rate under which projects are considered for their cost-benefit ratio. That interest rate has gone up and down, in accordance with the provisions of those laws, particularly Public Law 93-251, which was the Water Resources Development Act of 1974. All this section does, Mr. President, is reaffirm and reiterate the binding nature of the public laws of the United States.
I would think, Mr. President, that it would be unnecessary to do that. However, the prospective action of the Executive would indicate that it is necessary to reiterate the binding nature of the laws of the United States; and if we must reiterate those sections of the laws, we so do it here.
Finally, Mr. President, is a nonseverability clause. What that means is that if this section respecting these public works projects is knocked out and declared illegal, the whole bill falls.
Mr. President I am sorry it is necessary to put this kind of amendment in this kind of bill. But apparently we must do so in order to maintain the intent of Congress, in order to carry out the provisions of congressional acts already passed.
There are 19 projects, Mr. President, that already have been temporarily deferred. We have done our best to find out the basis on which those projects have been deferred. Mr. President, I must tell the Senate that those projects, in my judgment, have been deferred and discontinued on absolutely the flimsiest sort of evidence imaginable.
Our colleagues from Colorado, for example, submitted a freedom of information request to the Executive to find out the basis on which projects in Colorado were discontinued. They got two measly pieces of paper, Mr. President, as authority to discontinue, I believe it was some four projects, involving millions of dollars that had already been spent. Because some bureaucrat — and I would suspect some bureaucrat new to Washington, new to the project, and new to water projects — submitted those pieces of paper, it would bring this whole thing to a halt.
With respect to water projects in my own State, a project known as the Bayou Chene, Boeuf, and Black project has been discontinued. That project is not only a good project, it is necessary for this country to develop its energy resources, because they have over a billion dollars worth of offshore rigs being constructed up that bayou, and $200 million or $300 million worth of those rigs are not going to be able to get out of the mouth of the bayou unless we complete this project. The project consists of widening the bayou and deepening its channel. I have some pictures that show a rig comingout the mouth of that bayou. My assistant has them, and will be here in a moment.
The rig in question is intended to drill in a thousand feet of water on the Outer Continental Shelf. Hopefully we will be able to get that done on the Atlantic some day, if the environmentalists do not stop that, too. But the picture shows that this rig coming down the bayou, being pushed by tugs, is being hit on either side of the river by trees. They were able to squeeze that one out. But based on the promise provided in the public laws of the United States that this project would be built and completed, the company — McDermott in this case — is building rigs that are 440 feet wide. Keep in mind, 360 feet now touches on each side, and they are building them up there at 440 feet wide now.
There is no way to get those rigs out unless we complete this project, and the project is being discontinued, with over a billion dollars worth of work going on upstream. Mr. President, I do not know on what basis that project was recommended for deferral, but I can tell you it was a basis without any logic, benefit, or reason for this Nation, much less for my State, when they took that action.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield for a question.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am concerned, but I believe I am in agreement with what the Senator is saying. With reference to the project the Senator mentioned, what percentage of the project is now completed?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I believe it is about 50 percent. I can get the precise number. The project was first authorized in 1968, first funded in 1972, construction beginning in 1974, and a total of $10.5 million has been committed to date. The latest estimate of the project cost is $22,128,000. It is about 28 percent completed. It is over 2.5 to 1 in the cost/ benefit ratio, no matter what figures one uses.
As far as the environmental thing is concerned, yes, it went to lawsuit, and the judge held that this did not violate the National Environmental Policy Act, it did not violate the Water Pollution Control Act, and it did not violate the Fish and Game Act. It did not violate anything. It has been to court on environmental questions. Somebody in the executive department thinks we ought to stop this project.
Mr. President, I am confident this project will be continued. I do not believe that on examination anybody could discontinue the project permanently. There are two reasons for me putting in this resolution. It is not just because of this project, but because of the enormous time and energy this subject will require of the Congress until we get it resolved.
We met with the President this morning and he said, "Let us go out and have public hearings in all the States. We were going to have them in Washington, but now we are going to go back to the States to have them. "
Every Senator who has a water project will have to trundle to his State, hold the hearings, get all the public witnesses and pack the chambers. We can do it on every one of our projects, and I suspect everyone else in the Senate can. We will have to take that time and then come back through the review process, expending the total time and energy of the Congress.
In addition to that, Mr. President, I know on this one project we are ready to let one contract on March 18 of this year and another contract on March 22 of this year.
