November 14, 1979
Page 32283
Mr. NELSON. I did not yield to the Senator. Speak on your own time if you wish.
Now, we struck a compromise which, I think, is reasonable. There is no perfect formula. As I said, I would rather have the formula the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Minnesota are advocating, but that was not what we could get passed.
Furthermore, it is fair to bake into consideration increased energy costs of people who come from warmer States. If you are poor and have to cook your meals you have to cook them whether you live in Florida, Louisiana, or Texas or California, and it comes out of your pocket—you have to eat just like everybody else.
Now, we took into consideration therefore as half the formula the household energy costs.
I will agree with the Senator it would be better if we had the facts to determine precisely what the costs were for poor people. But those facts are not available any place in the United States, and we directed that they be made available by HEW. They were directed by the Finance Committee to conduct a study and give us the figures so that we could tailor them in a more accurate fashion to the needs of the poor. On that score I agree with the Senator from Maine.
But we do not have the figures. There is nothing we can do about that at this time.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I was very much interested in that debate. I thought it was educational. The Senator from Wisconsin has gone through much of the debate we went through in the Committee on Finance and has repeated a good deal of it. I understand they had the same kind of debate in the Committee on Labor and Human Resources.
I heard my distinguished friend from Maine say he could get along better with heat than he could with cold.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BENTSEN. Let me finish my thought and then I would be delighted to yield. I did not interrupt the Senator.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be glad to yield to either Senator in the course of my remarks. I did not realize that exchange was unprofitable.
Mr. BENTSEN. Fine.
Mr. MUSKIE. You know I do not mind being challenged as to my conclusions. But I would like to make sure that the assumption upon which I base my conclusions is fully understood.
Mr. BENTSEN. Fine.
Mr. MUSKIE. With respect to myself, whether it is in Maine or in Texas or in Washington or in Florida, I would find heat, within the parameters that we know heat in America — we might not in the Sahara — more tolerable than I can the kind of cold that we know in the coldest places in America. In other words. I could compromise with air-conditioning more than I could compromise in protection against the kind of cold that we know.
Mr. BENTSEN. My friend, I do not think I was excluding that, but I was making the point that each of us has been reared in an environment, and Maine is one of the most beautiful States in this country, and while I thoroughly enjoy it, I understand they do not have the air-conditioning problem in the summer. That is where the rich flee to in the summer but, unfortunately, my poor cannot do that. They cannot go up there. The heat is a serious problem in this country.
Let me give the Senator an example of some of the problems of heat. Here is a headline which is out of the Dallas Times-Herald. "Heat Wave Blamed for 21 Deaths." Then it talks about a hot streak "July 2 101 degrees every day through July 19, over 100-degree days." It talks about the deaths of people.
Mr. President, I see the Senator from Kansas seeking recognition.
Mr. DOLE addressed the chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 810
(Subsequently numbered amendment No. 594)
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand the amendment the Senator from Kansas offered in the nature of a substitute was subject to a point of order, so I will now send to the desk a perfecting amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The substitute amendment was not in order.
Mr. DOLE. I am sending a perfecting amendment to the Boschwitz amendment to the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) for himself, Mr. WILLIAMS and Mr. LONG proposes an unprinted amendment numbered 810.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 22, line 23, strike out "one-half" and insert in lieu thereof "one-half (subject to paragraphs (3) through (7) of this subsection)"
On page 23, line 4, strike out "one-half" and insert in lieu thereof "one-half (subject to paragraphs (3) through (7) of this subsection)"
On page 23, line 5, in lieu of the language proposed to be inserted, insert the following: multiplied by the number of households in such State having incomes equal to or less than the lower living standard income level bears to the sum of such products for all States.
(3) If the allotment for any State determined under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection is less than $100,000,000, the allotment of such State shall, subject to paragraphs (6) and (7) of this subsection, be the greater of its allotement as so determined under such paragraphs or the product of the total amount available for allotment under this subsection and such State's alternative allotment percentage.
(4) The alternative allotment percentage for any State shall equal the percentage of 90 per centum of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 1981 under section 4(b) which would be allotted to such State if—
(A) of such 90 per centum (1) one-half was allotted to each State according to the ratios determined under paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section and (ii) one-half was allotted to each State according to the ratios which would be determined under paragraph (2) of such subsection (a) if, for purposes of such paragraph, the term "lower living standard" were defined as 125 per centum of the poverty level as determined in accordance with the criteria established by the Office of Management and Budget; and
(B) the allotment of each State as determined under subparagraph (A) were increased to the extent necessary (as determined by the Secretary on the basis of what he determines to be the best available information) so that, if such allotment were divided in a manner such that the amount for all recipient households in such State consisting of one individual were equal, and the amount for all other recipient households in such State were equal to 150 per centum of such amount for a one-individual household, sufficient additional amounts would be available to assure that the amount for each recipient household would be at least $120.
(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term "recipient household" means—
(A) a household that is an eligible household under section 3(i) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 and participates in the food stamp program, but which is not a recipient household under subparagraph (B) (3);
(B) a household that contains any individual who receives aid to families with dependent children under a State plan approved under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act, but which is not a recipient household under subparagraph (C); and
(C) a household that contains an individual who is an eligible individual or eligible spouse receiving supplemental security income benefits under title XVI of the Social Security Act, or an individual receiving payments from the Secretary under an agreement entered into by the Secretary under section 1616 of such Act or section 212 of Public Law 93-66.
For purposes of subparagraphs (B) and (C) the term "household" shall be defined by the Secretary, and shall not include an institution.
