Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515934
label
Revenue Sharing - Votes in 1972
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515934
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Revenue Sharing - Votes in 1972
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Legislation
Revenue sharing
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515934
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1972-10-31
month
10
year
1972
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1972-06-01
month
6
year
1972
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
94d7bbedeb432db0
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 31, folder "Revenue Sharing - Votes in 1972" of
the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 31 of the James M. Cannon Files
at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
D.C.
House passage of Revenue
Sharing. H.R. 14370. Vote
Number 147.
CQ vote 146 is Motion to
recommit
FORD
CQ House Votes 146-152
GERALD
LIBRAR
- KEY -
146
147
148T)
149T
150T
151T
152
146
147
148T
1491
1507
151T
152
146
147
1481
149T
150T
1517
152
Y Record vote for (yea).
Paired for.
# Announced for.
4 McKinney
N / N N N N N
Y
KANSAS
8 O'Neill
NV
Y
N
N
# CQ poll for.
5 Monagan
YNYNNNY
1 Sebelius
YN
N
N
9 Hicks
NYYYNNY
N Record vote against (nay).
6 Grasso
NY
2 Roy
YN
Z
10 Heckler
NYNYNYY
X Paired against.
DELAWARE
3 Winn
NYNYNNY
11 Burke
NYYNNYY
Announced against.
AL DuPont
YYNYNNY
4 Shriver
NYNYNNY
12 Keith
N??????
. CQ poll against.
FLORIDA
5
Skubitz
YY
MICHIGAN
? Not voting, voted "present," did
1 Sikes
YN
N
N
KENTUCKY
1 Conyers
NY
N
not announce or answer poll.
2 Fuqua
1 Stubblefield
N
Y
N
N
N
2 Esch
T Recorded teller vote.
3 Bennett
Y
N
N
N
2 Natcher
YYNNNNY
3 Brown
YYNNNY
4 Chappell
Y
N
Z
N
3 Mazzoli
Y
Y
Z
4
YN
N
Y
N
146
147
148T
1491
150T
151T
152
5 Frey
Y
N
N
N
4 Snyder
YN
Y
5 Ford
NYNNNIY
6 Gibbons
Y
N
Z
N
5 Carter
NYNN?NY
6 Chamberlain
N
Y
N
N
N
7 Haley
Y
N
N
6 Curlin
NY78???
7 Riegle
NY
?
ALABAMA
8 Young
Y
N
N
7 Perkins
NYNNNN
8 Harvey
Y
Y
?
N
I Edwards
YYN
N
N
N
Y
9 Rogers
N
N
N
LOUISIANA
9 Vander Jagt
NYNNNIA
2
YYN
Y
10 Burke
??
1 Hebert
N
Y
10 Cederberg
YY
N
N
N
a
3 Andrews, E.
?
?
11 Pepper
NY
2 Boggs
NYNNNNT
11 Ruppe
NYNYNE
4 Nichols
NYN
N
12 Fascell
NYYNYYY
3 Caffery
N
Y
Z
12 O'Hara
NY
?
5 Flowers
YYNNNNY
GEORGIA
4 Waggonner
YN
N
N
13 Diggs
Y
6
NYN
Z
N
Y
1 Hagan
??
5 Passman
YN
N
N
N
14 Nedzi
N
Y
N
7 Bevill
NY
2 Mathis
YNNN
6 Rarick
YNNYYYI
15 Ford
N
Y
N
8 Jones
YN
Z
3 Brinkley
Y Y
7 Vacancy
16 Dingell
N
Y
N
ALASKA
4 Blackburn
YNNNN#
8 Long
Y
17 Griffiths
N
Y
?
AL Begich
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
5 Thompson
NY
MAINE
18 Broomfield
NY
ARIZONA
6 Flynt
YN
N
1 Kyros
NYYNYYY
19
NYNNIH
I Rhodes
NY
N
N
Y
7 Davis
NY
N
2
NYYNNNY
MINNESOTA
2 Udall
NY
8 Stuckey
Y
N
MARYLAND
I Quie
NYNYMMY
3 Steiger
NY
Y
9 Landrum
NY
I Mills
NYNNNN
2 Nelsen
NY
ARKANSAS
10 Stephens
NY
2 Long
YN
Y
Y
3 Frenzel
N
Y
1 Alexander
YN
Y
Y
HAWAII
3 Garmatz
NY
?
N
N
N
4 Karth
N
Y
z
2 Mills
NY
?
?
1 Matsunaga
NYNNNN
4 Sarbanes
NY
N
Y
5 Fraser
NY
3 Hammerschmidt Y
N
7
7
2 Mink
NYYNY
5 Hogan
NYN
Z
6 Zwach
NY
?
4 Pryor
??
IDAHO
6 Byron
NNYYNN
7 Bergland
NY
N
CALIFORNIA
1 McClure
7 Mitchell
8 Blatnik
X
?
I Clausen
NY
?
2 Hansen
NNNNN
N
8 Gude
N
Y
NN
N
MISSISSIPPI
2 Johnson
N Y
Z
ILLINOIS
MASSACHUSETTS
1 Abernethy
3 Moss
Y N
Y
1 Metcalfe
1 Conte
NYN
N
Z
2 Whitten
YNNNNMY
4 Leggett
NY
?
2 Mikva
NYYNNN
2 Boland
NY
3 Griffin
YNN
N
N
5 Burton
YN
Z
Z
3 Murphy, M.
NY
3 Drinan
NYYN
Y
4 Montgomery
YNN
6 Mailliard
#
4 Derwinski
Y
Y
N
4 Donohue
NY
N
.
5 Colmer
YN
?
1
7 Dellums
NY
Z
Y
5
NY
5 Vacancy
MISSOURI
8 Miller
NY
6 Collins
NY
N
6 Harrington
NY
Y
N
Y
1 Clay
NY
?
9 Edwards
NY
Z
Y
7 Annunzio
N
Y
N
7
NYY
N
2 Symington
NY
N
10 Gubser
N
Y
Z
z
8 Rostenkowski
N
Y
N
N
11 McCloskey
NY
9 Yates
N
Y
N
12 Talcott
N
Y
N
N
10 Collier
NYNYNNY
13 Teague
NY
11 Pucinski
N
Y
N
14 Waldie
X
12 McClory
NYNYNK
15 McFall
YN
13 Crane
YN
N
16 Sisk
YN
N
N
14 Erlenborn
#
17 Anderson
NY
15 Carlson
NYNNNNY
18 Mathias
N
16 Anderson
146. HR 14370. Revenue Sharing With the States
NYN
N
Y
N
N
19 Holifield
17 Arends
N
Y
N
Byrnes (R Wis.) motion to recommit the bill (vote 147, below)
YN
N
20 Smith
YN
18 Michel
Y
N
N
to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to report.
21 Hawkins
NY
?
19 Railsback
N
Y
it back after deleting retroactive payment of $2.65-billion
22 Corman
YN
20 Findley
Y
N
for fiscal year 1972. Rejected 157-241: R 61-104; D 96-137 (ND
23 Clauson
YN
21 Gray
N
Y
N
N
24 Rousselot
YN
22 Springer
NYNNNNY
43-113; SD 53-24), June 22, 1972. A "nay" was a vote supporting
25 Wiggins
YY
N
23 Shipley
NYNNNN
the President's position.
26 Rees
Y N
Z
24 Price
NY
N
27 Goldwater
N
INDIANA
147. HR 14370. Revenue Sharing With the States.
YN
N
28 Bell
NY
Z
1 Madden
N
Y
Passage of the bill providing assistance payments totaling
29 Danielson
NY
2
Y
N
N
N
$29.6-billion over five years to states and to local governments
30 Roybal
YNNNNN
3 Brademas
Y
N
N
for high-priority expenditures, encouraging states to broaden
31 Wilson
NY
4 Roush
N
Y
N
their tax systems and authorizing federal collection of state
32 Hosmer
#YNYNN
5 Hillis
NYNNNN
6 Bray
Y
N
personal income taxes. Passed 275-122: R 122-42; D 153-80 (ND
33 Pettis
.
1
#
N
N
34 Hanna
Y Y
7 Myers
YN
N
124-32; SD 29-48), June 22, 1972. A "yea" was a vote supporting
35 Schmitz
8 Zion
N
Y
N
the President's position.
36 Wilson
NYNYNN
9
N
Y
37 Van Deerlin
Y
N
N
10 Dennis
Y
N
N
148(T). HR 15585. Treasury Department-Postal Ser-
38 Veysey
NYNYN
11 Jacobs
YN
vice Appropriations, Fiscal 1973. Macdonald (D Mass.)
COLORADO
IOWA
amendment decreasing by $2-million, to $1-million from $3-
1 McKevitt
NY
1 Schwengel
N
Y
million, funds for salaries and expenses of the Office of Tele-
2 Brotzman
NYNYN
N
2 Culver
N
Z
3 Gross
communications Policy. Rejected by recorded teller vote 148-
3 Evans
?
YN
4 Aspinall
YN
Z
Z
4 Kyl
YY
N
188: R 7-140; D 141-48 (ND 112-15; SD 29-33), June 22. 1972.
CONNECTICUT
5 Smith
Y Y
N
1 Cotter
NY
z
6 Mayne
149(T) HR 15585. Treasury Department-Postal Ser-
NY
2 Steele
NYN
Y
7 Scherle
YN
vice Appropriations, Fiscal 1973. Gross R Iowa) amendment
3 Giaimo
NX
z
deleting all funds in the bill ($100,000) for the salaries and
expenses of the Commission on Executive, Legislative and
Democrats
Republicans
46-H-1972 CQ ALMANAC
Corresponding to Congressional Record roll-call votes 219, 220, 222(T), 223(T), 224(T),
225(T), 226
146
147
148T
149T.
150T
151T
152
146
147
148T
149T
150T
151T
152
146
147
148T
1491
150T
151T
152
146
147
1487
149T
150T
151T
152
3 Sullivan
NY
4 Wydler
N
Y
6 Preyer
NY
5 Gettys
YN
N
N
Y
4 Randall
YYN
N
Y
N
5 Lent
NY
Z
7 Lennon
YN
6 McMillan
X
5 Bolling
YN
#
6 Halpern
NYN
N
8 Ruth
NY
SOUTH DAKOTA
6 Hull
YN
N
N
N
N
#:
7
N Y
9 Jonas
YN
1 Denholm
YN
Y
Y
7 Hall
YNN
Y
N
N
8 Rosenthal
NY
10 Broyhill
NY
2 Abourezk
YN
N
Y
Y
8 Ichord
Y Y
?
?
?
9 Delaney
N Y
N
11 Taylor
NY
TENNESSEE
9 Hungate
Y Y
Y
10 Celler
NY
NORTH DAKOTA
I Quillen
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
10 Burlison
NYN
N
N
N
11 Brasco
N
Y
1 Andrews
X
2 Duncan
NYN
N
Y
Y
MONTANA
12 Chisholm
N Y
2 Link
NY
3 Baker
Y N
?
I Shoup
YNN
N
Z
13 Podell
N Y
OHIO
4 Evins
NY
Y
2 Melcher
NYYN
Y
N
14 Rooney
N
Y
N
N
/ Keating
NYN
5 Fulton
NY
NEBRASKA
15 Carey
N Y
2 Clancy
YN
N
6 Anderson
NY
?
?
I Thone
N
Y
Z
Y
Y
16 Murphy
N Y
3 Whalen
NY
N
Z
7 Blanton
??
?
2
N
Y
N
N
N
17 Koch
N
Y
4 McCulloch
Y Y
N
8 Jones
YN
N
N
Y
3 Martin
YNN
N
18 Rangel
N
Y
N
5 Latta
NY
N
N
9 Kuykendall
NYN
NEVADA
19 Abzug
N Y
N
6 Harsha
NY
TEXAS
AL Baring
YNN
20 Ryan
N Y
7 Brown
Y Y
N
1 Patman
NN
NEW HAMPSHIRE
21 Badillo
N Y
N
8 Betts
NY
2 Dowdy
X
?
I Wyman
NY
N
N
22 Scheuer
N Y
9 Ashley
Y N
3 Collins
YYN
N
2 Cleveland
NY
N
23 Bingham
N Y
10 Miller
N Y
N
4 Roberts
YN
N
N
Y
NEW JERSEY
24 Biaggi
N Y
N
11 Stanton
YY
5 Cabell
YN
N
7
Y
I Hunt
NYN
N
25 Peyser
N Y
N
12 Devine
YN
6 Teague
YN
?
2 Sandman
YNN
N
N
26 Reid
N Y
N
N
13 Mosher
. ?
7 Archer
YN
N
Y
Y
3 Howard
NY
N
27 Dow
N Y
N
14 Seiberling
NY
8 Eckhardt
Y Y
Y
Y
4 Thompson
X
28 Fish
N
Y
N
15 Wylie
N Y
9 Brooks
Y
N
7
Y
5 Frelinghuysen N
Y
N
N
N
29 Stratton
NY
16 Bou
Y Y
10 Pickle
Y N
N
Y
6 Forsythe
NY
N
N
30 King
NY
N
N
N
17 Ashbrook
Y N
Y
11 Poage
YN
N
Y
7 Widnall
N Y
31 McEuen
NY
N
N
18 Hays
Y Y
Y
z
12 Wright
Y N
Y
8 Roe
N Y
N
32 Pirnie
NY
?
19 Carney
NY
13 Purcell
Y N
Y
9 Helstoski
N Y
N
33 Robison
NY
N
20 Stanton
NY
Y
14 Young
YNN
Y
10 Rodino
N
Y
34 Terry
NYN
N
21 Stokes
NY
15 de la Garza
YN
N
Y
Y
11 Minish
N Y
35 Hanley
NY
22 Vanik
Y Y
16 White
YN
7
Y
12 Duyer
NY
36 Horton
NY
N
N
23 Minshall
NY
17 Burleson
YN
N
N
7
Y
13 Gallagher
? ?
37 Conable
NY
N
N
24 Powell
YN
N
N
18 Price
YN
Y
Y
14 Daniels
NY
38 Hastings
N Y
N
OKLAHOMA
19 Mahon
YN
N
Z
N
7
Y
15 Patten
YYN
39 Kemp
N Y
N
I Belcher
? ?
20 Gonzalez
YN
Z
Y
Y
NEW MEXICO
40 Smith
NY
N
2 Edmondson
Y N
N
21. Fisher
YNN
N
7
Y
1 Lujan
?X
41 Dulski
NY
N
3 Albert
N
N
22 Casey
YN
N
N
Y
2 Runnels
YN
NORTH CAROLINA
4 Steed
NN
N
N
N
23 Kazen
YN
Z
Y
Y
NEW YORK
1 Jones
YN
5 Jarman
NY
N
N
N
Y
UTAH
1 Pike
YN
N
2 Fountain
YY
6 Camp
YN
N
Y
1 McKay
YN
N
Y
2 Grover
NY
N
N
3 Henderson
YN
Y
OREGON
2 Lloyd
NYN
Z
Y
3 Wolff
NY
4 Galifianakis
NY
Y
I Wyatt
N
Y
Y
VERMONT
5 Mizell
NYN
Y
N
N
2 Ullman
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
AL Mallary
YN
N
Y
3 Green
YN
Y
Z
#
VIRGINIA
4 Dellenback
Y Y
?