I assume the Executive intends simply to disregard the public laws of the United States and not let out those projects for contract.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. JOHNSTON. I yield to my distinguished friend from West Virginia for a question.
Mr. RANDOLPH. This has some of the elements of impoundment, in a sense, which never was the actual province of any administration. There were sewage treatment moneys which Congress not only authorized but appropriated which were held hostage by the Executive — hostage seeming to be a very good word at this time, apparently. Moneys allocated to the States were impounded.
The only reason I mention this, whether it was by one President or another, is the Senate has not allowed that to take place. When the release of the funds regardless of who it was, was not made by the President, the Senate has taken care of it. I sponsored two Senate resolutions in 1975 to require the President to obligate funds authorized for the Federal-aid highway program and the water pollution construction grant program.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I appreciate the comment of my distinguished friend. I have one statement to make in answer to that. As one of our colleagues put it yesterday, we thought we had gotten away from government by veto and government by confrontation between the Congress and the Executive. This amendment is intended to get us away from that government by veto by maintaining, effectuating, and mandating that the intent of Congress as already expressed in public law should be carried out.
I yield to my distinguished friend from Maine for a comment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my good friend from Louisiana. I would like to comment on two items: First, with respect to his objective and, secondly, with respect to the effect of the Pollution Control Act as it relates to the amendment.
First, I would like to closely identify myself with his objective. I could not take greater offense with any action taken by this President or any President than with respect to the action which has been taken in connection with these water projects. I am not just talking about the merits. I cannot now speak all that much to the merits of each project, and I certainly do not object to any President's right to review the merits of projects which are ongoing when he takes office.
However, I do violently object to the procedure which has been used. It is a procedure which has denied due process to all of the values which are built into these projects, denied due process to those in the Congress who have undertaken to support these projects, taking them laboriously through the legislative mill and across the President's desk. It denied due process to the communities and regions of this country who are affected and benefited, hopefully, by these projects.
I will just refer to one example with respect to a project in Maine which is affected. It is already involved in the environmental impact process of the National Environmenal Policy Act.
Congress has provided funds to undertake the environmental evaluation, but now, right in the midst of that process, this nameless bureaucrat — well, not really nameless because the name can be provided and I know who it is — has used a personal ax and a personal access to the President to abort the process.
The project in Maine was authorized in 1965. We had to first fight the power companies and then other groups who were competing for the energy market who sought to abort it. Then with the energy crisis there were those who saw the need for the energy. The environmental groups moved in, and they have every right to do so. But in recognition of their right those of us who supported the project have agreed to accept the environmental impact process for the purpose of evaluating the environmental values which are at issue.
Now in the midst of the process and in the name of environmental values, without any consultation with anybody else who knows anything at all about the project, the process has been aborted in this fashion. I take violent exception to it. I fully support the concerns and efforts of the Senator from Louisiana.
On the technical question, as my good friend from West Virginia pointed out, the Congress has been plagued by an expanded use by Presidents of the impoundment procedure to refuse to spend money for projects which the Congress has approved. I refer not only to these projects but programs across the whole plane of the Federal budget. The Presidents increasingly used impoundment, as it came to be called, to frustrate the will of the legislative branch of this Government. That practice became so abused under the Nixon administration that finally the Congress decided it had no choice but to create a process or a procedure for dealing with that executive power. So we adopted the Impoundment Control Act as part of the Budget ReformAct 2 or 3 years ago.
I never felt that the Impoundment Control Act went far enough. I do not believe any President ought to have the right to impound funds for policy reasons. If funds have been appropriated by Congress to implement a policy adopted in accordance with the normal legislative process and the President disagrees with that policy, in my judgment, he ought to come back to the same legislative process to seek to change the policy. No President should have the right, unilaterally, on his own, to frustrate a policy that has been made a part of the law of this land, in accordance with constitutional processes, in accordance with approval by both Houses and legislation, either signed by the President or passed over his veto. No President ought to havea right to abort a policy so established. If he wants to change it, whether it has to do with these water projects or any other policy or program, he ought to come to Congress and ask Congress to change it and accept the normal legislative processes under the Constitution of the United States to do that.
That has not been done with these 19 projects, It is clear it has not been done. It is clear it has been done on the flimsiest kind of evidence. It is clear that it has been done without due process.