(6) The allotment of any State shall be increased under paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection only if the increase is attributable in whole or part to the provisions of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4).
(7) The allotments for any fiscal year determined under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection which are not increased pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection shall be adjusted to the extent necessary and on a pro rata basis to assure that the total of such allotments when added to the allotments which are increased pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection do not exceed 95 per centum of the sums appropriated for such fiscal year pursuant to section 4(b).
Mr. DOLE. I might say that this amendment is not subject to a point of order. It has been discussed with the Parliamentarian. If the amendment is adopted, we would also strike page 23, lines 6 through 9, so it will not appear twice.
As I said, this is the formula found in S. 1724 with the Finance Committee floor, and it is the best judgment of everybody on the Committee on Finance and everybody on the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, and I am prepared to vote on it.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, first, I would like to make clear to my good friend from Wisconsin that I did not suggest nor did I intend to suggest that he did not fully consider the issues in the Labor and Human Resources Committee or in the Committee on Finance. I did suggest, and intended to suggest, that the result was an improper response, an inappropriate response, to the nature of the problem for every State across the country.
I would have said so in committee. I do not think the fact that you considered these issues in those two committees makes your work the final wisdom on this issue. I do not think the fact that we disagree on the floor means we are not equipped to challenge that wisdom.
With respect to facts, the Senator says there are no facts bearing on these issues anywhere in the United States. I respectfully — and I emphasize respectfully — disagree. All the facts may not be available, but surely it would not be difficult to go into any State to get a survey of what poor households spend for cooking. We cook in Maine, too. If it takes energy to cook in Florida, it takes energy to cook in Maine, so that there is not a difference in energy costs in the South that offsets heating costs in the North. That is a common problem, using energy to cook.
Electric lights, sure they use electric lights in the South and in the North. But I suspect that the lighting season, the artificial lighting season, in the North is greater than it is in the South.
I do not go to the South that often, but I find the days longer and brighter, less cloud covered; so I suspect that lighting costs are heavier in the North than in the South.
With respect to transportation costs, those do not vary so much on the basis of whether a State is in the South or the North, but how sparsely settled it is. There are people in my State who drive 200 miles a day to get to their work, 100 miles each way. There is no public transportation. We were the first State in the Union to lose rail passenger service, and it has never returned. Our communities are not large enough to support transportation in the form of buses, by and large, so our people have to use the automobile, and they car pool. Bath Iron Works, one of the/ premier shipbuilding yards In the country, draws workers from a radius of 50 miles, and they car pool; but still they have no alternative in the form of public transportation.
So these kinds of analyses of the energy costs of the poor can be rather rapidly identified in my State, or in any State. And to ignore that fact by saying no facts at all are available, no realistic impressions at all are available to try to measure the relative urgency of the problems of the poor in warm States, cold States, Southern States, Northern States, Eastern States, or Western States — I think there are very clear impressions that can be gathered, as the Senator himself has suggested with respect to the State of Wisconsin.
What we really ask, you know, of our colleagues in the warmer States of the country, is the kind of understanding of our problems that the Senator from Wisconsin gives to them with respect to their problems. It was suggested earlier today that we ought to consider a formula that distributes the money basically on the basis of population, to guarantee that no State will get less than 70 percent of what it would get by a population distribution, and that no State ought to get more than 140 percent of what it would get with a population distribution.
Now, what kind of connection is there between that approach and the heating needs of the poor people of the North? But, no, we are dealing with a pragmatic exercise. So the answer of the Senator from Kansas to those of us who have a problem finding equity in this bill for the cold States is to partly reduce our equity — not by much, but that is his answer to the people of the cold States: To set a minimum which benefits no cold State, but benefits Louisiana, Mississippi, and Hawaii, three warm States. His amendment is to raise the amount those States would get under the committee bill, and that money would come from the rest of the States, including the cold States of the North. That is his answer to the problem.
I contrast his attitude toward States with different circumstances than his own with the attitude of the Senator from Wisconsin, who is willing to move in the direction of the warmer States and the energy problems of the people in the warmer States.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Kansas takes the reverse approach.
Yes, I yield.
Mr. DOLE. I tried in committee to do what I think the Senator from Maine is trying to do now. I did not succeed. We went around and around for about a week in the Finance Committee.
As the Senator suggests, certainly everybody has a right to question the wisdom of our committees. All wisdom is not lodged in the Finance Committee or in the Human Resources Committee; but we finally came up with something that there was nearly unanimous support for in the committee. I would suggest that the Senator from Kansas was traveling down the same road the Senator from Maine is now on, and I was derailed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand that what the Senator's amendment does is simply modify the committee bill by establishing the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Right.
Mr. MUSKIE. So that my description of it is accurate; you move away from any relief for the colder States and toward relief for three States, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Hawaii; in a bill designed to protect people who are cold from the consequences of higher heating costs.
Mr. DOLE. Right; it is to protect people who are poor. That is the theory of my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand the purpose of the floor, and I was willing to consider a floor.
Mr. DOLE. The poor and the floor, I think, are in my amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand what the Senator is saying, and I understand what I am saying, and I think what I am saying is a more accurate description of the Senator's amendment than what he is saying.
Mr. President, there seems to be no disposition to debate this issue further, and I think we can get to the heart of the problem before us if we dispose of the Dole amendment. So I move to lay on the table the amendment of the Senator from Kansas, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. TSONGAS) . Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the perfecting amendment of the Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE) . On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced — yeas 41, nays 50, as follows:
[Roll call vote tally omitted]