1 Downing
YN
z
PENNSYLVANIA
2 Whitehurst
NYN
Z
N
Y
1 Barrett
N
Y
Y
3
YN
N
N
N
Y
2 Nix
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
4 Abbitt
Y N
?
?
3 Byrne
?
?
5 Daniel
YN
N
Y
4 Eilberg
N
Y
N
Y
Y
6 Poff
NY
5 Green
N Y
N
Y
Y
7 Robinson
YN
N
N
Judicial Salaries. Rejected by recorded teller vote 135-196: R
6 Yatron
#
8 Scott
YN
N
N
Y
92-49; D 43-147 (ND 20-111; SD 23-36), June 22, 1972.
7 Williams
N
Y
N
N
Y
9 Wampler
NYN
N
z
8 Biester
N Y
N
Y
10 Broyhill
YN
N
Z
150(T). HR 15585. Treasury Department-Postal Ser-
9 Ware
N
Y
N
N
Y
WASHINGTON
vice Appropriations, Fiscal 1973. Udall (D Ariz.) amend-
10 McDade
N
Y
N
Y
I Pelly
# #
11 Flood
Y Y
N
Y
2 Meeds
ment limiting salary expenses for employees of the Executive
YN
7
12 Whalley
Y Y
N
3 Hansen
NY
Office of the President to $29,737,760 and setting a personnel
13 Coughlin
N Y
N
4 McCormack
X
ceiling of 1,647 employees. Rejected by recorded teller vote
14 Moorhead
Y Y
Y
Y
5 Foley-
NYYNNN
122-210: R 11-133; D 111-77 (ND 84-40; SD 27-37), June 22,
15 Rooney
N Y
Y
Y
6 Hicks
NY
Y
1972.
16 Eshleman
N Y
Z
Z
Y
7 Adams
YN
N
17 Schneebeli
YN
Z
N
Y
WEST VIRGINIA
18 Heinz
N Y
N
z
Y
1 Mollohan
N Y
N
151(T) HR 15585. Treasury Department-Postal Ser-
19 Goodling
Y N
N
Z
Y
2 Staggers
Y N
vice Appropriations, Fiscal 1973. Jacobs (D Ind.) amendment
20 Gaydos
N Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
3 Slack
YN
Z
N
z
prohibiting the use of funds for the purchase or lease of chauf-
21 Dent
Y Y
Y
z
z
Y
Y
4 Hechler
YN
feurs or limousines for the use of any person other than the
22 Saylor
Y N
Y
N
Y
Y
5 Kee
NY
23 Johnson
Y Y
4
N
z
Y
WISCONSIN
President, cabinet members and employees of the Executive
24 Vigorito
Y N
Y
Z
Z
Y
1 Aspin
NY
Office of the President. Rejected by recorded teller vote
25 Clark
Y Y
Y
Y
N
Y
2 Kastenmeier
N Y
121-205: R 30-116; D 91-89 (ND 71-49; SD 20-40), June 22, 1972.
26 Morgan
N Y
Y
z
N
Y
3 Thomson
NY
N
N
27 Conover
N Y
N
Z
Y
4 Zablocki
N Y
z
152. HR 15585. Treasury Department-Postal Service
RHODE ISLAND
5 Reuss
N Y
1 St Germain
X
Y
?
?
Appropriations, Fiscal 1973. Passage of the bill appropriating
6 Steiger
Y Y
N
N
z
2 Tiernan
NYYNYYY
7 Obey
NY
$5,057,145,000 for the Treasury Department ($1,675,977,000),
SOUTH CAROLINA
8 Byrnes
YN
N
N
z
the U.S. Postal Service ($1,410,000,000), the Executive Office
1 Davis
X
?
?
9 Davis
YN
N
N
of the President ($179,446,000) and other independent agencies
2 Spence
Y Y
7
N
N
Y
10 O'Konski
NY
N
($1,791,722,000) for fiscal year 1973. Passed 322-11: R 143-6;
3 Dorn
N Y
7
N
z
Y
WYOMING
4 Mann
Y Y
z
N
Y
Y
AL Roncalio
D 179-5 (ND 120-2; SD 59-3), June 22, 1972.
N
Y
Y
1972 CQ ALMANAC-47-H
OFFICE OF THE VICE president
WASHINGTON, D.C.
JIM:
Enclosed are CQ votes
on Revenue Sharing. House and
Senate votes on final passage
and House Rule
maggie
(don't you remember - final
passage -- Agnes struck and
we all had dinner at Sans
Souci)
WASHINGTON, D.C.
House vote on Conference
Report on Revenue Sharing
CQ vote 308.
House recedes from disagreements
to Senate amendments
CO vote 309
CQ House Votes 303-309
- KEY -
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
COC
304
305
306
307
308
309
Y Record vote for (yea).
Paired for.
# Announced for.
4 McKinney
Y
Y Y
KANSAS
8 O'Neill
?
Y
Y
Y
# CQ poll for.
5 Monagan
Y
X #
/ Sebelius
N
N
Y
Y
9 Hicks
Y
Y
Y
Y
N Record vote against (nay).
6 Grasso
Y
Y Y
2 Roy
N
Y
10 Heckler
Y
Y
Y N
X Paired against.
DELAWARE
3 Winn
Y Y
11 Burke
Y
Y
Y
Announced against.
AL DuPont
Y
Y Y
4 Shriver
Y Y
12 Keith
Y
Y
Y
. CQ poll against.
FLORIDA
5 Skubitz
Y
Y
MICHIGAN
? Not voting, voted "present," did
1 Sikes
N Y
KENTUCKY
1
Y
N
Y
N
not announce or answer poll.
2 Fuqua
N
Y
Z
Y
1 Stubblefield
Y Y
2 Esch
N
Y
Y Y
T Recorded teller vote.
3 Bennett
Y
N
Y
2 Natcher
Y Y
3 Brown
Y
Y
Y
4 Chappell
N
N
Y
3 Mazzoli
N
Y Y
4 Hutchinson
N
N Y
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
5 Frey
N
Y
Y
4 Snyder
N
N
Y
5 Ford
Y Y
6 Gibbons
Y
N
Y
5 Carter
Z
Y
Y
6 Chamberlain
Y Y
7 Haley
?
X ?
6 Curlin
Y Y
7 Riegle
N
Y
N
ALABAMA
8 Young
N
N
Y
7 Perkins
Y N
8 Harvey
Y ?
1 Edwards
Y
9 Rogers
N
N
Y
LOUISIANA
Y
Y
9 Vander Jagt
N
Y #
2 Dickinson
10 Burke
YYY
N
N
Y
1 Hebert
N
N
?
N
10 Cederberg
N
Y Y
3 Andrews E.
Y
N
11 Pepper
Y
Y
N
N
Y
2 Boggs
Y Y
11 Ruppe
N
Y #
4 Nichols
#
12 Fascell
Y Y
3 Caffery
? ?
12 O'Hara
N
Y Y
5 Flowers
GEORGIA
7
Y
Y
Y
4 Waggonner
N
N
N
Y
13 Diggs
Y N
6 Buchanan
1 Hagan
N Y
5 Passman
Y
N
Y
14 Nedzi
Y N
N
Y Y
7 Bevill
2 Mathis
Z
Y Y Y
N
NN
6 Rarick
N
z
Z
Y
15 Ford
N
Y Y
8 Jones
3 Brinkley
N
N
N
7 Breaux
YNY
Y Y
16 Dingell
Y Y
ALASKA
4 Blackburn
X
#
8 Long
Y
Y
17 Griffiths
N
N
Y
AL Begich
YNN
5 Thompson
N
?
MAINE
18 Broomfield
N
Y
ARIZONA
6 Flynt
N
N
Y
1 Kyros
Y
N
19 McDonald
Y ?
1 Rhodes
7 Davis
Z
Y Y Y
?
N
Y
2 Hathaway
Y
N
MINNESOTA
2 Udall
8 Stuckey
N
Y
MARYLAND
Y N Y
I Quie
N
Y
3 Steiger
9 Landrum
Y
I Mills
?
?
Y
Y Y
2 Nelsen
YY
ARKANSAS
10 Stephens
Y
Y
2 Long
N
N
N Y
3 Frenzel
N
Y Y
1 Alexander
HAWAII
3 Garmatz
Y N Y
N
Y Y
4 Karth
Y Y
2 Mills
N
Y Y Y
1 Matsunaga
#
4 Sarbanes
Y N
5 Fraser
Y
Y
Y N
5 Hogan
Y Y
6 Zwach
FORD
N
Y N
3 Hammerschmidt
2 Mink
N
N
Y
Z
Y Y
4 Pryor
IDAHO
Y
Y Y
6 Byron
N
Z
Y
7 Bergland
Y Y
CALIFORNIA
1 McClure
? ?
7 Mitchell
N
Y N
8 Blatnik
Y Y
1 Clausen
2 Hansen
Y
Y Y
8 Gude
Y
Y
Y N
MISSISSIPPI
2 Johnson
ILLINOIS
MASSACHUSETTS
N
Y
Y
1
Y
N Y
3 Moss
1 Metcalfe
Y N
I Conte
Y N N
Y Y
2 Whitten
N
N Y
4 Leggett
2 Mikva
Y Y
2 Boland
Y
Y
Z
Y Y
3 Griffin
N
N Y
5 Burton
Y
3 Murphy, M.
Y Y
3 Drinan
N N
Y-
Y
4 Montgomery
NN
6 Mailliard
4 Derwinski
Y
Y
4 Donohue
Y Y
Y Y
5 Colmer
N Y
7 Dellums
Y N
5 Kluczynski
Y Y
5 Vacancy
MISSOURI
8 Miller
6 Collins
Y Y
Y N
6 Harrington
Y N
1 Clay
?
9 Edwards
7 Annunzio
Y N
Y
Y
7 Macdonald
N
Z
N
Y
Y
2 Symington
Y
10 Gubser
8 Rostenkowski
Y Y
N
Y
Y
11 McCloskey
9 Yates
Y Y
N
Y N
* John B. Breaux (D) sworn in Oct. 12
12 Talcott
Y Y
10 Collier
N
Y
13 Teague
11 Pucinski
Y Y
Y ?
14 Waldie
Y
N
12 McClory
N
Y
13 Crane
303 HR 16924. Military Pay. Passage of the bill autho-
15 McFall
N
N
X
?
16 Sisk
14 Erlenborn
N
N
Y
Y
rizing additional incentive pay and additional enlistment and
17 Anderson
Y N
15 Carlson
7
Y
Y
re-enlistment bonuses for certain specialized military personnel
18 Mathias
?
Y
Y
16 Anderson
Y
Y
ranging from doctors and dentists to persons qualified in the
19 Holifield
N
N
17 Arends
Y
Y
nuclear submarine service. Passed 337-35: R 157-1; D 180-34
20 Smith
N
N
Y
18 Michel
N Y
19 Railsback
(ND 109-28; SD 71-6), Oct. 11, 1972. A "yea" was a vote sup-
21 Hawkins
N
Y Y
22 Corman
20 Findley
z
Z
Y
porting the President's position.
N
N
23 Clauson
N
Y
21 Gray
Y
Y
24 Rousselot
X
Y
22 Springer
Y
Y
304. HR 16724. D. C. Bus Acquisition. Cabell (D Texas)
25 Wiggins
Y Y
23 Shipley
Y
Y
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill authorizing the
26 Rees
N N
24 Price
Y
N
N
Y
INDIANA
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to acquire
27 Goldwater
28 Bell
?
1 Madden
Y
N
four private bus lines in the metropolitan area. Failed 226-
29 Danielson
Y
N
2 Landgrebe
Y
N Y
129: R 71-80; D 155-49 (ND 105-25; SD 50-24), Oct. 11, 1972.
30 Roybal
3 Brademas
N
7
N
N
N
A two-thirds majority vote (237 in this case) is required for
31 Wilson
Y
4 Roush
Z
Y
N
Y
N
passage under suspension of the rules. (The House subsequently
32 Hosmer
Y
Y
5 Hillis
Y
Y
Y
voted to suspend the rules and adopt a similar bill already
33 Pettis
Y
Y
Y
6 Bray
Y
Y
34 Hanna
Y
?
7 Myers
N
Y
passed by the Senate.
35 Schmitz
?
X
?
8 Zion
Y
Y
36 Wilson
Z
7
Y
Y
9 Hamilton
Z
Y
Y
305. HR 6482. Strip Mining. Edmondson (D Okla.) mo-
37 Van Deerlin
Z
10 Dennis
Y
N
N
Y
tion to suspend the rules and pass the bill providing for federal
38 Versey
Y
11 Jacobs
Y
Y
Z
Y
regulation of strip coal mining and requiring reclamation of
COLORADO
IOWA
1 McKevitt
Y
#
I Schwengel
Y
Y
Y
strip mined lands. Agreed to 265-75: R 108-36; D 157-39 (ND
2 Brotzman
Y
Y
Y
2 Culver
N
Y
Y
113-13; SD 44-26), Oct. 11, 1972. A two-thirds majority vote
3 Evans
?
X ?
3 Gross
? ?
(227 in this case) is required for passage under suspension of the
4 Aspinall
z
N
Y
4 Kyl
Y
Y
rules.
CONNECTICUT
5 Smith
N
Y Y
1 Cotter
Y
Y Y
6 Mayne
Y Y
2 Steele
Y
Y
7 Scherle
Z
Y Y
306. SJ Res 247 Copyright Protection. Celler (D N.Y.)
3 Giaimo
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill extending for three
Y
X
years, through Dec. 31, 1974, the expiration date for all copy-
Democrats
Republicans
92-H-1972 CQ ALMANAC
Corresponding to Congressional Record Votes 425, 427, 428, 429, 431, 432, 433.
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
303
004
305
300
307
308
309
3 Sullivan
4 Wydler
N
N
Y
Y
6 Preyer
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
5 Gettys
N
N
#
4 Randall
N
Y
5 Lent
Y
Y
7 Lennon
#
#
N Y
6 McMillan
Y
X ?
5 Bolling
Z
N
N
6 Halpern
Y
N
8 Ruth
N
N
Y
Y
Y Y
SOUTH DAKOTA
6 Hull
N
Y
7 Addabbo
N
Y
N
9 Jonas
N
z
Y
N
Y
1 Denholm
NNYY3??
7 Hall
INNNYNY
8 Rosenthal
N
N
Y
N
10 Broyhill
Y
Y
Y
2 Abourezk
Y ?
8 Ichord
N
Z
Y
Y
9 Delaney
N
N
Y Y
11 Taylor
Z
Y
Y Y
TENNESSEE
9 Hungate
? ?
10 Celler
?
Y Y
NORTH DAKOTA
I Quillen
N
Y Y
10 Burlison
N
N
Y Y
11 Brasco
N
Y N
/ Andrews
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
2 Duncan
N
N
Y Y
MONTANA
12 Chisholm
?
Y N
2 Link
?
?
? ?
3 Baker
N
Y
Y
/ Shoup
Z
Y
Y
Y
13 Podell
N
N
Y N
OHIO
4 Evins
Y
Y
2 Melcher
N
Y Y Y
14 Rooney
?
Y N
/ Keating
Y
Y
Y
Y
5 Fulton
Y Y
NEBRASKA
15 Carey
N
Y Y
2 Clancy
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
6 Anderson
? ?