The two pages of evidence that were submitted by the Council on Environmental Quality to the President as justification for the aborting of the Maine project was a disgrace. I put it in the RECORD on the confirmation hearings of the new chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality.
I have to conclude, from reading those two pages — they did not even occupy allof the white space on the two pages — that in terms of environmental values, a critical distortion was included; with respect to economic benefits, a critical favorable fact was omitted.
The President was not even advised in that memorandum that the environmental impact process established by law was under way for the purpose of getting the very environmental answers that he was seeking. Instead, he was urged, on the basis of this skimpy, flimsy, distorted, two-page memorandum, to abort an environmental impact process in which Congress has invested several million dollars to insure that due process would be given to environmental values, to economic values, to energy values. That process has been aborted.
I promise my good friend from Louisiana that, this afternoon — I have an appointment with Mr. Warren, the new chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and I intend to make the same points to him that I am making here, and I intend to make them even more vigorously, if I can find a way to do so.
I say to the Senator, finally, that so far as I am concerned, I am not sure that section 402 of his amendment would be effective legally. I hope it would be. I do not regard it as in any way running counter to the purposes of Budget Reform and the Impoundment Control Act. Indeed, I. think the purpose of the amendment is to support the purposes of the Impoundment Control Act.
There are times when you have to fight fire with fire. When the Executive aborts established procedures, I, as one Member of the Senate, am going to look for anything I can fire back — anything I can fire back.
I have repeated this indignation over and over again, but there is one question about the Senator's amendment I want to clarify, because I am not sure what it means.
In section 405, it says:
If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Act, and the application of any other provision to other persons or circumstances, shall also be invalid.
Does that mean — I make the question very specific — that if the Senator's amendment were in some way held invalid — I cannot conceive of why it should be, but if it were, it is not his intention that the rest of this bill should be held hostage to it and should fall if this does?
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is precisely what I intend.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is a concern, then.
Mr. JOHNSTON. The reason for that is if they knock out these water projects, we can come back and very quickly,in Congress, reenact this jobs bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. The President does not have item veto.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I recognize that, but just to restrain an overeager Department of Justice which, in too much zeal, would go out and attempt to kill these water projects, I sought to make it a little easier for them to support the whole bill, the whole package. I think these water projects, which not only provide jobs but stimulate the economy as well and leave a permanent improvement, are more important to the jobs program, the unemployment program, and the economic health of the Nation than any other single thing we can do.
Mr. MUSKIE. I agree with that, but I really disagree with this interpretation, if this should become part of the bill that goes to the White House, if the President disagrees with it, he has to veto the whole bill. If he does not veto the whole bill, what course would then be open to him?
The course that would be open to him would be to send up deferrals and rescissions upon which we can act and I do not think any court will hold these provisions invalid.
If, for some other reason down the road, that should happen, I would not want to see the rest of the bill put in jeopardy. I am a little worried about this.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Let me say to my good friend from Maine that that is not the most important provision of this amendment. As this debate goes on, I shall be happy to consider deleting that provision, because I have enormous respect for my friend from Maine. If my colleagues are of the view that we should take out that so-called non-severability clause, I shall do so, because I do not think it is absolutely essential to this bill, although, in my view, it improves it. I thank my friend for his comment.
Mr. LONG. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes.
Mr. LONG. It seems to me, I say to the Senator, if we look at the history of some of these confrontations, Congress can send a law down to the President and the President says, "I don't care what they say, I am just not going to do it"— this has happened. One could contend that, we will say, you cannot tell the President what to do by an act of Congress. You and I know that by rights, the President is supposed to obey the law just like everybody else. I thought that was pretty well established in that Nixon controversy over impoundments. But, at the same time, one could well say, "Wait a minute, we don't think what you did was constitutional and we are not going to do it."
It seems to me, that being the case, it would be well to say, "All right, if you want to veto the bill, go ahead and veto it. If you do not want to veto this bill, you are going to have to live with it."
Mr. JOHNSTON. Live with the whole thing.
Mr. LONG. That being the case, we should see where we stand.
I, for one, would have no problem whatever in putting in these projects that have been carefully studied by Congress and have a favorable benefit-cost ratio, justified in the Nation's interest, both individually and collectively. I for one would be willing to go on the record as saying these projects have a higher benefit ratio than some of the make work projects in this emergency bill to try to put people to work. I would be willing to say that, dollar for dollar, they have a higher priority than that refund we are being asked to recommend to the Senate, where everybody gets $50 whether he needs it or not.
