Statement of-Continued Minish, Hon. Joseph, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey - Page 749 Mottl, Hon. Ronald M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio.. Nelson, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of Panuzio, Nicholas A., president, Panuzio Associates, Bridgeport, Rubin, Florence R., urban policy chair, League of Women Voters of the United States.. Sklar, Morton H., revenue sharing project director, Center for Na- Taylor, William, director, Center for National Policy Review... Altman, Roger C., Assistant Secretary for Domestic Finance, U.S. Comments on testimony by Center for National Policy Review. 541 28 802 492 629 712 675 85 594 899–907 896 Beame, Abraham D., Chairman of the Advisory Commission on Potential grant consolidation and number of grants involved. 364 356 Table 2.-State share of total State-local tax revenue (frequency 358 360 Table 3.-State share of State-local expenditure from own funds. April 15, 1980, letter from Governor Byrne re distinction between 800 752-798 Cantor, Arnold, assistant director, department of economic research, Table 1.-State and local government outlays for new construc- 730 Table 2.-Unemployment by selected State and metropolitan areas. 732 Table 3.-Federal grants to States and localities... 734 739 Table 5.-State share of State-local expenditure from own funds. 737 272-273 Corrada, Hon. Baltasar, Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico: 568-569 571-572 State government tax collections and excise tax-1978- 574-575 676-702 DeGood, Douglas, mayor, Toledo, Ohio, representing the U.S. Funds passed through to local governments.. 80 48-55 Letters, statements, etc.-Continued Fazio, Hon. Vic, a Representative in Congress from the State of Page 823-852 318-333 668-674 Francois, Francis B., councilman, Prince Georges County, representing 588-593 Information concerning severance taxes_ 491 428-479 Hyde, Hon. Henry J., a Representative in Congress from the State of 382-419 Jones, Hon. James R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 26-27 Kindness, Hon. Thomas N., a Representative in Congress from the 547-553 House bill concerning revenue sharing- 557-565 Litwin, Theodore, first selectman of Litchfield, Conn., representing the National Association of Towns and Townships: May 6, 1980, letter to Chairman Fountain, from Barton D. Russell, executive director, NATAT, re how many towns or townships are inactive units of government. 349-351 Luken, Hon. Thomas A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio: Prepared statement... 64-66 233-263 Marlin, Dr. John Tepper, president, Council on Municipal Performance: Prepared statement... Marshall, James F., executive director, Assembly of Governmental 536-539 Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of 580-584 Miller, G. William, Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the 860-869 Mollohan, Hon. Robert H., a Representative in Congress from the 72-76 Nelson, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of 41-43 Panuzio, Nicholas A., president, Panuzio Associates, Bridgeport, 806-821 Pashayan, Hon. Charles, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 57-62 Railsback, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of 67-69 Rattley, Jessie M., president, National League of Cities: Prepared statement. 267-270 Ritter, James P., a representative of the Pennsylvania House of Representative, on behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures: Prepared statement_ 525-534 Recommendations concerning categorical grants___. 500-516 Rubin, Florence R., urban policy chair, League of Women Voters of the United States: Prepared statement. 658-665 Report entitled "Citizen Participation and General Revenue Sharing, 1976–80” 631-656 Letters, statements, etc.-Continued Sklar, Morton H., revenue sharing project director, Center for National Policy Review, Catholic University Law School: Information on jurisdictions which did not comply fully with citizen participation requirements.. Page 715-716 Solomon, Sandra, director of government affairs, National Urban Prepared statement_ __ Prepared statement on behalf of M. Carl Holman.. 704 705-709 Staats, Elmer B., Comptroller General of the United States, U.S. Information concerning single audit concept.. 189 Opportunities to achieve savings in Federal assistance programs 140-163 Prepared statement.. 91-124 Statement concerning our report on the problems involved with 165-179 States funds passed through to local governments in fiscal year 132-134 Taylor, William, director, Center for National Policy Review: Prepared statement. 597-628 Vander Jagt, Hon. Guy, a Representative in Congress from the State 70-71 855 STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1972 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1980 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND HUMAN RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. L. H. Fountain (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives L. H. Fountain, Ted Weiss, Mike Synar, John W. Wydler, Clarence J. Brown, and Olympia J. Snowe. Also present: Representative Frank Horton of New York. Staff present: Delphis C. Goldberg, professional staff member; Pamela H. Welch, secretary; and John Faso, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. Mr. FOUNTAIN. The subcommittee will come to order. Since some of you will have to leave early, I will yield first to Mr. Wydler. I will make my statement later. Mr. WYDLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased this morning that the subcommittee will begin consideration of one of the most important and successful domestic programs general revenue sharing. It seems like only yesterday that our subcommittee last considered this program. You will recall that last time the subcommittee spent many hours and over 15 days of hearings in a thorough examination of the program. The fact that we fulfilled our oversight responsibilities on this matter can largely be attributed to the conscientious manner in which this subcommittee, under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, conducted its business. Though we are not scheduled for as many days of hearings this time around, I know that the committee work will be no less important. While I am pleased with you, Mr. Chairman, I must say I am anything but pleased with the administration. In fact, I am appalled that Secretary Miller is not before us here this morning to explain the administration's position on the largest piece of domestic legislation which the Congress will consider during this session. However, we alone should not be affronted. I am told that the administration also decided not to appear before Senator Bradley's subcommittee just a few weeks ago. Perhaps everyone in the Treasury Department and the White House staff has been too busy traveling around the country to selected primary States. Indeed, I am told that one of the reasons the administration is not here this morning is that a detailed announcement of proposed cuts in the budget is being withheld until after the New York primary next Tuesday. I would hope that in between the primaries the administration could find some time to run the country, though I think it rather unlikely. Many times issues seem to get narrowed down to one or two points of contention. So it is here. There is little doubt that Congress will reenact the local share of revenue sharing in some form or other. However, the big issue will be whether or not State governments will continue to participate. I believe they should, and I believe it would be a mistake for Congress to take them out. We hear this argument about States' surplus. The argument goes something like this: Why should the Federal Government, while running a deficit, give revenue sharing moneys to State governments while they have a surplus? I think the argument is superficial since it ignores the important points. The real question should be, if that rationale is used, why should States be eligible for any of the more than $82 billion in aid that the Federal Government makes available to States and localities? I would hope that witnesses who come before us during our hearings will be able to tell me why they think States should not get revenue sharing, but should continue to be eligible for highway aid, water aid, sewer construction, and so forth, to the tune of about $82 billion of Federal funds. Why single out revenue sharing? I suspect that those pointing to the State share really do not support the program anyway. But they know that they cannot eliminate the local portion. Second, why go after revenue sharing when it has been one of the most successful programs ever devised to aid States and localities by the Federal Government? Not only has it been the most successful, but it also has been one of the most responsible from a budgetary point of view. According to the House Budget Committee, general revenue sharing payments over the last 5 years have increased at a rate of 12 percent. On the other hand, AFDC has gone up 31 percent. Social service programs have increased 48 percent. Highway programs have gone up 48 percent. Elementary and secondary education programs have gone up 51 percent. Unemployment payments have increased 66 percent. EPA water programs have gone up 78 percent. Medicaid has gone up 81 percent. Health services have gone up 81 percent. CETA has gone up 152 percent. Subsidized housing has gone up 156 percent. Mass transit grants are up 247 percent. All of these may be worthwhile programs, but I fail to see the logic in cutting the one program that has added the least to the Federal deficit. What is the administration doing about the almost 500 individual categorical grant-in-aid programs which spread the bureaucracy rules and regulations over America? State and local officials would much prefer the Congress to make cuts in categorical aid. |