/ Thone
N
Y
Y Y
16 Murphy
?
3 Whalen
Y
Y
Y
N
7 Blanton
N
Y
2 McCollister
N
Y
Y
Y
17 Koch
Y N
4 McCulloch
?
?
?
Y
Y
8 Jones
N
Y Y
3 Martin
? ?
18 Rangel
Y N
5 Latta
N
Y
Y
Y Y
9 Kuykendall
#
#
NEVADA
19 Abzug
N
Y N
6 Harsha
Y
Y Y
TEXAS
AL Baring
.
.
20 Vacancy
7 Brown
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
1 Patman
N Y
NEW HAMPSHIRE
21 Badillo
Y N
8 Betts
N
Y
Y
Y
2 Dowdy
? ?
I Wyman
Z
Y
Y Y
22 Scheuer
N
Y N
9 Ashley
N
Y
N
N
3 Collins
NNNN
N
Y
2 Cleveland
Y
Y Y
23 Bingham
N
Y N
10 Miller
N
Y
Y
Y
4 Roberts
N
N
N
Y
NEW JERSEY
24 Biaggi
N
Y Y
11 Stanton
Y
Y
5 Cabell
? ?
I Hunt
N
Y Y
25 Peyser
Y N
12 Devine
N
X
6 Teague
N
N
N
Y
2 Sandman
N
Y
26 Reid
Y
N
13 Mosher
Y
Y
7 Archer
N
X ?
3 Howard
Y
N
27 Dow
?
14 Seiberling
Y
Y
8 Eckhardt
Y N
4 Thompson
.
28 Fish
.
15 Wylie
Y
Y
9 Brooks
N
Y
5 Frelinghuysen
Y
Y
29 Stratton
Y
Y
16 Bou
Y
Y
10 Pickle
N Y
6 Forsythe
Y Y
30 King
?
17 Ashbrook
N
Z
Y
11 Poage
N
Y
7 Widnall
N
Y #
31 McEuen
?
Y
Y
18 Hays
N
Y
12 Wright
N Y
8 Roe
Y N
32 Pirnie
Y Y
19 Carney
N
Y
Y
13 Purcell
X
#
9 Helstoski
Y N
33 Robison
Y Y
20 Stanton
Y
Y
14 Young
Z
N
N
10 Rodino
Y N
34 Terry
Y
Y
21 Stokes
Y
N
15 de la Garza
N
N
11 Minish
N
Y N
35 Hanley
Y Y
22 Vanik
N
N
Y
Y
16 White
N
N
12 Duyer
Y
36 Horton
Y N
23 Minshall
Y
Y
17 Burleson
N
N
N
N
Y
13 Gallagher
??
37 Conable
Z
Y Y
24 Powell
N
Y
18 Price
N
N
N
Y
14 Daniels
7
Y N
38 Hastings
Z
Y Y
OKLAHOMA
19 Mahon
N
Z
N
Y
15 Patten
Y N
39 Kemp
Y Y
/ Belcher
Y Y
20 Gonzalez
N
N
NEW MEXICO
40 Smith
N
Y
Y
2 Edmondson
X ?
21. Fisher
N
N
N
Y
I Lujan
Z
N Y
41 Dulski
z
Y Y
3 Albert
22 Casey
N
N
N
Y
GERALD
2 Runnels
Y
N
N Y
NORTH CAROLINA
4 Steed
N
Y
23 Kazen
N
N
Y
NEW YORK
1 Jones
Y
X ?
5 Jarman
Y Y
UTAH
1 Pike
N
Z
Y
N
Y
2 Fountain
Y
Y Y
6 Camp
N Y
1 McKay
Y
N Y
2 Grover
Y
Y Y
3 Henderson
?
N
Y
OREGON
2 Lloyd
? ?
3 Wolff
N
Y Y
4 Galifianakis
?
?
?
1 Wyatt
Y ?
VERMONT
5 Mizell
N
Y
Y
2 Ullman
Y Y
AL Mallary
N
N
Y Y
3 Green
X ?
VIRGINIA
Answered "present" to avoid possible conflict-of-interest.
4 Dellenback
Y Y
1 Downing
N
Y
N Y
PENNSYLVANIA
2 Whitehurst
N
N
Y
Y
Y
1 Barrett
Y N
3 Satterfield
N
N
Y
N
Y
rights which would have expired before that date. Agreed to
2 Nix
Y N
4 Abbitt
Y
N
Y
208-92: R 110-20, D 98-72 (ND 57-53; SD 41-19), Oct. 11, 1972. A
3 Byrne
? ?
5 Daniel
Y
Z
Y
two-thirds majority of members present and voting (200 in this
4 Eilberg
Y N
6 Vacancy
5 Green
case) is required for passage under suspension of the rules.
Y N
7 Robinson
N
Y
N
Y
6 Yatron
# #
8 Scott
N
Y
7 Williams
Y Y
9 Wampler
N
N
Y
Y
307. HR 16987. Maritime Authorization. Garmatz (D
8 Biester
Y N
10 Broyhill
N Y
9 Ware
Md.) motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill authorizing
Y Y
WASHINGTON
10 McDade
Y N
1 Pelly
? ?
$175-million in supplemental appropriations for ship-building
11 Flood
Y N
2 Meeds
N N
programs in fiscal 1973. Passed 351-3: R 151-0; D 200-3 (ND 130-
12 Whalley
Y Y
3 Hansen
#
3; SD 70-0), Oct. 12, 1972. A two-thirds majority voted (235 in
13 Coughlin
Y Y
4 McCormack
N
Y
Y Y
this case) is required for passage under suspension of the rules.
14 Moorhead
Y Y
5 Foley
Y
Y Y
15 Rooney
A "yea" was a vote supporting the President's position.
Y
N
6 Hicks
N
z
Y Y
16 Eshleman
Y #
7 Adams
Z
NN
17 Schneebeli
N
Y
WEST VIRGINIA
308. HR 14370. General Revenue Sharing. Adoption of
18 Heinz
Y
Y
1 Mollohan
N
N
N
Y Y
the conference report on the bill establishing a five-year pro-
19 Goodling
N
N
Y
2 Staggers
Y
Y Y
20 Gaydos
Y
N
3 Slack
gram to share $30,236,400,000 in federal revenues with state
N
N
z
N Y
21 Dent
Y
N
4 Hechler
N
Z
N Y
and local governments. Adopted 266-110: R 126-33; D 140-
22 Saylor
Z
Y
5 Kee
? ?
77 (ND 114-30; SD 26-47), Oct. 12, 1972. A "yea" was a vote in
23 Johnson
Z
Y Y
WISCONSIN
support of the President's position.
24 Vigorito
Y Y
1 Aspin
Y Y
25 Clark
?
2 Kastenmeier
Z
Y.N
26 Morgan
Y
Z
3 Thomson
Y
Y Y
309. HR 14370. General Revenue Sharing. Mills (D
27 Conover
Y Y
4 Zablocki
N
Y Y
Ark.) motion that the House recede from its disagreement to
RHODE ISLAND
5 Reuss
N
N
Y Y
Senate amendments placing a $1.6-billion ceiling on annual
1 St Germain
N
Y
Y
Y
6 Steiger
Z
N
Y Y
2 Tiernan
Y
Y Y
federal contributions to state and local social services programs
7 Obey
Z
N Y
SOUTH CAROLINA
8 Byrnes
N Y
and concur in a conference substitute placing a $2.5-billion ceil-
1 Davis
?
? ?
9 Davis
N
N
Y
N Y
ing on federal matching grants for social services by state and
2 Spence
Y
Y Y
10 'Konski
Z
Y Y
local governments. Adopted 281-86: R 142-10; D 139-76 (ND
3 Dorn
N
Y
Y Y
WYOMING
75-67; SD 64-9), Oct. 12, 1972.
4 Mann
Z
N
Y Y
AL Roncalio
?
1972 CQ ALMANAC-93-H
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Senate vote on Conference
Report on Revenue Sharing.
CQ vote 516
CQ Senate Votes 514-520
Corresponding to Congressional Record roll-call votes 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559
516
517
518
519
520
515
516
517
518
519
520-
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
- KEY .
Y Record vote for (yea).
Paired for.
ALABAMA
IOWA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Announced for.
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Allen
Hughes
Y
Y
N
Z
McIntyre
#
#
1
# CQ poll for.
Sparkman
#
#
Miller
Y
Y
N
N
N
Z
Cotton
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N Record vote against (nay).
ALASKA
KANSAS
NEW JERSEY
X Paired against.
Gravel
Y
Y
Z
N
Z
Y
Dole
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Williams
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Announced against.
N
N
Y
N
Stevens
Y
Pearson
Y
Y
Case
CQ poll against.
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
ARIZONA
KENTUCKY
NEW MEXICO
? Not voting, voted "present,"
Z
N
Z
N
Z
Y
Cook
$
Anderson
did not announce or answer poll.
Fannin
Y
N
Y
N
Goldwater
X
?
Cooper
Y
N
Z
N
N
Montoya
Y
Y
N
N
N
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW YORK
Fulbright
Y
Z
Y
N
N
Edwards
?
?
?
Buckley*
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
514
516
517
518
519
520-
McClellan
N
Y
Y
IN
Z
Long
Z
Y
N
Javits
N
Y
N
N
N
CALIFORNIA
MAINE
NORTH CAROLINA
TEXAS
Cranston
Y
N
Y
N
N
Muskie
?
?
?
Ervin
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Bentsen
Y
N
N
N
N
Tunney
Y
Z
N
Y
Smith
Y
N
N
N
N
Jordan
Y
N
Y
N
N
Z
Tower
COLORADO
MARYLAND
NORTH DAKOTA
UTAH
Allott
?
?
?
Beall
Y
N
Burdick
Y
Z
N
N
Moss
N
Y
M
N
Dominick
Y
N
N
Y
N
Mathias
Y
N
Young
N
N
N
N
N
N
Bennett
N
Y
N
N
CONNECTICUT
MASSACHUSETTS
OHIO
VERMONT
Ribicoff
Y
N
N
Z
Kennedy
#
#
Saxbe
N
N
?
Aiken
N
Y
N
N
Weicker
Y
N
Z
Brooke
Y
Z
Taft
N
Y
Y
N
Stafford
1
DELAWARE
MICHIGAN
OKLAHOMA
VIRGINIA
HURRS
Y
N
Z
Hart
Y
Z
Z
N
Harris
133
?
Byrd. -ir.**
N
Z
N
N
N
Roth
Y
Z
Z
N
N
Griffin
Y
Bellmon
N
N
Y
N
N
Spong
Y
N
N
FLORIDA
MINNESOTA
OREGON
WASHINGTON
Chiles
N
N
Z
N
Humphrey
Y
Z
N
Z
Hatfield
X
kson
N
Y
Y
N
N
z
Gurney
Y
Z
Z
N
Mondale
Y
Z
N
Z
Packwood
Y
N
N
N
Magneson
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
GEORGIA
MISSISSIPPI
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
Gambrell
N
N
Z
Eastland
N
Y
N
N
Schweiker
Y
N
N
Byrd
Y
N
N
N
N
Talmadge
Y
N
N
N
Stennis
N
N
N
N
Scott
#
1
N
N
N
Randolph
#
+
HAWAII
MISSOURI
RHODE ISLAND
WISCONSIN
Inouye
Y
N
N
Eagleton
N
N
N
N
Pastore
Y
N
M
Z
Nelson
Y
N
N
N
N
Fong
N
Y
N
Z
N
Z
Symington
Y
N
Pell
Y
N
N
Proxmire
Y
z
N
N
IDAHO
MONTANA
SOUTH CAROLINA
WYOMING
Church
Z
N
N
N
Mansfield
N
N
Z
Y
Hollings
N
Y
N
N
McGee
?
?
?
Jordan
N
N
N
Metcalf
3
?
Thurmond
Y
X
Hansen
Y
N
N
N
N
ILLINOIS
NEBRASKA
SOUTH DAKOTA
Stevenson
Y
N
Z
Curtis
1
McGovern
?
?
Percy
Y
Y
N
N
Hruska
#
#
#
Z
Z
N
N
Mundt
?
?
?
INDIANA
NEVADA
TENNESSEE
Bayh
Y
N
N
Bible
#
#
Baker
?
Hartke
Y
N
Z
Cannon
Z
Y
N
Z
N
Brock
Y
N
N
N
ALD
Democrats Republicans
Buckley elected as Conservative
Kerd elected as independent
LIBRARY
514. HR 11021. Noise Pollution. Cranston (D Calif.) amend-
cutback within 30 days of notification of the President's intention.
ment prohibiting supersonic civilian aircraft from landing at
Rejected 7-66: R 5-25; D 2-41 (ND 2-27; SD 0-14), Oct. 13, 1972.
places under U.S. jurisdiction unless they complied with Federal
Aviation Administration noise level standards for subsonic air-
518. HR 16810. Debt Ceiling. Jordan (R Idaho) amendment
craft. Adopted 62-17: R 25-9; D 37-8 (ND 25-4; SD 12-4), Oct.
in the nature of a substitute for Vance Hartke (D Ind.) amend-
13, 1972.
ment limiting exemptions to veterans' services and later adopted
by voice vote Require the President, when making cuts in
515. HR 11021. Noise Pollution. Passage of the Environ-
spending to limit federal outlays. to $250-billion in fiscal 1973,
mental Noise Control Act of 1972, a bill establishing federal
to reduce all appropriations by a uniform percentage, not to
noise emission standards for newly manufactured products,
exceed 10 percent for any activity or program, and exempt from
authorizing federal grants for state and local noise control pro-
spending cutbacks payments for Social Security benefits, Medic-
grams and requiring noise standards for aircraft. Passed 75-5:
aid, veterans' benefits, public assistance, food stamps, social
33-2; D 42-3 (ND 28-1; SD 14-2), Oct. 13, 1972.
services grants, military retirement pay, judicial salaries and
interest on the national debt. Adopted 46-28: R 11-20; D 35-8
516. HR 14370. General Revenue Sharing. Adoption of
(ND 26-3; SD 9-5), Oct. 13, 1972. A "nay" was a vote in support
the conference report on the bill establishing a five-year program
of the President's position.
to share $30,236,400,000 in federal revenues with state and local
governments. Adopted 59-19: R 29-5; D 30-14 (ND 21-8; SD 9-6),
519. HR 16810. Debt Ceiling. Bellmon (R Okla.) amend-
Oct. 13, 1972. A "yea" was a vote in support of the President's
ment requiring Congress to set an annual ceiling on federal
position.
spending and authorizing the President to cut proposed expendi-
tures in certain categories to hold outlays within the limit
517. HR 16810. Debt Ceiling. Taft (R Ohio) amendment
adopted. Rejected 9-62: R 5-26; 4-36 (ND 4-24; SD 0-12), Oct.
to adopted Jordan (R Idaho) amendment (below) as modified
13, 1972.
by Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R Md.) amendment exempting
administrative expenses of the judiciary from the programs
520. HR 16810. Debt Ceiling. Packwood (R Ore.) amendment
authorized to be cut by the President-Permit the President to
deleting Title II of the bill which imposed a $250-billion ceiling
reserve from spending more than 10 percent of any single budget
on federal outlays in fiscal 1973. Rejected 24-48: R 12-19; D 12-
account and empower Congress to override any such spending
29 (ND 11-17; SD 1-12), Oct. 13, 1972.