That is like throwing bushels of $50 bills off the top of the Washington Monument in a high wind and hoping it does a lot of good.
But most of the people will not be getting the $50. I challenge them to put the $50 a head deal on an economic cost-benefit ratio up against a waterway project that the President is proposing to hold up.
What cost-benefit ratio can we put on $50 for everybody?
It would obviously do somebody some good for trivial things like whisky, cigarettes, maybe even marijuana, but how much lasting good?
Some of it will go to make somebody a good meal, that otherwise they might not have had.
But on the other hand, we cannot place the kind of benefit on $50 for everybody, not knowing what they will do with it, that we can on a very carefully studied project with a favorable cost ratio.
Furthermore, I say about the interest rates that when President Eisenhower started raising those interest rates, I do not think anybody raised any more criticism of that than I did, that these high interest rates were not justified, in our opinion. But when we have a persistent inflation of better than 4.5 percent a year — many years over 6 percent — then if the interest rate is not higher than the inflation, the man really has not been paid anything at all.
For example, if we have 6 percent inflation and only 4 percent interest, the Government has stolen 2 percent from that man. He has to get at least 6 percent to break even, to keep up with inflation.
So the interest rate, if we discount for inflation, has not gone up at all.
The President referred to about 6% interest rate. If we discount it for inflation, it is less than 2 percent.
Furthermore, if we are not going to discount it for inflation, we should put on the benefit side the effect of the inflation because projects, such as waterway projects, result in great savings in labor and they result in great savings in energy and materials.
All those items go up with inflation. Therefore, the benefit goes up as the interest cost goes up.
I submit that when the President talks about the interest rate going up to 6.5 percent, he is totally ignoring inflation, or I submit the President ought to consult with his economic adviser to see what we want to do on the interest factor, discount it for inflation or add the benefit.
But the inflation factor ought to be added as a benefit on the benefit side, or it should be taken off by discounting it on the interest side.
We have the law on our side. The law says these projects will be built and that when we appropriate the money, it will be spent.
If the President is not going to do it, we might as well face up to it and say that, desirable as we think these emergency employment programs are, we do not think they are any more important, and dollar for dollar no better, than the ones he is recommending to us in some makework projects on the theory if somebody can find somewhere to put somebody to work where they think desirable, we will pay 100 percent of the cost of it.
I honestly cannot see how such undefined projects, sight unseen, have a higher economic benefit ratio than those the Congress has studied.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I cannot see anything that this Nation does that would more effectively get at the gnawing problems of unemployment and of economic slowdown than to do something like this.
On this particular water project I was just talking about, we have 5,000 people involved in building these rigs. We have the energy supply of the Nation held hostage by this project.
I talked about those pictures. I asked Senators to look at the pictures. This is a picture of a 360 foot rig coming down the bayou. That is the present width.
This rig being built in the second picture is a 440 foot wide rig destined to go, I suppose, to the Atlantic Continental Shelf or to the gulf.
Mr. LONG. Or the Gulf of Mexico, deep water.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is right, deep water, over a thousand feet of water. I challenge anyone to tell me if this is 360 feet, how they will get that 440 foot rig out to where it is going, and what is going to happen to the 5,000 employees and what is going to happen to the energy crisis of the country in the meantime?
I yield to my distinguished friend from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I have indicated my agreement with the thinking of the junior Senator from Louisiana except as I said, the concern with section 405.
I think the purpose can be provided without that.
Can the Senator not agree with me, that it can be accomplished without section 405?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. Yes.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I did speak to my distinguished friend from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) as well as the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) and while my preference is to leave in section 405, I think the logic of taking it out, particularly when the chairman of the Public Works Committee feels that it should be out and the chairman of the Budget Committee feels that it should be out, is overwhelming.
So therefore, Mr. President, I ask to modify the amendment by striking section 405 of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is so modified. The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
TITLE IV — FEDERAL PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS CONTINUATION
Sec. 401. The Congress hereby finds and declares that:
(A) The construction projects listed in Public Law 94-355, the Public Works for Water and Power Development and Energy Research Appropriations Act, 1977, and in Public Law 94-351, the Agriculture and Related Agencies Programs Appropriations, 1977, represent the foundation of our national public works activity. Such projects are essential to the reduction of unemployment;
(B) Such projects provide long term benefits to communities, to states, and to the entire nation in terms of water management, flood control, navigation, recreation and enhanced economic activity; and
(C) Such projects have been authorized by the Congress after protracted hearings and consideration extended over many years. Appropriations have been made and are being made pursuant thereto. It is the judgment of Congress that such projects should not be discontinued except by following the legislative process provided by the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of Public Law 93-344, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Sec. 402. Notwithstanding the deferral and rescission provisions of Public Law 93-344, all appropriations provided in Public Laws 94-355 and 94-351 for construction projects or for investigation, planning, or design related to construction projects shall be made available for obligation by the President.
