November 15, 1979
Page 32576
HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE ACT
The Senate continued with the consideration of S. 1724.
UP AMENDMENT NO 822
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I hope I have useful information for the Members of the Senate.
Pending is the compromise amendment that has been offered, regarding the formula under the fuel assistance bill. There has been general debate, and out of that discussion has come one suggestion for an additional amendment that will protect against any inequity that might appear later in the administering of this program. This measure is now being drafted. It is substantive, but it is of modest dimension in this bill. When the drafting is completed, we will offer it.
At this point, if there is any further discussion on the formula compromise in the amendment pending, I suggest that now would be an appropriate time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, since the pending amendment is the product of compromise between those who held the perspective of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota and myself and between the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Louisiana and others, I think I should at least say publicly that I am for it.
The amendment now before the Senate takes an important step toward addressing the needs that I see among poor people in the Northern Tier States and the needs that I tried to impress on the Senate yesterday. It represents, I think, a responsible and responsive approach to the objectives set out by the Labor and Human Resources Committee in its report on this bill.
At the same time, Mr. President, the allocation formula contained in this amendment provides substantial protection to all States. It assures a level of assistance adequate to meet the needs that my colleagues from warmer States see among their own constituencies.
In short, Mr. President, the amendment strikes a balance — a balance between strong regional interests, the kind of balance that is needed to gain consensus in this body.
As my colleagues from New Jersey, the distinguished floor manager of the bill, has described, the formula in this amendment strikes a middle path between the one in the committee bill and the Boschwitz-Muskie amendment. Almost without exception, it places State allocations squarely within the parameters defined by those two proposed formulas.
For the few States whose allocations would fall below the level provided by both the committee and the Boschwitz-Muskie formulas, there is an important protection.
The amendment provides that, in those cases, States will be guaranteed the minimum level of assistance they would have received under Boschwitz-Muskie or under the committee formula.
In other words, Mr. President, no State will receive less than the least it would have received under one of the two alternatives. We have achieved a fairer distribution of assistance and at the same time protected every State within the limits of the proposals we had before us.
It is an equitable solution to the question of how this bill should distribute assistance. And I recommend it to my colleagues.
Mr. President, for 21 years, I have seen these debates over formulas for the distribution of funds to the States. They are always very difficult, because any change in a formula inevitably generates resistance from those who have a vested interest in the formula which it is proposed to change.
In the case of this particular problem, we have considered at least a half dozen formulas. But the amendment before us represents, in my judgment, an unusual and effective compromise. I compliment the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee and the distinguished floor leader for crafting this compromise.
What it does is this, in simple terms: It compares the Boschwitz amendment, the committee amendment, and a compromise. Twenty-eight States would benefit most from the Boschwitz amendment. Seventeen States would benefit most from the committee bill. The proposed compromise would be a benefit to only two States, as compared with the other two formulas.
So what the compromise requires is that every State back off from its preferred position. Those States which supported the Boschwitz amendment and those which supported the committee amendment — both groups — must give something in order to arrive at the compromise.
As one looks at the allocations to the different States, by and large, the compromise falls close to the middle between the two formulas.
There are some exceptions for which provision has been made. One of those provisions is that no State will get less than the lower of the two alternatives that were pending yesterday. But for that provision, five States would have received less. I think that was a wise provision, because there is no justice in a compromise which hurts States to a greater extent than the propositions which were being compromised.
Now we are considering another provision that reflects a response, and I think an appropriate response, to a problem surfaced by the distinguished Senators from Alabama. That proposal has the support of those who put this compromise together.
So to those who joined Senator BOSCHWITZ and me yesterday in supporting the Boschwitz amendment, I state that, in my judgment, this is a fair compromise; it is a thoughtful compromise. It represents a genuine effort to cooperate and to accommodate on the part of those who were involved in developing it; I compliment them, and I urge the Senate to support this compromise.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Jersey yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield the floor.
Mr. JAVITS. I would like the Senator to answer a question, if the Senator will give me his attention.
This $25 million fund which the Senator is now trying to set up as an addition to what we all understood was a balanced program worked out over a period of days — will that be a fund for the purpose of assuring that the percentages of the aggregate appropriation, which are listed on the charts which have been distributed and used here, are attained, or does the Senator intend to make some change in the formula itself ?
The reason I ask the question is this: I understand that in the run — that is, the computer run which developed these figures — the $120 minimum was not an element, and that may introduce variables into these figures. So I think it is important to find out whether the $25 million is going to change this formula or is going to be a fund to be sure that everybody gets what they think they are going to get.
Mr. WILLIAMS. Because this is an additional amount, it will not change the figures that appear in the formula that was arrived at.
Mr. JAVITS. So the answer is the latter — that is, it is an assurance that everybody will get what they believe they are going to get from consulting these tables.
Mr. WILLIAMS. And if it should develop that, for reasons we cannot describe now, there is any problem in meeting that, this fund would be available for that purpose.
Mr. JAVITS. That sounds all right to me. On that basis, I concur with Senator MUSKIE.
Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate that.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield.
Mr. HATCH. It is my understanding that, to the extent those funds are needed, they would be utilized ; and if they are not needed, they would be returned.
Mr. WILLIAMS. To the General Treasury.
Mr. HATCH. That is correct. They are part of the authorization; is that correct?
Mr. WILLIAMS. They will be when it is agreed to, yes.