1972 CQ ALMANAC-79-S
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Senate vote on Revenue
Sharing.
CO vote 391
CQ Senate Votes 389-394
Corresponding to Congressional Record roll-call votes 417, 418, 419, 421, 422, 423
389
390
391
382
393
394
389
390
391
392
£60
#68
389
390
391
392
(E6E
394
- KEY -
Y Record vote for (yea).
Paired for.
ALABAMA
IOWA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Announced for.
Allen
NYY
z
7
Hughes
NYY
Y
N
Y
McIntyre
?
?
?
# CQ poll for.
Sparkman
.11
.
#
Miller
.
Y
N
N
Cotton
YNY
Y
N
Y
N Record vote against (nay).
ALASKA
KANSAS
NEW JERSEY
X Paired against.
Gravel
YYY
Y
Y
Dole
N ? Y
Y
N
Y
Williams
Y N Y
Y
Z
Y
Announced against.
Stevens
YNY
Y
Y
Pearson
N Y Y
Y
N
Y
Case
Y N Y
Y
N
.
. CQ poll against.
ARIZONA
KENTUCKY
NEW MEXICO
? Not voting, voted "present,"
Fannin
NY?
N
Y
Cook
N Y Y
Y
N
Y
Anderson
NY?
Y
Z
Y
did not announce or answer poll.
Goldwater
NYX
N
N
Cooper
N N Y
Y
Z
7
Montoya
NYY
Y
Y
Y
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
NEW YORK
Fulbright
N?Y
z
Y
Edwards
N Y Y
?
?
?
Buckley*
Y Y Y
Y
Z
Y
389
390
391
392
393
#94
McClellan
NYY
7
Y
Long
N Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Javits
Y Y Y
Y
z
Y
CAUFORNIA
MAINE
NORTH CAROLINA
TEXAS
Cranston
YNY
Y
Y
Muskie
N Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Ervin
N Y N
Y
N
Y
Bentsen
NYN
Y
Y
Tunney
YYY
#
Smith
N Y Y
Y
N
Y
Jordan
N Y Y
Y
?
Y
Tower
NNY
Z
Y
COLORADO
MARYLAND
NORTH DAKOTA
UTAH
Allott
- 1
Beall
Y Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Burdick
N Y N
Y
Z
Y
Moss
NYY
Y
Y
Dominick
NYY
Y
N
Mathias
YN Y
Y
Y
?
Young
N Y N
Y
Z
Y
Bennett
NYY
Z
Y
CONNECTICUT
MASSACHUSETTS
OHIO
VERMONT
Ribicoff
YNY
Kennedy
# #
y
5%
Saxbe
YNN
?
?
Aiken
NYY
Z
Y
Weicker
YNY
Z
Brooke
YN Y
Y
7
Y
Toft
Y N N
Y
Z
Stafford
NYY
Z
Y
DELAWARE
MICHIGAN
OKLAHOMA
VIRGINIA
Boggs
Y N Y
N
Z
Hart
YN Y
Y
Y
Y
Harris
???
?
?
Byrd. Jr.**
NYN
z
N
Roth
NNY
Y
N
Z
Griffin
YN Y
Bellmon
NNY
Y
z
Spong
NYY
?
z
FLORIDA
MINNESOTA
OREGON
WASHINGTON
Chiles
NYN
Humphrey
NYY
/
Y
Y
Hatfield
N Y N
Y
Y
Jackson
NYY
N
Gurney
NYY
N
Mondale
NYY
Y
Y
Packwood
NNY
Y
N
Magnuson
NYY
Y
GEORGIA
MISSISSIPPI
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
Gambrell
NYN
z
Eastland
N Y Y
Y
N
Schweiker
Y N Y
Y
N
Byrd
NYN
Y
Talmadge
NYY
N
Stennis
NYN
N
Scott
Y N Y
Y
z
Randolph
NYY
Y
HAWAII
MISSOURI
RHODE ISLAND
WISCONSIN
Inouye
NYY
Eagleton
YNN
Pastore
Y N Y
Y
Y
Nelson
NYN
Y
z
N
Fong
YYY
Symington
YNN
Z
Z
Pell
YNY
Y
Y
Proxmire
NYN
Y
Z
N
IDAHO
MONTANA
SOUTH CAROLINA
WYOMING
Church
NYX
N
N
Mansfield
NYN
N
Hollings
NYY
#
#
McGee
N?"
?
Jordan
NYX
N
N
Metcalf
NYY
Thurmond
1
Y
N
Hansen
NYY
z
ILLINOIS
NEBRASKA
SOUTH DAKOTA
Stevenson
YNN
Y
Curtis
NYX
Z
N
McGovern
??
?
?
Percy
YNN
N
Y
Hruska
NYY
N
Mundt
? ? ?
?
?
INDIANA
NEVADA
TENNESSEE
Bayh
YYY
Y
Bible
Y Y N
Baker
N Y Y
?
?
Hartke
YNY
Cannon
YYY
Brock
NYY
Y
Y
Democrats
Republicans
-
Buckley elected as Conservative
: Byrd elected as independent
QERALE FORD LIBRARY
389. HR 14370. General Revenue Sharing. Taft (R Ohio)
6), Sept. 12, 1972. The President supported revenue-sharing but
amendment revising formula for allocating revenue-sharing funds
did not take a position on the version approved by the Senate.
among the states to distribute one-third of each year's total
amount by population, one-third by tax effort and one-third by
392. S 3917. Senate Office Building Expansion. Cooper (R
relative income (instead of computing the three factors together
Ky.) amendment granting jurisdiction over construction of the
to determine each state's share). Rejected 32-59: R 17-24; D
office building extension to the Public Works Committee and im-
15-35 (ND 15-19; SD 0-16), Sept. 12, 1972.
posing a $53.5-million spending ceiling on building costs. Adopted
83-0: R 40-0; D 43-0 (ND 31-0; SD 12-0), Sept. 13, 1972.
390. HR 14370. General Revenue Sharing. Long (D La.)
motion to table, and thus kill, Taft (R Ohio) amendment re-
393. S 3917. Senate Office Building Expansion. Gravel
placing formula for allocating revenue-sharing funds among the
(D Alaska) amendment directing the Architect of the Capitol to
states with a provision determining each state's share solely by
inquire whether the owners of certain property north of the New
population. Motion to table adopted 60-28: R 22-18; D 38-10 (ND
Senate Office Building were willing to sell it. Rejected 28-53:
23-10; SD 15-0), Sept. 12, 1972.
R 5-34; D 23-19 (ND 21-10; SD 2-9), Sept. 13, 1972.
391. HR 14370. General Revenue Sharing. Passage of the
394. S 3917 Senate Office Building Expansion. Passage
bill establishing a five-year program to share $29,583,560,000 in
of the bill authorizing construction of additional office space in
federal revenues with state and local governments and appro-
the New Senate Office Building and the purchase of land for
priating S1-billion a year for four years for supplementary social
an additional parking garage for senators and their staffs.
services grants. Passed 64-20: R 32-5; D 32-15 (ND 22-9; SD 10-
Passed 65-17: R 29-8; D 36-9 (ND 27-5; SD 9-4), Sept. 13,1972.
1972 CQ ALMANAC-61-S
FORD
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
RALD
CONGRESS CLEARS NIXON'S REVENUE-SHARING PLAN
LIBRARY
Congress Oct. 13 completed action on a bill (HR
Following the Senate version, the conference agree-
14370-PL 92-512) establishing a five-year program to
ment subjected state as well as local governments to
share $30,236,400,000 in federal revenues with state and
certain requirements for handling revenue-sharing funds
local governments.
and provisions barring discrimination and applying fed-
Final action came when the Senate, by a 59-19
eral wage standards to jobs and projects financed in
roll-call vote, adopted a conference report (S Rept 92-
large part by revenue-sharing money.
1229) on the bill. The House had approved the report
Oct. 12 by a 265-110 roll call. (Votes 516, 308, p. 79-S, 92-H)
Final Provisions
As cleared, the bill appropriated $30,236,400,000 to
a special trust fund for distribution among state and
As cleared by Congress, HR 14370:
local governments. The program, retroactive to Jan. 1,
Created a State and Local Government Fiscal
1972, at an initial annual level of $5.3-billion, would run
Assistance Trust Fund, to remain available without fis-
until Dec. 31, 1976.
cal year limitation.
The conference agreement represented a unique
Appropriated $30,212,500,000 to the trust fund from
compromise between conflicting House and Senate pro-
federal income tax revenues in the following amounts:
visions for allocating revenue-sharing funds. The con-
1) $2,650,000,000 for the period Jan. 1-June 30, 1972.
ference agreement gave states the greater of two amounts
2) $2,650,000,000 for July 1-Dec. 31, 1972.
available under the different formulas approved by the
3) $2,987,500,000 for Jan. 1-June 30, 1973.
House and the Senate.
4) $6,050,000,000 for fiscal 1974.
The compromise averted a possible stalemate in
5) $6,200,000,000 for fiscal 1975.
choosing between the House formula, which generally
6) $6,350,000,000 for fiscal 1976.
favored more populous and industrial states, and the
7) $3,325,000,000 for the period July 1-Dec. 31, 1976.
Senate formula, which favored less populous states.
Appropriated to the trust fund $23,900,000 from in-
To distribute each state's revenue-sharing funds
come tax collections for adjustments in allocations to
among state and local governments, however, the con-
non-contiguous states (Alaska and Hawaii) in the follow-
ference agreement generally followed the Senate bill.
ing amounts:
By stressing relative income and the extent of govern-
1) $2,390,000 for Jan. 1-June 30, 1972
ment taxing efforts as well as population-and dropping
2) $2,390,000 for July 1-Dec. 31, 1972.
the House bill's emphasis on urbanization-the con-
3) $2,390,000 for Jan. 1-June 30, 1973.
ference compromise favored poor central city and rural
4) $4,780,000 for fiscal 1974.
areas at the expense of more affluent suburbs.
5) $4,780,000 for fiscal 1975.
In another key compromise, the conferees dropped
6) $4,780,000 for fiscal 1976.
a Senate provision setting a $1.6-billion annual limit on
7) $2,390,000 for July 1-Dec. 31, 1976.
grants to state and local governments for social services.
Allocated to each state for each entitlement period
Reporting the Senate limit in technical disagree-
the greater of two amounts computed by the following
ment, conferees recommended a substitute amendment
methods:
setting a $2.5-billion limit on social services expenditures
1) A three-factor fomula allocating to each state an
under existing matching grant programs. Under the sub-
amount in the same ratio to $5.3-billion (the initial annual
stitute, each state could receive only a proportion of
rate) as the figure produced by the state's population
$2.5-billion based on its population.
multiplied by its state and local government tax effort
In a further attempt to restrain state requests for
multiplied by its relative income was to the figure pro-
matching grants, the substitute required that no more
duced by the same factors for the nation as a whole.
than 10 percent of a state's matching grant funds be
2) A five-factor formula allocating (at an initial
spent on programs for persons not on welfare. Excep-
annual level of $5.3-billion) $3.5-billion among the states
tions were made, however, for programs for child care,
according to population (one-third), urbanized population
family planning, the mentally retarded, alcoholics and
(one-third) and population weighted by per capita income
drug addicts and for foster homes for children.
(one-third) and the remaining $1.8-billion according to
The House approved the substitute separately by a
individual income tax collections by state governments
281-86 roll call Oct. 12; the Senate routinely accepted the
(one-half) and the general tax effort of state and local
substitute in adopting the conference report. (Vote 516,
governments (one-half).
p. 79-S)
Allocated one-third of each state's entitlement to the
Accepting a principle included in the House-passed
state government and the remaining two-thirds to local
version of HR 14370, the conference agreement included
governments within the state. The local governments'
a list of spending priorities for revenue-sharing funds
two-thirds would be divided as follows:
turned over to local governments. The conference ver-
1) Allocated to each county within a state an amount
sion, less restrictive than the House bill, allowed local
computed on the basis of population, tax effort and
governments to use federal revenues for capital expendi-
relative income.
tures authorized by law and for ordinary operating and
2) Allocated to each county government an amount
maintenance expenditures on public safety, environmen-
determined by the ratio of its tax collections to total tax
tal protection, public transportation, health, recreation,
collections by all governments in the county.
libraries, social services for the poor and aged and for
3) Allocated among all township governments within
financial administration.
a county a total amount determined by their combined
(Continued on p. 638)
636-1972 CQ ALMANAC
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Revenue Sharing - 2
Revenue Sharing: Conference Bill's Figures by Key Cities for 1972
Alabama
Maine
Ohio
Birmingham
$ 7,099,587
Portland
1,769,263
Cleveland
14,107,681
Mobile
5,668,861
Augusta
443,343
Columbus
5,697,361
Huntsville
2,872,185
Bangor
898,961
Cincinnati
8,501,849
Alaska (Plus cost-of-living payment)
Maryland
Toledo
4,467,549
Anchorage
786,641
Baltimore
23,881,944
Oklahoma
Fairbanks
300,033
Hagerstown
566,837
Midwest City
456,901
Arizona
Annapolis
409,813
Oklahoma City
6,783,125
Phoenix
9,280,443
Massachusetts
Tulsa
3,013,250
Scottsdale
601,577
Boston
17,753,054
Oregon
Tempe
572,833
Cambridge
2,078,601
Eugene
1,561,628
Arkansas
Springfield
4,443,226
Portland
8,579,738
Little Rock
2,392,164
Michigan
Salem
1,568,703
North Little Rock
407,567
Detroit
36,530,556
Pennsylvania
Fort Smith
787,284
Grand Rapids
2,682,599
Harrisburg
1,149,316
California
Ann Arbor
697,571
Philadelphia
43,758,115
Los Angeles
35,442,819
Minnesota
Pittsburgh
11,679,788
San Francisco
19,276,751
St. Paul
4,450,117
Scranton
1,883,909
San Diego
6,527,384
Duluth
1,212,570
Rhode Island
Colorado
Minnetonka
130,248
Cranston
983,329
Denver
12,189,871
Mississippi
Providence
4,304,042
Colorado Springs
1,162,761
Jackson
4,346,704
Warwick
852,365
Pueblo
1,473,606
Biloxi
929,557
South Carolina
Connecticut
Columbus
762,500
Columbia
Hartford
3,334,147
2,251,500
Missouri
Charleston
Bridgeport
2,619,799
2,036,353
St. Louis
12,702,004
Greenville
2,905,607
1,861,843
New Haven
Kansas City
10,222,093
Delaware
South Dakota
Jefferson City
390,432
Pierre
Wilmington
2,238,762
Springfield
1,537,329
66,924
Dover
374,585
Independence
1,084,433
Rapid City
525,926
District of Columbia
Sioux Falls
23,647,564
Montana
989,343
Florida
Helena
196,712
Tennessee
Jacksonville
3,972,067
Billings
637,296
Chattanooga
2,389,735
Miami
6,959,236
Butte
316,961
Knoxville
3,742,137
Tampa
5,640,879
Great Falls
626,748
Memphis
9,826,564
Georgia
Nebraska
Nashville
6,378,838
Atlanta
4,583,171
Lincoln
1,763,525
Texas
Savannah
2,089,189
Omaha
3,640,464
Austin
2,121,831
Macon
1,965,134
Scottsbluff
195,219
Houston
14,029,925
Hawaii (Plus cost-of-living payment)
Nevada
San Antonio
7,785,895
Honolulu
12,542,903
Las Vegas
1,045,413
Utah
Idaho
Carson City
61,960
Salt Lake City
3,881,774
Boise
1,089,716
Reno
762,202
Ogden
944,978
Pocatello
583,710
New Hampshire
Vermont
Idaho Falls
372,848
Manchester
1,749,749
Montpelier
272,374
Illinois
Portsmouth
512,778
Burlington
995,345
Chicago
69,477,799
Concord
508,879
Virginia
Rockford
2,023,772
New Jersey
Richmond
5,463,373
Springfield
897,115
Newark
8,437,328
Norfolk
6,740,023
Indiana
Trenton
1,930,287
Alexandria
1,680,122
Indianapolis
6,983,136
Camden
2,070,137
Washington
Fort Wayne
2,137,708
New Mexico
Olympia
295,694
Gary
3,069,017
Albuquerque
6,431,471
Spokane
3,316,084
lowa
Santa Fe
968,982
Seattle
9,863,462
Des Moines
2,201,662
Clovis
306,019
Sioux City
1,227,154
New York
West Virginia
Council Bluffs
518,661
Albany
1,300,747
Charleston
2,072,376
Kansas
Buffalo
7,328,071
Huntington
1,872,000
Wichita
2,139,061
New York
247,524,126
Martinsburg
154,000
Topeka
1,239,629
Syracuse
3,279,903
Wheeling
1,089,161
Kansas City
1,646,379
Rochester
2,293,973
Wisconsin
Kentucky
North Carolina
Green Bay
1,267,219
Louisville
9,480,686
Charlotte
4,462,898
Kenosha
1,433,901
Lexington
2,836,217
Greensboro
2,761,068
Madison
1,935,498
Frankfort
472,705
Raleigh
1,714,054
Milwaukee.