SEC. 403. Section 402 of this Act shall be equivalent to and have the legal effect of a resolution disapproving any deferral of budget authority previously provided for construction projects in Public Law 93-355 or in any prior law appropriating funds for the United States Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation, or for construction projects in Public Law 94-351 or any prior law appropriating funds for construction projects in the Department of Agriculture, as provided for in Section 1013(b) of Public Law 93-344, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Section 402 is also equivalent to a Congressional statement of intent not to uphold any rescission of budget authority with regard to funds appropriated for construction projects in Public Law 94-355 or Public Law 94-351 or for construction projects in any prior law appropriating funds for the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, or the Department of Agriculture, as provided for in Section 1012(b) of Public Law 93-344.
SEC. 404. It is hereby reiterated that the interest rates or rates of discount to be used to assess the return on the Federal government's investment in projects of the United States Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation, shall be those interest rates or rates of discount established by Public Law 93-251, the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, or by any prior law authorizing projects of the United States Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Larry Meyers and Jack Albertine of Senator BENTSEN's staff be granted privilege of the floor during debate on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. JOHNSTON. Yes, to my friend from Washington.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I could go on for quite a while about this so-called move downtown on the water projects. But I want to bolster up the Senator's amendment by showing just how flimsy, as the Senator from Maine pointed out, was the sheet of paper we received.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend until we have order in the Senate, please?
Will those in the aisles and staff members please take their seats and those conversing please retire to the cloakroom?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Louisiana, one of the projects that leaked out is a well-known project to everybody in the Senate for many years — Grand Coulee Dam.
It is a project to build the third power plant at Grand Coulee Dam. It would provide cheap hydroelectric power which is in short demand.
It is 78 to 80 percent complete. It has a benefit-to-cost ratio of — how much does the Senator think? — 40 to 1.
It is one of the highest benefit/cost ratios ever given to a public works project.
I cannot believe that it is on the list.
I do not know whether the Senator has ever been out in my part of the country. But the third power plant has passed every environmental test for almost 4 years. It might stop some rattlesnakes from mating, or stop some jackrabbits from running around, but that is about all.
I could not believe my eyes when I read the list. We have invested in the Grand Coulee reclamation and power project hundreds of millions of dollars. It creates low cost electric power. And there is a 40-to-1 b/c ratio. If that is not a project that should go on, including the ones the Senator from Louisiana has mentioned, I have never heard of one that should. So I join the Senator.
As to the other project listed, I have been working for years to get what we call the Second Bacon Siphon and Tunnel. It will irrigate new land. And this project is now under construction. The farmers are going to pay it back under a formula. It is all going to be paid back.
Under the other administrations, we repeatedly directed them in the appropriation bills to spend the money.
There is a total local contribution of $15 million. That is nearly half of the total cost for the Second Bacon Siphon and Tunnel It is unusual to have that much local contribution from the State in a project.
Whether you come from the West or the Middle West or even the East or the Northeast, public works projects create jobs. They help unemployment. You have something to show for that is worth while. It is rare to have a public works projects built and then have somebody say that it was not worth the cost of building. I do not know of any.
Mr. RANDOLPH. We do not receive back dollar for dollar. It is not an expenditure. It is an investment — an investment in the area and in the country. I agree with the Senator.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Forty to one is the benefit-cost ratio. I would like to get in on that investment. We put in a dollar and get back $40. And we create jobs and low cost electric power, which is now being transferred all over the Pacific Northwest.
So I join the Senator from Louisiana. All of us out West are just flabbergasted that this would happen. I cannot find out yet how it happened. The Senator was at the White House today. I was not invited because I think we are on the second list.
Mr. JOHNSTON. I think the Senator is correct. The fellows on the first list were invited down there today.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Did the person who made up the list show?
Mr. JOHNSTON. We could not find out precisely how these lists are put together. The first list has 19 projects. The second list, for Corps of Engineers projects, has 38 projects. We do not know how many Bureau of Reclamation projects there will be. We think there are 27 projects on that list.