11,221,768
Louisiana
North Dakota
Wyoming
New Orleans
14,744,411
Bismarck
389,813
Cheyenne
396,713
Baton Rouge
5,149,671
Minot
419,431
Casper
359,240
Lake Charles
1,767,060
Grand Forks
440,854
Laramie
215,845
1972 CQ ALMANAC-637
Revenue Sharing - 3
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
(Continued from p. 636)
share of tax collections, with each township's amount
Required that not more than 10 percent of each
determined by population, tax effort and relative income.
state's federal matching grants be used for assistance to
4) Allocated the remainder of the county's share among
persons not receiving welfare. Programs for child care,
municipal governments according to population, tax
family planning, the mentally retarded, drug addicts and
effort and relative income.
alcoholics and foster homes for children would be
5) Allocated part of a county area's allotment to
exempted from the 10-percent limit.
the governing bodies of local Indian tribes or Alaskan
References. President's revenue sharing proposals
native villages on the basis of population.
and 1971 House hearings, 1971 Almanac p. 698.
Permitted states to legislate optional formulas for
distributing local government funds by population and
Background
tax effort or by population and relative income, or by
both.
The revenue-sharing concept was developed by John-
Increased revenue-sharing entitlements for Alaska
son administration officials but never accepted publicly
and Hawaii by the same percentage as cost-of-living
by President Johnson, who faced budget deficits brought
adjustments given federal employees in those non-con-
on by U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war.
tiguous states.
President Nixon in 1969 proposed a revenue-sharing
Required that a state government's revenue-sharing
plan that would have made $500-million in federal
entitlement be reduced if it reduced transfers of state
revenues available to state and local governments in fis-
funds to local governments. (The penalty could be re-
cal 1971, with the total rising to $5-billion by fiscal 1976.
duced or offset if the state had assumed responsibility for
Congress did not act on that proposal.
expenditures previously made by local governments or
In his 1971 State of the Union address, the Presi-
had conferred new taxing authority on local governments
dent unveiled a second revenue-sharing plan that ex-
to provide the funds.)
ceeded the scope of previous proposals, including his own.
The administration's second and current proposal
Required each government receiving revenue-shar-
included two elements:
ing funds to submit to the secretary of the treasury and
$5-billion starting in fiscal 1972 for allocation to
publish in local newspapers reports on the planned and
the states, counties, municipalities and the District of
actual uses of shared revenues.
Columbia.
Prohibited discrimination by race, color, national
$11-billion for "special revenue-sharing" programs
origin or sex in any activity or program funded in whole or
created by consolidating about 105 existing federal aid
in part with revenue-sharing money.
programs into six broad purposes with fewer federal
Required state and local governments receiving fed-
specifications.
eral revenues to meet certain requirements in handling
Under the general revenue-sharing proposal, 90
revenue-sharing funds.
percent of the $5-billion would be allocated to the
Required that a state or local government employee
states by percentage of total U.S. population, with ad-
be paid at the prevailing local wage, state or local mini-
justments reflecting a state's tax effort.
mum wage or federal minimum wage (whichever was
The remaining 10 percent would be available to
highest) in cases where revenue-sharing funds made up
states that had negotiated a formula for sharing federal
25 percent or more of the employee's compensation.
funds with local governments.
Applied the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act requirement that
Of the total share of each state, about 50 percent
workers on federally funded construction projects receive
would be passed on to local governments, with school
prevailing local construction wages to projects for which
districts and other special purpose government units
excluded. The local shares would be distributed accord-
25 percent or more of the financing came from revenue-
ing to the ratio of local revenues to state revenues-at
sharing funds.
least until a negotiated local sharing formula had been
Required local governments to use revenue-sharing
adopted.
funds only for "priority expenditures": capital expendi-
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Wilbur
tures authorized by law or maintenance and operating
D. Mills (D Ark.), supported by the panel's ranking Repub-
expenditures on public safety (including law enforcement,
lican, John W. Byrnes (R Wis.), fought the general
fire protection and building code enforcement), environ-
revenue-sharing plan. Because it involved sharing a pro-
mental protection (including sewage disposal, sanitation
portion of federal tax revenues, the bill was referred to
and pollution abatement), public transportation (includ-
Mills' committee. The special revenue-sharing proposals
ing transit systems and streets and roads), health, recrea-
were referred to the various committees with jurisdiction
tion, libraries, social services for the poor and aged, and
over the six areas of activity involved.
financial administration.
The Ways and Means Committee held extensive
Provided for collection by the federal government's
hearings in June 1971 on the administration's bill. But
Internal Revenue Service of state income taxes starting
Mills announced that their purpose was to expose the
in the year after at least two states, whose residents to-
dangers and weaknesses of the revenue-sharing concept
gether filed at least 5 percent of all federal income tax
and to kill the bill.
returns, requested such a service.
But midway through the hearings Mills announced
Placed a $2.5-billion ceiling on annual federal 75-
that he favored a revenue-sharing plan that would give
percent matching grants to state and local governments
most of its benefits to urban areas.
for social services, with each state limited to the same
On Nov. 30, 1971, Mills and nine other members of
percentage of $2.5-billion as the percentage of its popu-
the Ways and Means Committee introduced HR 11950,
lation to total U.S. population.
a $5.3-billion revenue-sharing bill which provided two-
638-1972 CQ ALMANAC
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Revenue Sharing - 4
thirds of its funds for local governments and one-third
a deficit of $25.5-billion in fiscal 1973. The cost of
for states.
revenue sharing was included in calculating the deficits.
To postpone revenue sharing in order to cut the
House Committee Action
deficit, the report said, would be to assign a lower
priority to state and local financial problems than to
The House Ways and Means Committee April 26
other needs.
reported a clean bill, the State and Local Fiscal Assis-
Although federal aid to state and local governments
tance Act of 1972 (HR 14370-H Rept 92-1018), establish-
rose from $6.7-billion in fiscal 1959 to $36.8-billion in
ing general revenue sharing with state and local govern-
fiscal 1972 and an estimated $38.5-billion in fiscal 1973,
ments at a first-year rate of $5.3-billion.
the committee found the total inadequate to the need.
The committee April 17 voted 18-7 to report the bill.
Since most federal aid was "categorical"-dispensed for
HR 14370 was written by the committee based on Chair-
specific purposes-it often could not be used for the most
man Mills' earlier bill, HR 11950.
pressing state and local needs, the committee said.
Committee Views. The committee bill provided for
Major Provisions
revenue sharing initially at an annual rate of $3.5-billion
for local governments and $1.8-billion for state govern-
The bill appropriated $3.5-billion per year for local
ments. The committee justified this allocation as follows:
governments for five years, beginning with calendar 1972.
"In considering the financial problems of local govern-
It appropriated funds for state governments at an initial
ments, your committee came to the conclusion that many
annual rate of $1.8-billion and increased that rate by
localities face most severe financial crises. In part, this
$150-million for the following year and $300-million for
stems from the increasing demand for public services
each succeeding year for the rest of the five-year period.
resulting from the substantial increase in urbanization
Since the government operates on a fiscal year, the
occurring in recent years.
bill appropriated half of the initial allocation for the
"Closely related to this is the problem arising from
period Jan. 1 to June 30, 1972, the remainder of fiscal
the limited jurisdictions of many local governments:
year 1972. It appropriated funds for the four succeeding
they often are called upon to provide many services for
fiscal years and a final half-year allocation. The appro-
persons who do not live in their taxing jurisdictions.
priations were (in billions of dollars):
At the same time, those within their taxing jurisdictions
Year
State
Local
Total
often are poor and unable to pay for their share of the
services demanded. This financial problem for local
FY
1972
(half-year)
.9
1.75
2.65
governments has been significantly worsened by the twin
FY 1973
1.95
3.5
5.45
problems of rising costs resulting from inflation and the
FY 1974
2.25
3.5
5.75
lower than normal increase in revenues because of the
FY 1975
2.55
3.5
6.05
stagnant condition of the economy.
FY 1976
2.85
3.5
6.35
"Your committee concluded that states also have
FY 1977 (half-year)
1.575
1.75
3.325
financial problems but that their problems are less
TOTALS
12.075
17.5
29.575
severe than those of the localities and also of a different
The appropriation for the final half-year was at an
nature The difficulty in obtaining adequate financing.
annual rate of $6.65-billion.
has presented the states with problems not only in meeting
The increase of $300-million per year for the states
their own financing needs but also in their increasing role
was essentially a "hold-harmless" increment to ensure that
in assisting local governments. Your committee concluded
no state received less in any year than it had in previous
that, in the case of states, the primary emphasis should
years of the program. Funds would be distributed to the
be on encouraging them to help themselves-by making
states based on their tax efforts; consequently, states
more extensive use of their own tax resources."
increasing their tax efforts could increase their shares. If
The committee noted that state and local expendi-
the total remained constant, some other states would then
tures rose from $33.7-billion in fiscal year 1955 to $131.3-
receive reduced shares unless the total was increased each
billion in fiscal 1970. In the period 1946-70 (fiscal years),
year.
state and local revenues, excluding federal aid, rose at an
The bill created three trust funds: for state shares,
average rate of almost 10 percent per year.
for local shares and for the hold-harmless funds.
The committee found that many states did not make
Payments were to be made from the trust funds
effective use of their revenue sources, either by not using
quarterly or more often. When lack of current data would
certain taxes (individual and corporate income taxes and
delay payments, allocations were to be made on the basis
general sales taxes) or by keeping rates too low.
of estimates.
The heavy reliance of state and local governments on
Distribution. The bill created a complex distribu-
property and sales taxes, the committee said, made it
tion system.
harder for them to increase their revenues because those
State funds were to be distributed equally according
taxes did not respond rapidly to increases in income.
to total tax effort and income-tax collections. Tax effort
In aggregate, the committee said, local governments
was to be measured by a formula relating the total tax
accounted for about two-thirds of total state-local expen-
collections of a state and its local governments, including
ditures and states the remaining one-third. This was the
special-purpose units such as school districts and sewer
approximate division of revenue sharing incorporated in
districts, to total personal income in the state. The state
the bill.
allocation would then be calculated by establishing the
Federal Finances. The committee noted a deficit
proportion of its tax efforts to the total U.S. state and local
of almost $39-billion was forecast for fiscal year 1972 and
tax effort.
1972 CQ ALMANAC-639
Revenue Sharing 5
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
The state's share based on income tax would be 7.5
Conditions. The bill tied more "strings" to the
percent of each state's income-tax collections. The bill set
revenues shared with local governments than did the
both a floor and a ceiling for the income-tax share. For
administration's proposal.
states with no income tax, and particularly states like
Funds allocated to local governments were limited
Tennessee and Florida, which had constitutional prohibi-
in use to "generally recognized national high-priority
tions against income taxes that would take time to repeal,
objectives," which the committee defined as operational
a minimum amount was guaranteed equal to .5 percent
and maintenance expenses for public safety, environ-
of federal income-tax liabilities attributable to the state.
mental protection and public transportation.
The ceiling limited each state's allocation based on its
The committee justified exclusion of such major local
income tax to 3 percent of federal income-tax liabilities
expenses as education and welfare on various grounds. It
arising from the state.
noted the great diversity of state and local responsibilities
For local governments the distribution was far more
in those areas. It also noted that the House had passed a
complicated. The total available was to be divided into
welfare reform bill (HR 1), which, among other purposes,
three equal parts, to be allocated among the states on
was designed to provide greater federal welfare assistance,
the basis of three factors: total state population, urban
and that the federal government operated a number of
population and population weighted by per capita in-
major programs of aid for education. (HR 1, p. 833; 1971
come. The last factor would be determined by establishing
Almanac p. 519)
an inverse population-per capita income ratio that gave
The bill required states to maintain at least the level
the greatest weight to the lowest per capita income and
of aid to their local governments prevailing before revenue
comparing the result with the ratio for the entire nation.
sharing. It prohibited use of revenue-sharing funds for
Each state's local funds then were to be distributed
matching federal funds for other purposes.
among its counties according to the same three factors.
A state which regularly spent more for any of the
Next, within each county's share, that which went
allowed purposes than all its local governments combined
to the county government was to be determined according
was authorized to exclude that function from the uses
to the proportion of total local taxes raised in the county
of the funds allowed to local governments.
and levied by the county government, as compared with
The bill authorized the treasury secretary to require
those levied by the city, village or township.
a local government to repay 110 percent of any expendi-
As in the Nixon revenue-sharing plan, allocations to
ture for an unauthorized purpose and to cut off funds to
local governments were limited to general-purpose govern-
any locality for violations of the bill's provisions.
ments, excluding school and other special-purpose dis-
Federal Tax Collection. The bill required the
tricts. Consequently, in establishing the county govern-
Internal Revenue Service to administer and collect
ment shares, education taxes were to be excluded.
"piggyback" state income taxes where certain conditions
Finally, the remaining funds were to be distributed
were met.
among the municipal and town governments according to
The purpose was to enable states to use the income tax
three factors:
as a greater source of revenue with minimum administra-
tive effort, reduce duplication of effort and simplify
The allocation based on population was to be dis-
tax matters.
tributed according to the relative population of the
The eligible state taxes for federal collection were
municipalities and towns.
those based on taxable income as federally defined and
Funds allocated according to the inverse population-
those levied as a percentage of federal tax liability.
per capita income ratio were to be distributed on that
The bill established basic requirements in order for
basis among the municipalities and towns.
a state to participate.
Funds allocated according to urban population were
The bill provided for establishment of combined
to be distributed in proportion to the totals distributed
withholding rates, SO that employers would be required
under the other two factors.
to keep only one set of tax records and make combined
After the first 18 months of operation, states were
deposits of withheld taxes. The Treasury was to be given
authorized to alter the formula for distribution to counties
full responsibility for enforcement and legal proceedings.
and other local governments by substituting a factor
The system was to take effect Jan. 1, 1974, if at
weighting population with per capita tax revenue for the
least five states had agreed and qualified and if the
population factor.
residents of the five states had filed at least 5 percent
States also were authorized to increase the proportion
of total federal individual income-tax returns in 1972.
of available funds to be allocated according to any of the
If the conditions had not been met by the beginning of
three factors by as much as 40 percent and to decrease
1974, the system was to start at the beginning of the
proportions by as much as 25 percent.
calendar year after the first five states met the conditions.
States also were authorized to withhold up to 10
Other Provisions. As reported, HR 14370 also:
percent of local funds for regional projects, provided
Prohibited discrimination in distribution of or partic-
that the state matched the local funds equally with
ipation in benefits of the program.
state funds.
Provided for review by federal courts on appeals from
The bill denied funds to any locality if its total allo-
decisions by the treasury secretary to withhold funds for
cation was less than $200. It placed a ceiling on the total
failure to comply with requirements.
allocation to any locality of 50 percent of a unit's relevant
taxes and transferred funds. In states choosing to use the
Dissenting Views
alternative population-per capita tax revenue factor, a
ceiling was provided to limit amounts allocated to high-
Seven committee members, after voting against re-
income suburbs with high tax rates.
porting the bill, filed dissenting views. They were Omar
640-1972 CQ ALMANAC
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Revenue Sharing 6
Burleson (D Texas), James C. Corman (D Calif.), Sam M.
Gibbons (D Fla.), Joe D. Waggonner Jr. (D La.), John W.
Mahon Comments
Byrnes (R Wis.), Herman T. Schneebeli (R Pa.) and Joel
T. Broyhill (R Va.).
By far the most vigorous House opponent of the
The dissenters first objected to the fact that states
revenue-sharing bill was House Appropriations Com-
were to be unrestricted in their use of funds while local
mittee Chairman George Mahon (D Texas) who
governments were restricted to uses given high priority
charged the measure would actually appropriate
by the committee majority. "The 'priorities' were plucked
the funds without further congressional review, and
out of thin air," they said, "for the sole purpose of dis-
thus subvert the legislative-appropriations process.
tinguishing the committee bill from the administration's
On June 7, Mahon printed his objections in the
'no-strings-attached' revenue sharing proposal which had
Congressional Record:
been consistently denounced by some members of the
"Next week there is also scheduled to be before
committee."
the House a $30-billion appropriation bill out of the
The dissent incorporated a long list of provisions and
Ways and Means Committee.
effects which the seven found objectionable, including:
"Mr. Speaker, this Ways and Means Commit-
Divorce of tax-raising responsibility from spending
tee bill does not raise one penny of revenue. It is an
authority.
authorization bill and it is an appropriation bill for
Restructuring of federal-state-local relationships.
5 years. It bypasses the established authorization
Lack of surplus revenues to share.
process involving a number of major legislative com-
Failure of the bill to deal with the existing weaknesses
mittees, and it bypasses the established appropria-
of state and local government.
tions process which we have known for the last 52
Lack of any rationale for the amounts of money or
years.
relationship of the amounts to state or local needs.
"Not in the history of Congress that I can find
Lack of a rationale for the various formulas.
has an appropriation bill come to the floor under a
Failure of the bill to take account of federal aid pro-
closed rule, which is now proposed for this Ways and
grams or state aids to local governments.
Means Committee bill. (The House Rules Commit-
Lack of effective accountability requirements.
tee May 23 approved a closed rule, allowing eight
The dissenters said the bill would transfer more
hours of general debate but prohibiting amendments
power to Washington instead of strengthening state and
from the floor. The House must approve the rule
local governments.
before the bill itself can be considered.)
Formulas were developed by trial and error, they
"I say it is indefensible that the appropriation
said, and "the committee's bill is nothing more than the
bill of $30-billion should come before the House next
final error, reached as a result of exhaustion and despair,
week under a closed rule. Members should have the
rather than a feeling that the committee had finally
right to make points of order and offer amendments.
stumbled on a workable formula." Further, they said,
I propose to do what I can to open up the rule so the
distribution was based on constantly changing data. The
House can work its will on that appropriation bill,
bill was potentially the biggest giveaway program ever
just as it does on other appropriation bills."
enacted, they said.
Mahon's opposition resulted in two postpone-
ments of floor consideration of the bill-a ploy by
the measure's proponents to gain more time in which
House Floor Action
to mobilize a lobby campaign of state and local offi-
cials and other groups in behalf of HR 14370. In
The House June 22, by a 275-122 roll-call vote,
effect, Mahon lost the battle June 21 when the
passed HR 14370 without amendment. (Vote 147, p. 46-H)
House, by a 223-185 roll-call vote, agreed to a pro-
Passage of the bill was virtually assured June 21,
cedural motion that paved the way for consideration
the first of two days of debate on HR 14370, when pro-
of the measure under a procedure barring floor
ponents of the revenue-sharing plan prevailed in a key
amendments.
procedural vote. By a roll-call vote of 223-185, the House
called for the previous question (closing off debate and
precluding the opportunity of offering amendments) on a
Thus the rule limited action on the House floor to the
controversial closed rule (H Res 996) under which the
alternatives of passing the bill, killing it or returning it to
bill was taken up. (Vote 145, p. 44-H)
the Ways and Means Committee. With governors, mayors
Republicans supported the rule by 113-57; Demo-
and their organizations and other state and local officials
crats opposed it, 110-128 (northern Democrats, 89-69,
lobbying vigorously for the bill with strong support from
southern Democrats, 21-59). The rule then was approved
taxpayers, the bill commanded an impressive majority
by voice vote.
when it came to a vote.
Opponents had little hope of defeating the new aid
Closed Rule
program for hard-pressed state and local governments on
a direct vote, but they hoped to make changes in the bill
The closed rule provided for eight hours of debate on
by raising a point of order against it or by amending it
HR 14370 but prohibited floor amendments and waived
if they could defeat the rule. Ways and Means Committee
points of order against the bill. The rule permitted
revenue bills cutomarily were granted closed rules on
amendments offered by the Ways and Means Commit-
grounds that they were too complicated to amend on the
tee, which reported the bill April 26, but the committee
floor and that open rules would open the entire Internal
offered none.
Revenue Code to amendment. The privilege had been
1972 CQ ALMANAC-641
Revenue Sharing - 7
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
granted to other Ways and Means non-revenue-raising
for sewage collection and treatment facilities, waste dis-
legislation on grounds of complexity; thus welfare reform
posal systems and public transportation.
(HR 1) was passed by the House under a modified closed
rule permitting only one amendment.
Debate, June 21
Appropriation
Majority Whip Thomas P. O'Neill Jr. (D Mass.), sup-
porting the rule, argued that its defeat would send the
The bill pitted two leaders of the House, Chairman
bill back to committee and that it might not come to the
Wilbur D. Mills (D Ark.) of Ways and Means and Chair-
floor again. O'Neill led the debate for the rule because
man George Mahon (D Texas) of the Appropriations
Chairman William M. Colmer (D Miss.) of the Rules
Committee. (box, p. 641) Mills, originally a vociferous
Committee opposed the bill.
critic of revenue sharing, changed his mind in 1971 and
Majority Leader Hale Boggs (D La.) said the need
drafted the bill on which his committee's bill was based.
of state and local governments constituted an emergency.
Mahon fought the bill on two grounds: that it spent money
"I say it is too bad that the Appropriations Committee
the government did not have (the latest official estimate
is bypassed, but in an emergency you take emergency
of the federal deficit for fiscal year 1972 was $26-billion
action." Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford (R Mich.) said
and for fiscal 1973, $27-billion), and that it appropriated
both parties were committed to revenue sharing and the
funds in a legislative bill.
bill provided the opportunity to carry out their commit-
The bill established the revenue-sharing program
ments.
and also appropriated the necessary funds, though it
Mahon said the bill was essentially an appropriation.
was never referred to Mahon's committee. (House rules
"The bill represents an indefensible abrogation. of the
prohibit appropriations in a legislative bill, hence the
power of the House for a five-year period. Think of it-writ-
waiver of points of order in the rule.) Customarily a pro-
ing ourselves out of the action for a five-year period."
gram is established and funds authorized in one bill
John W. Byrnes (R Wis.), the ranking minority
handled by the committee responsible for the particular
member of the Ways and Means Committee, challenged
area of activity; funds are appropriated in a separate bill
Mills' interpretation of his instructions. "The chairman
handled by the Appropriations Committee.
will no doubt say (if the rule was defeated) that he would
Mahon hoped to delete the bill's provisions appro-
have to go back to the committee for further instructions.
priating funds and to require funding of the program
That is a bunch of malarkey." Byrnes said the committee's
with annual appropriations as in the case of most other
request for a closed rule did not require withdrawal of the
aid programs. But proponents objected strenuously to
bill if the rule was opened.
subjecting revenue sharing to the appropriations process.
H. Allen Smith (R Calif.) of the Rules Committee
Had the bill been opened to amendment, attempts
urged defeat of the rule so that he could offer a sub-
were contemplated to change the complicated formula for
stitute which would have allowed points of order and
distribution of the funds, to add tax reform to the bill and
amendments to the bill except to those provisions amend-
to make other changes in tax statutes. As with other legis-
ing the Internal Revenue Code.
lation in similar circumstances, Mills announced before the
Mills did not speak on the rule but defended the bill
bill was taken up that he was under instructions from his
against charges that its distribution of funds would grant
committee to withdraw the bill from floor consideration
larger amounts per capita to wealthy than to poor states
if it was opened to amendment. The Rules Committee
and cities. Wealthy states pay a larger share of the federal
on May 23 had voted 8-7 to approve the closed rule.
income tax, he said. "In evaluating the distributive ef-
Following committee adoption of the rule, floor action
fects, it is important to take into consideration not only
was postponed twice while the bill's proponents sought to
the grants themselves but also the federal income taxes
build up the lobbying muscle necessary to push the mea-
that are collected to pay for these grants. When both
sure through.
the grants and federal income taxes are taken into con-
The bill provided initially for aid at rates of $1.8-
sideration, the net effect is to aid the poorer states."
billion a year to states and $3.5-billion to local govern-
The bill, Byrnes said, "takes us into a dark tunnel of
ments. Annual increases of up to $300-million were pro-
fiscal chaos with no light at the end." He quoted ex-
vided for states. Grants for the five-year term pro-
tensively from two of Mills' 1971 speeches attacking
vided in the bill were (in billions of dollars):
revenue sharing. Mahon said state and local demands
Year
State
Local
Total
for greater aid would make the bill a "tiger by the tail."
"A vote for revenue sharing will be a vote for a tax in-
FY 1972 (half-year)
$ .9
$ 1.75
$ 2.65
crease," he said.
FY 1973
1.95
3.5
5.45
FY 1974
2.25
3.5
5.75
June 22
FY 1975
2.55
3.5
6.05
Barber B. Conable Jr. (R N.Y.) asserted that the
FY 1976
2.85
3.5
6.35
bill would strengthen state and local governments by
FY 1977 (half-year)
1.575
1.75
3.325
giving them funds to spend according to their own
TOTALS
$12.075
$17.50
$29.575
priorities rather than those of the federal government.
State funds were to be distributed according to for-
Revenue sharing is a better way to help states and
mulas that increased state shares as their individual
localities than the existing system of categorical aid pro-
income taxes increased. The funds were unrestricted as to
grams for specific purposes, he said. State and local
use. Local funds were limited to operation and mainte-
governments, he contended, would be held to at least
nance expenses for public safety, environmental protec-
as close accountability for the funds as was the federal
tion and public transportation and capital expenditures
government.
642-1972 CQ ALMANAC
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Revenue Sharing - 8
Al Ullman (D Ore.) said the bill would in no way
certain that a five-year trial period is sufficient to see if this
circumscribe the states in their activities and would help
redirection in our federal system is as effective as we anticipate.
local governments meet the fiscal crisis they faced. The
"In the distribution of funds among state governments, the
flight of higher-income families to the suburbs left low-
House bill places great emphasis on state income taxes. It has
income families to finance the problems concentrated
been the position of the administration not to favor particular
state tax instruments, but rather to reward over-all state and
in core cities, he said. The bill restricted local govern-
local tax effort. Accordingly, we would prefer to replace the
ments in their use of the funds, he said, but still gave them
income tax incentive with a provision closer to the President's
considerable flexibility.
original proposal.
James C. Corman (D Calif.), a member of Ways and
"Another difference involved the restrictions placed on
Means who voted against reporting the bill, criticized
local uses of these revenue-sharing funds. The President's
the bill's distribution formulas. He said the committee had
proposal required only that the funds be used for legitimate
considered and rejected a number of formulas: "We
governmental purposes and in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
finally quit, not because we hit on a rational formula, but
The House bill provides for a series of high-priority categories.
because we were exhausted. And finally we got one that
We would recommend that your committee consider removing
almost none of us could understand at the moment. We
these restrictions on local spending contained in the House bill.
"A third aspect of the House bill which deserves comment
were told the statistics were not available to run the print
is the use of urbanized population as a factor to distribute the
on it. So we adopted it, and it is here for you today."
$3.5-billion among the states to the localities. This factor dis-
Corman said further that the bill did nothing to re-
criminates rather severely against three states (Alaska,
duce the fragmentation of local government. Rather
Vermont and Wyoming) without urbanized population. Con-
than encouraging more efficient local government, he said,
sequently, we recommend that the committee explore ways of
the bill appeared to invite further fragmentation and
removing this discrimination."
greater waste.
Howard H. Baker Jr. (R Tenn.), who introduced
Sam Gibbons (D Fla.) said that, despite reports of
the bill in the Senate (S 3651), urged passage of a
fiscal crises in the states, only four governors asked their
revenue-sharing bill in 1972.
legislatures for new taxes in 1972. A number of represen-
HR 14370 is a bill "that I could easily support and vote for
tatives objected that their states would be penalized in
without any change in it at all There is one significant
the distribution of funds because they did not have an
change that I would like to urge strongly before this com-
individual income tax.
mittee." One provision would encourage (if not virtually force)
states to enact personal income taxes. The constitutional
Richard W. Mallary (R Vt.) listed wealthy suburban
obstacles to an income tax are formidable in Tennessee.
cities which, as urbanized areas, would receive funds
Several ways have been proposed to eliminate the income
supposedly allocated for central cities, including Beverly
tax problem from the bill. "I introduced an amendment"
Hills, Calif., McLean, Va., Shaker Heights, Ohio, Grosse
under which "the entire appropriation would be apportioned
Pointe, Mich., Greenwich, Conn., Lake Forest, III., and
among the states on the basis of population modified by tax
Palm Beach, Fla. "There is in this bill," he said, "the
effort." The amendment would double the apportionment to
false assumption that the rural areas do not have ex-
the Tennessee state government, from $14.3-million to $29.5-
tremely pressing revenue problems We must recognize
million.
the extreme tax problems of rural, sparsely populated
Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.), a cosponsor of S
areas where poverty is a way of life...."