Those lists will hit like a bombshell around here. If we do not do something, in my judgment, in terms of this amendment, we are going to spend an enormous amount of time and effort and energy of the Senate in trying to undo it. All of us will go back to our States and have hearings and have a meeting with the President and with Bert Lance, with the Secretary of the Army, with the Director of the Bureau of Reclamation, and with the Secretary of the Interior.
Nobody is going to be doing anything but trying to restore their water projects. I can tell the Senate that I am not. We can let the rest of this jobs bill go. We are going to drop everything to try to get those water projects on stream again. I do not doubt that we are going to win the fight.
Mr. MAGNUSON. In the long run, we will win. We can override the President's veto in the long run.
Mr. JOHNSTON. That is right.
Mr. MAGNUSON. But it stops everything.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Let us do it now.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Can the Senator from Louisiana imagine a Senator from Washington going to his State and holding a hearing on the benefits or demerits of Grand Coulee Dam? [Laughter.]
If I were to hold a hearing on Grand Coulee Dam, they would hang me from a tree. I would not even want to show up for a hearing like that. Nobody would speak against it. Maybe some people downtown might surface for the hearings and we could learn their names.
This is absolutely incredible. This is the lifeblood of the economy in some areas. It is one of the best things we can do to revive our economy. We also have something of value to show for when we are done.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment but also to make a general observation which I hope every Senator in the Chamber will hear, and that is to say that there is a list of 19 water projects which have been canceled by the President. The distinguished chairman, the Senator from the State of Washington, said that no one in the West would be against such a measure; no one in the Middle West would be against such a measure. He said that even persons in the Northeast — looking at me — might support it. Why did he say that?
Mr. President, he said it because none of these programs has anything to do with my State. I am not on that list of 19. I am not on that secret second list and the third list that the secret environmentalist is drawing up.
I am for these programs, for the reason that the distinguished chairman, the Senator from Washington, has stated. I want that bayou widened. I want you to go into the Gulf of Mexico to find the gas to keep the houses of my State and my region warm and our factories working. But I have to observe — and I ask Senators to remember — that when you dig that bayou wider and deeper, for every dollar that comes from the people of Louisiana, $10 will come from the people of New York State. For every dollar from Louisiana and from Washington, $10 will come from New York.
We began this discussion on the question of comity, of the legitimate expectations of States which felt that these measures had been approved, that a long time ago that had been done.
Our distinguished chairman and dear leader, Mr. RANDOLPH, used the word "hostage." The Senator from Washington spoke of impoundment. I, also, should like to speak about the legitimate expectations of States that are not on this list.
Last year, Congress passed an emergency public works measure which, in an attempt to relieve unemployment, made a sensible distinction in terms of the severity of unemployment and divided — on a two-thirds, one-third basis — the funds as between those States which were below the national level of unemployment and those which were above. Those above the 7.7 level were to receive additional allocations from this severity fund of 35 percent. Thirty-five percent was to be allocated to those with severely high unemployment.
In the Public Works Committee, a position arose from States which are better off, who said, "We want to give this money to States that are better off."
This seemed to us inequitable. We were continuing legislation already, in effect, in practice.
The chairman was surprised; the distinguished ranking minority member was surprised; we were all surprised and a little bit hurt by Senators who were representing States that are better off. and yet who wanted to take money away from us under a formula which we thought was a legitimate expectation, sir.
Mr. President, in summary I remind the distinguished Senator from Louisiana that I rise in support of his amendment but that his amendment will result in a vast flow of funds out of the Northeast of the United States down into the South and across the West. One might think of it as flowing out of Lake Chautauqua, where the Ohio rises, flowing into that very bayou the Senator so desires to widen — a desire with which I share — and it will flow out into what was once called the great American desert, which has been turned green by a flow of funds from the Northeast.
Somewhat illogically in hydrological terms, it will flow over the Great Divide and down the Columbia River through the turbines of the Grand Coulee, only to return — because the Grand Coulee pays back.
In a short while now this Senate will take up an amendment where equally the question of legitimate expectations will arise, the expectations of the high unemployment States, that the formula of the Public Works Act adopted in 1976 will be continued; and we shall be grateful for the support of those States that we support now when this next amendment arises.
I anticipate the support of my friend from Louisiana, and I thank him in advance.
Thank you, Mr. President.