3651 and author of an earlier revenue-sharing bill, urged
Recommittal Motion. Byrnes lost in a final effort
passage but also recommended certain changes and
to cut the cost of the bill. He moved to recommit the bill
warned that "this Congress and the Executive Branch of
to the Ways and Means Committee (a routine parlia-
our federal government must not-indeed cannot-fall
mentary procedures) with instructions to report it back
into the trap of thinking that problems of the cities,
immediately without the retroactive distribution of funds
suburbs and townships disappear with the passage of
for the last six months of fiscal year 1972. This would save
revenue sharing."
$2.65-billion, he said. His motion was defeated on a 157-
July 26
241 roll-call vote. (Vote 146, p. 46-H) The House then
Lee Metcalf (D Mont.) urged the committee to
passed the bill by a 275-122 roll-call vote. (Vote 147,
make Indian tribes eligible to share in the funds allocated
p. 46-H)
to local governments:
Senate Committee Action
James L. Buckley (Cons-R N.Y.) suggested an alter-
native to the bill under which the federal government
would shift part of its personal income tax base to the
HEARINGS. The Senate Finance Committee held
states temporarily and share its tax-collecting facilities
a hearing June 29 on the House-passed State and Local
to the extent that a total of $5-billion or more would be
Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 (HR 14370).
collected annually for state and local governments.
Testimony June 29
Roland M. Bixler, president of J-B-T Instruments,
Treasury Secretary George P. Shultz endorsed the
Inc., New Haven, Conn., speaking for the National
bill in general but asked consideration of certain changes:
Association of Manufacturers, opposed HR 14370 but
Revenue sharing will help state and local governments
urged the committee to add to it minimum standards
avert their recurrent financial crises. It will partially redress
the imbalance in revenue sources available to state and local
for state taxation of multi-state businesses and relief for
governments. It offers hope for revitalization of state and local
business from differing state and local tax requirements.
government within the federal system.
Eugene F. Rinta, executive director of the Council
"While we prefer determining the amount to be shared each
of State Chambers of Commerce, opposed HR 14370:
year as a percentage of the federal tax base, we also respect the
"Even if HR 14370 were acceptable on principle, the
desire of the Congress to limit the duration of the program so
seriously adverse present and prospective federal fiscal position
that it can be evaluated and changed if necessary. We feel
would not warrant embarking at this time on a new program
1972 CQ ALMANAC-643
Revenue Sharing - 9
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
providing $5- to $6-billion annual handouts to state and local
revenue sharing in the trust fund. Any remaining amounts
governments in the years ahead."
were to be added to the general funds of the Treasury.
Paul Parks, administrator of the model cities
The committee noted that other trust-funded pro-
program in Boston, speaking for Americans for Democratic
grams, such as Social Security, were financed under
Action, supported the revenue-sharing concept for local
permanent appropriations and did not require annual or
governments but opposed sharing with states.
periodic action by the appropriations bodies of the two
July 27
houses. If the Appropriations Committee was successful in
George Lehr, county executive, Jackson County,
asserting jurisdiction, it could require annual appropria-
Mo., speaking for the National Association of Counties,
tions which would be subject to pressures both from
supported the bill:
recipients and from conflicting claims of other federal
"These crises (faced by counties) do not exist because of
programs.
increases in what are thought to be 'traditional' county
The decision to order the bill reported again came
functions. They exist because of the rapid increases in new
after unsuccessful efforts to reach an accommodation
functions that counties have willingly assumed during the last
two decades.
with the Appropriations Committee The action appeared
"This is the overriding reason why we need fiscal assis-
to reflect the confidence of Chairman Russell B. Long
tance now-to solve the fiscal problems arising from our
(D La.) of the Finance Committee that, as amended, the
willingness to assume the responsibilities accorded us (and
bill had sufficient support to reject any effort by the
sometimes mandated upon us) by federal and state govern-
Appropriations Committee on the floor to take control of it.
ments and to meet the demands of our local citizens."
Many observers regarded the Appropriations Com-
Andrew J. Biemiller, director, department of
mittee's effort as an initial assertion of authority by John
legislation, AFL-CIO, restated the organization's op-
L. McClellan (D Ark.), who succeeded to the committee
position to the bill:
chairmanship on the death of Allen J. Ellender (D La.)
"It is our judgment that the State and Local Fiscal Assis-
July 27. The move scuttled the chance for Senate passage
tance Act in its present form will be a cruel disappointment
before the Aug. 18 recess for the Republican national
to its advocates. It will fall far short of its intended goals
convention. A move similar to McClellan's by Chairman
and set a dangerous precedent."
George Mahon (D Texas) of the House Appropriations
BILL REPORTED. The Senate Finance Committee
Committee failed when the bill was considered in the
Aug. 16 reported an amended bill, the Revenue Sharing
House.
Act of 1972 (HR 14370-S Rept 92-1050).
Amounts allocated to individual states and to their
The revenue-sharing bill which was passed by the
local governments differed substantially from the House
House June 22 was substantially revised by the Senate
bill's distribution. By fiscal years, the amounts provided
committee.
were, in billions of dollars:
The amended bill provided the same total amount
for revenue sharing as the House bill but, in addition,
Fiscal
Revenue
Supplementary
Total
authorized supplementary social service grants at a level
Year
Sharing
Grants
of $1-billion per calendar years 1973-1976. It reduced the
revenue shares for more urbanized states but increased
1972
$ 2.650 (half-year)
$ 0.000
$ 2.650
shares for urbanized areas as well as less urban states.
1973
5.450
.500 (half-year)
5.950
The bill provided trust fund financing for revenue
1974
5.750
1.000
6.750
sharing to avoid the congressional appropriations process.
1975
6.050
1.000
7.050
1976
6.350
1,000
It eliminated the limits on local use of funds provided by
7.350
1977
the House bill.
3.325 (half-year)
.500 (half-year)
3.825
Initial Action, Revision. The Senate bill initially
TOTALS
$29.575
$4.000
$33.575
was ordered reported Aug. 9 as a thoroughly amended
version of the House bill. However, when the Senate
The annual rates for fiscal year 1977, for the first
Appropriations Committee tried to assert jurisdiction over
half of which funds were provided, were $6.650-billion
the bill, the Finance Committee reconsidered its action
for revenue sharing, $1-billion for supplementary
Aug. 11. (The Appropriations panel had voted Aug. 10 to
grants and $7.650-billion in total.
demand an opportunity to consider the bill before it went
The committee voted 12-4 to report the bill. The
to the floor.) To keep the program out of the normal
dissenters were Fred R. Harris (D Okla.), Harry F. Byrd
appropriations process, within which it could have been
Jr. (Ind. Va.), Carl T. Curtis (R Neb.) and Len B. Jor-
subject to annual appropriations, the committee revised
dan (R Idaho).
the bill's financing provisions to provide a "permanent"
Abraham Ribicoff (D Conn.) submitted additional
appropriation of 7 percent of personal income tax receipts
views on the legislation, while Byrd submitted a minority
to a special revenue-sharing trust fund for the five-year
view. Ribicoff objected to the committee's deletion of
life of the legislation. From the trust fund the secretary
factors in the House bill allocation formulas which granted
of the treasury was directed to pay out to the state and
greater benefits in total to the local governments of ur-
local governments the amounts to which they were en-
banized states and to the committee's refusal to relate
titled under the aid formulas adopted by the committees.
state shares to federal income tax collections in each state.
The trust fund was expected to provide substantially
Byrd dissented on grounds that the federal government
more than the amounts mandated by the bill, which began
was in deficit and had no surplus revenues to share,
retroactively at an annual level of $5.3-billion for the
that the bill divided public accountability by giving state
latter half of fiscal 1972 (Jan. 1 to June 30, 1972).
and local governments funds which they had no respon-
The Treasury was authorized to pay the supple-
sibility for raising and that the legislation involved fed-
mentary social service grants out of sums remaining from
eral dictation to state and local governments.
644-1972 CQ ALMANAC
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Revenue Sharing 10
Provisions. As reported by the Finance Committee,
Authorized each state government to change the for-
HR 14370:
mula for distribution of local government funds once
Authorized revenue sharing with state and local
during the five calendar years to increase, reduce or
governments for five calendar years, effective retro-
eliminate the effect of either total tax effort or inverse per
actively to Jan. 1, 1972, at an initial fiscal year level of
capita income.
$5.3-billion (actually half that amount to be paid out
Limited local government revenue sharing to general
retroactively for the latter half of fiscal year 1972-Jan.
purpose government units, excluding school districts and
1, 1972, to June 30, 1972), with annual increases of $150-
other special purpose districts.
million in fiscal 1973 and $300-million each fiscal year
Provided that, where a city crossed county lines, the
afterward, making a total of $29.575-billion over the five
part within each county was to be treated separately in
calendar years.
calculation of the city's share (but the total share was to
Authorized supplementary social service grants to
be paid to the city government).
state and local governments for four calendar years,
Disallowed allocation of a share to any locality en-
beginning Jan. 1, 1973, at an initial fiscal year level of
titled to less than $200.
$1-billion (half that amount to be paid out in the latter
Required each state and local government to submit
half of fiscal 1973), making a total of $4-billion and a
an annual report to the Treasury Department setting out
grand total of $33.575-billion; stipulated that the grants
the purposes for which revenue-sharing funds were used
were to replace existing 75-percent federal matching
during the previous fiscal year and the purposes for which
grants for all social services except child care and family
the funds were to be used in the current or forthcoming
planning (for which the matching grants would continue
fiscal year.
to be available).
Prohibited denial of benefits under the program by
Created a trust fund consisting of 7 percent of in-
any state or local government on the basis of race, sex
dividual income tax receipts (3.5 percent for the half-
or national origin.
years of fiscal 1972 and 1977) for revenue sharing and au-
Prohibited use of funds as state or local funds to
thorized appropriation of a sum sufficient to make
match federal funds under requirements of other federal
supplementary grants; required the treasury secretary to
aid programs.
pay state and local governments in quarterly increments
Required each state and local government to estab-
the sums to which the bill entitled them and authorized
lish a trust fund for revenue-sharing funds received; re-
use of leftover sums in the revenue-sharing trust fund for
quired each state and local government to spend revenue-
supplementary grants.
sharing funds within the same strictures applying to their
REVENUE SHARING
own funds; required fiscal accounting and audit proce-
dures conforming to guidelines to be established by the
Distributed funds for each fiscal year among the
treasury secretary after consultation with the comptroller
states according to population, total tax effort of the
general.
state and local governments and, inversely, per capita in-
Required that persons in local government jobs
come relative to each of those factors for the entire
financed by revenue-sharing funds be paid at rates
country.
prevailing for similar jobs financed with local funds but
Allocated each state's share, including the annual
eliminated the House bill's application of the Davis-
increase, one-third to the state government and two-
Bacon Act (requiring payment of prevailing-
thirds to local governments.
union-wage scales under federally financed construc-
Required each state government to continue to share
tion contracts) to local government construction contracts
its own revenues with local governments to at least the
financed with revenue-sharing funds.
extent it did during fiscal 1972 and authorized reduction
of a state government's share to the extent by which a
SUPPLEMENTARY GRANTS
state failed to comply.
Limited 75-percent federal matching funds for social
Allocated the local government share for each state
service programs for welfare recipients, under the existing
among the state's counties according to relative popula-
Social Security program, to matching for child care and
tion, inverse per capita income and total tax effort (total
family planning.
county and local taxes less education taxes, to eliminate
Allocated supplementary grant funds among states
the effect of variations in types of school districts and in
on the basis of their urbanized population, as defined by
financial responsibility for education).
the Census Bureau, but provided a floor under which no
Allocated each county's share between the county
less than 30 percent of the population of any state was
government and the municipal governments according to
regarded as urbanized.
their relative tax effort, excluding education taxes.
Allocated supplementary grant funds, one-third to
Allocated local governments' shares within each
state governments and two-thirds to local governments;
county-according to relative population, tax effort and
distributed funds to local governments in the same pro-
inverse per capita income-among the municipalities (and
portions as revenue-sharing funds.
towns, where they performed municipal services).
Limited 75-percent matching for social services for the
Established a floor and ceiling such that no county or
remainder of calendar 1972 to existing programs at current
municipality would receive less than 20 percent of the
levels.
average per capita allocation of all local governments in
Provided for judicial review of questions involving
a state or more than 145 percent; limited each county's
federal withholding of state or local revenue-sharing al-
and municipality's share to 50 percent of its taxes (less
locations or supplementary grants.
education taxes) and intergovernmental transfers for the
Required information about place of residence on
previous fiscal year.
income tax returns, for allocation purposes.
1972 CQ ALMANAC-645
Revenue Sharing - 11
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
INCOME TAX COLLECTION
for dividing $1.8-billion a year among state governments
and $3.5-billion a year among local governments within
Required the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to col-
the states. Under the House bill, each state government's
lect state individual income taxes when the state had met
share would be determined by its state income tax collec-
requirements of the bill and regulations to be issued by
tions and by the general tax effort of all governments with-
the Treasury and had entered into an agreement for that
in the state. Funds for local government would be allocated
purpose with the Treasury.
among the states on the basis of over-all population, ur-
Made the "piggyback" collection provision effective
ban population and the average income of the state's
Jan. 1, 1974, if a state or states with residents who had
population.
filed at least 5 percent of federal income tax returns in
The Senate bill, on the other hand, allocated a sin-
1972 had entered a collection agreement by that date.
gle lump sum to each state on the basis of three factors:
Generally applied IRS regulations to collection of
population, tax effort by state and local governments and
state taxes and gave the treasury secretary authority to
the income level of the population. One-third of that
prescribe withholding rates and establish conditions for
amount would go to the state government; the other two-
entry into an agreement and withdrawal.
thirds would be distributed among the local government
Established requirements to be met in their tax
units according to the same factors used to determine the
systems by states to qualify for federal collection.
state's allocation from the federal government.
Provided that the federal government would repre-
By dropping the House bill's use of state income tax
sent state interests in dealings with taxpayers, including
collections to compute state government shares and the
legal proceedings, except in limited circumstances.
urban population figure to compute each state's local
Required participating states to adopt all future
government shares, the Senate gave greater weight to the
changes in federal individual income tax laws; prescribed
income level of the population, thus favoring smaller states
timing for changes in state tax laws; prescribed addi-
where incomes are lower.
tional types of income taxes participating states could im-
The result was reduced shares of revenue-sharing
pose; required conformity in taxable years, joint returns,
funds for 16 states and the District of Columbia and
penalties and treatment of income.
greater shares for the other 34 states. The Senate's over-
all redistribution formula reflected less weight given in-
Senate Floor Action
come taxes, a higher proportion of which are collected
by larger states, and the populations of the major
The Senate Sept. 12, by a 64-20 roll-call vote, passed
metropolitan areas; this. resulted in smaller shares for
HR 14370 establishing a five-year program to share $29,-
those state governments and for local governments in
583,560,000 in federal revenues with state and local gov-
populous suburban areas. On the other hand, the greater
ernments and $4-billion over four years for social services.
weight given low-income levels and tax effort by the
(Vote 391, p. 61-S)
Senate bill favored local governments in poor central
During floor action on HR 14370, the Senate upheld
cities and rural areas.
the major revisions in the House-passed bill recommended
In terms of funds provided by HR 14370, the Sen-
by the Senate Finance Committee. The Senate version
ate's reduction of revenue-sharing allocations to the
increased the amounts provided the smaller states, at the
larger states was partially offset by the addition of $1-
expense of the more populous urban states.
billion a year for supplementary social services grants.
As passed, HR 14370 reflected the greater represen-
The supplementary funds, distributed on the basis of a
tation in the Senate of states with smaller populations
state's urban population, primarily would benefit the
and fewer cities. The votes against passage of HR 14370
larger states whose revenue-sharing funds were cut back
were cast by fiscal conservatives opposed to the extent
in the Senate bill.
of the appropriations in the bill and by large-state sena-
Approval of the supplementary funds reduced to four
tors opposed to the reduced shares it gave their states.
the number of states that would lose total funding under
Although the allocations among states varied, House
the Senate version. In terms of total federal money avail-
and Senate versions provided nearly identical total
able, however, the larger states still might lose money, since
amounts for state and local governments, starting at an
HR 14370 placed a ceiling of $1.6-billion on federal grants
annual level of about $5.3-billion.
for social services.
In an effort to offset reductions in shared revenues
In all, the Senate adopted 11 amendments to the
to urban states, the Senate added $1-billion for each
committee-approved bill, most of which made only minor
of 1973-76, not provided by the House, for a separate pro-
changes in the committee's revenue-sharing formula. It
gram of grants for social services based on each state's
rejected 19 amendments, some of which would have shifted
urban population. At the same time, however, the Senate
the whole emphasis in the distribution of revenue-
limited total federal spending on such programs to $1.6-
sharing funds.
billion: $1-billion for programs funded by the bill and
By substantial margins, the Senate rejected seven
$600-million for child-care and family-planning services to
amendments to provide a greater proportion of revenue-
be funded under existing matching grant programs.
sharing funds for the larger states. The alternative
Under existing programs, in which the federal govern-
formulas-proposed by senators from Ohio, New York and
ment furnishes 75 percent of the cost of social services (in-
Connecticut-favored larger states by giving greater
cluding child care and family planning) administered by
weight to population or to the population living in urban
state and local governments, federal payments had been
areas.
expected to reach $4.7-billion in fiscal 1973.
In the only change affecting total funds available
At the Finance Committee's recommendation, the
under HR 14370, the Senate Sept. 12 adopted an amend-
Senate abandoned complex provisions in the House bill
ment by Daniel K. Inouye (D Hawaii) increasing alloca-
646-1972 CQ ALMANAC
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Revenue Sharing 12
tions to Alaska and Hawaii to offset higher living costs
"The committee bill is more effective than the House
in the states outside the continental United States.
bill in putting the money where the needs are," Long con-
Inouye's amendment added $4,780,000 a year to the
tended. The committee version's single formula for dis-
committee-approved totals to Hawaii ($3,405,000 a year)
tributing funds to states and to political divisions within
and Alaska ($1,375,000 a year), leaving other states'
states "has the advantage of providing consistent treat-
shares unaffected.
ment in allocating funds to state and local governments,"
In actions modifying the committee-approved pro-
he added.
vision for supplementary social services grants, the
"The House bill distributed funds to the states only
Senate Sept. 12 adopted:
on an incentive basis-that is, on the basis of general tax
effort and income tax collections. This ignored the 'need'
By a 60-28 roll call, an amendment by Finance
factor in distributing funds and meant that the lower
Committee Chairman Russell B. Long (D La.) limiting
income states received less than their fair share."
federal matching grants for child-care and family-plan-
By basing distributions to states in part on their in-
ing services to $600-million a year, allocated among the
come tax collections, Long argued, the House bill "dis-
states according to population. (Vote 387, p. 60-S)
criminates markedly against states with either no income
By voice vote, an amendment by Abraham Ribicoff
tax or low income taxes."
(D Conn.) appropriating $1-billion a year to a separate
The House formula for distributions to local govern-
trust fund for the supplemental social services grants.
ments "would distribute relatively large amounts of aid to
Long's amendment was offered as a compromise
well-to-do suburbs, reducing the amounts available for
substitute for an amendment by William V. Roth Jr.
distribution to the cities and low-income rural areas."
(R Del.) that would have replaced the committee's $1-
"The committee bill, by emphasizing both low-income
billion social services grants authorization with authority
levels and tax effort, channels more of the revenue-sharing
for $3.15-billion a year in matching funds for such pro-
funds both to the cities and to the poorer rural areas."
grams-including child-care and family-planning.
Long added.
The committee bill, while limiting federal contribu-
Conceding that the Senate committee had redu
tions for state and local social services to $1-billion, had
revenue-sharing allocations to the most populous states,
excluded family planning and child care from the ceiling.
Long argued that the committee's bill provided offsetting
Roth's amendment brought child care and family plan-
aid to urban states through the $1-billion supplemental
ning under the ceiling but provided substantially more
grant program for social services.
than the committee bill for the other programs.
The committee deleted House provisions restricting
By limiting child care and family planning to $600-
local governments' use of federal revenue funds to speci-
million, Long's amendment placed a total ceiling of $1.6-
fied purposes because "we are convinced that local govern-
billion on federal assistance to social services programs.
ments know better than we do in the Senate as to what
Family planning and child care still would be funded
their needs are," Long said.
separately by existing programs.
John V. Tunney (D Calif.) objected that the $1-
Ribicoff's amendment, which was endorsed by
billion supplemental grant program would disrupt Cali-
Long, provided permanent appropriations for the supple-
fornia's social services financing system. In California,
mentary grant funds; enactment would assure state and
he said, counties and states share responsibility for social
local governments of receiving the funds without the fear
services; but the committee bill would require that federal
of congressional appropriations cutbacks in later years.
funds for such programs go to cities as well.
Other amendments approved by the Senate made
Ribicoff Amendment. The Senate Sept. 5 resumed
Indian tribes and groups that performed government
debate on HR 14370 with Ribicoff introducing his amend-
functions eligible for revenue sharing and attached
ment revising the distribution formula to provide more
existing federal wage standards to projects for which
money to the larger states.
revenue-sharing funds were used.
"The rejuvenation of our deteriorating cities was one
The Senate rejected amendments that would have
of the prime considerations in the development of the
limited the revenue-sharing program to two years and
revenue-sharing concept," he said. "Yet the Senate Fi-
required annual congressional appropriations of funds
nance Committee has approved a bill which is only
before they could be distributed to state and local govern-
partly responsive to our urban problems. The committee's
ments.
formula is a conscious attempt to penalize those areas
Also rejected were amendments by Democratic
with the most explosive and expensive problems."
senators dealing with tax reform. One, offered by Edward
The committee bill's greater share for cities "does
M. Kennedy (D Mass.), would have required President
not compensate for the fact that in the total distribution
Nixon to submit tax reform proposals to Congress before
of the $5.3-billion, urban states and their state govern-
the November presidential election. Amendments by
ments get far less than their fair share," Ribicoff added.
Frank Church (D Idaho) and Gaylord Nelson (D Wis.)
" we must also recognize that many urban-oriented ser-
would have repealed existing tax preferences on per-
vices are provided by state governments."
sonal income.
Long opposed Ribicoff's amendment during debate
Sept. 6, arguing that the committee version offered help
to poorer states not provided by the House bill or by Ribi-
Debate
coff's formula.
By allocating more funds to urban areas "where per-
Opening debate on HR 14370 Aug. 18, Finance Com-
haps sanitary services are not everything that is desired,"
mittee Chairman Russell B. Long (D La.) explained the
Long reasoned, "in some respects you would be taking
committee-approved changes in the House-passed revenue-
funds away from rural people who cannot afford even a
sharing bill.
flush toilet."
1972 CQ ALMANAC-647
Revenue Sharing 13
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Ribicoff: "Whenever a formula comes up before the
funds. The amendments were supported by organized
Committee on Finance, the state of Louisiana never comes
labor and by the Nixon administration.
out second best Those from urban states are so outvoted
By a 58-26 roll call, the Senate approved Hartke's
in the committee that urban problems are overlooked and
amendment applying existing federal wage standards to
bypassed."
workers on construction projects and to government posi-
Long: Under the committee bill cities in New York
tions financed with federal revenues to be shared with
and California, like cities in Illinois and Michigan, which
state and local governments. The amendment required
needed help the most would get lots of help at the
persons compensated from revenue-sharing funds to be
expense of the very wealthy suburbs, which really did not
paid at the prevailing wage, the state or local minimum
need any assistance at all."
wage or the federal minimum wage. It also applied to
By a 24-61 roll-call vote Sept. 6, the Senate defeated
revenue-sharing funds the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act require-
Ribicoff's amendment. (Vote 367, p. 57-S)
ment that workers on federally financed construction
The amendment substituted a formula in which each
projects receive wages equivalent to local prevailing
state's share would have been determined on the basis of
construction wages. (Vote 370, p. 58-S)
urbanized population as well as by total population, tax
Before approving Hartke's amendment, the Senate
revenue and income level as under the committee bill.
by voice vote adopted a modifying amendment by Fi-
The Ribicoff formula would have allocated 40 per-
nance Committee Chairman Russell B. Long (D La.)
cent of the federal revenues shared each year among the
restricting the wage requirements to projects or job posi-
states according to their shares of the total population
tions for which more than 25 percent of the funding came
and the percentage of the urban population. The remain-
from revenue-sharing money.
ing 60 percent would be allocated in ratio to each state's
Two other Hartke proposals were rejected Sept. 6 by
state and local tax effort weighted by their per capita
the Senate:
income levels.
By a 26-56 roll call, an amendment prohibiting use of
The result would have been larger shares of federal
revenue-sharing funds to induce a business or industry to
revenues for the most populous and industrialized states
move a factory or other facility from one area to another.
and, correspondingly, reduced shares for the smaller,
(Vote 371, p. 58-S)
less urbanized states. All 24 votes for Ribicoff's amend-
By a 27-54 roll call, an amendment applying the
ment were cast by senators from states whose shares
1964 Urban Mass Transportation Act labor requirements
would have been enlarged by the revised formula.
to urban mass transportation systems acquired by local
McClellan Amendment. By a 34-49 roll call Sept.
government units with federal revenue-sharing funds.
(Vote 372, p. 58-S)
7, the Senate rejected an amendment by Appropriations
Debate on Hartke's amendments centered on whether
Committee Chairman John L. McClellan (D Ark.) elimi-
Congress should attach any conditions or qualifications
nating from the committee version authority to appro-
to the revenue it shared with state and local govern-
priate revenue-sharing funds for the last three years
ments.
(fiscal 1974-76) covered under the bill. (Vote 347, p. 54-S)
McClellan's amendment, an attempt to assert
Long and other senators argued that any restrictive
Appropriations Committee jurisdiction over revenue-
amendments would be inconsistent with the purpose of
sharing funds, would have required the committee's
revenue sharing and that Hartke's amendments would
approval of amounts distributed to the states during
apply federal labor standards to projects financed with
those fiscal years. The Finance Committee bill provided
only small percentages of federal funds.
a permanent annual appropriation of 7 percent of per-
Taft Formula. Introducing an amendment re-
sonal income tax revenue to a special revenue-sharing
vising the distribution formula so that the larger states
trust fund and authorized the secretary of the Treasury
would receive more of the total amount, Robert Taft Jr.
to distribute the money in fiscal 1972-76 according to
(R Ohio) Sept. 8 said the Finance Committee bill "re-
amounts authorized by the bill.
sulted in a very serious net loss to a great many states and,
McClellan's amendment would have appropriated
particularly, to many of our larger cities.
$2,650,000,000 retroactively from the trust fund for fiscal
"Many of the states are shortchanged," he added, and
1972 and $5,450,000,000 for fiscal 1973. For subsequent
many of them are among the larger states where the
fiscal years, the bill allowed revenue-sharing appropria-
problems and expenses are the greatest."
tions to be included in the previous year's appropriations
Citing his own state's $40-million loss under the
measures to give state and local governments advance
committee version, Taft argued that "Ohio should not be
notice of how much money they could expect to receive.
victimized by a formula which rewards high taxes and
The Appropriations Committee Aug. 10 had voted to
governmental inefficiency." The amendment was killed
demand that it be given an opportunity to consider HR
when Long's motion to table it was adopted on a 52-24
14370 before it went to the floor. The Finance Committee,
roll-call vote. (Vote 380, p. 59-S)
which had ordered the bill reported Aug. 9, then revised
Long said Taft's formula left out tax effort, "one
the measure's financing provisions to head off the Appro-
factor that the administration found to be a compelling
priations Committee's claim of jurisdiction over the bill.
factor" in determining revenue-sharing allocations.
Of 34 votes for McClellan's amendment, 21 were
Under Secretary of the Treasury Charls E. Walker had
cast by members of the Appropriations Committee.
endorsed the Finance Committee formula, Long added.
Hartke Amendments. The Senate Sept. 6 adopted
Tax Amendments. Church and Nelson Sept. 11
one of three amendments offered by Vance Hartke (D
presented their amendments to eliminate tax prefer-
Ind.) applying existing federal labor standards to projects
ences. The resulting increase in tax money would pay the
and government positions financed with revenue-sharing
cost of revenue-sharing, they said. Both amendments were
648-1972 ALMANAC
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Revenue Sharing - 14
killed by adoption of motions by Long to table them.
ment employee be paid at the prevailing local wage,
(Votes 382, 383, p. 60-S)
state or local minimum wage or federal minimum wage
"The Senate is on the verge of passing a $35-billion
(whichever was highest) in cases where revenue-sharing
revenue-sharing measure without raising a dime to pay
funds made up 25 percent or more of the employees'
for it," Church said. "Just because the administration
compensation, and apply the 1931 Davis-Bacon Act re-
has abandoned all sense of fiscal responsibility, the Sen-
quirement that workers on federally financed construc-
ate is not absolved of its duty to keep the federal govern-
tion projects receive prevailing local construction wages
ment solvent."
on projects for which more than 25 percent of the financing
Adoption of both amendments would advance two
came from revenue-sharing funds. Roll call, 58-26.
objectives: revenue sharing and tax reform, Church said.
Sept. 7-Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.)-Direct
Herman E. Talmadge (D Ga.), third-ranking Demo-
the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation to
crat on the Finance Committee, said adoption of tax re-
prepare by June 30, 1973, a report on real estate and
form amendments would be a "futile gesture" because
property tax administration. Voice.
House conferees would not accept tax provisions which
James L. Buckley (Cons-R N.Y.)-Permit states
originated as a non-germane Senate amendment.
to transfer taxing authority to local governments and re-
Social Services. Offering an amendment that
duce corresponding state fund transfers to local
would have deleted the provision for supplementary social
governments without losing revenue-sharing funds. Voice.
services grants, Lawton Chiles (D Fla.) said the Finance
Sept. 8-John V. Tunney (D Calif.)-Amendment
Committee should make a thorough study of social ser-
to Metcalf amendment (below)-Make Indian bands,
vices funding before Congress acted.
groups, pueblos and communities, as well as tribes and
Although many states "have abused the program
Alaskan native villages, eligible for federal revenue-
and some of the funding," he said, "many of the services
sharing funds. Voice.
are certainly valuable to the concept that Congress set up
Lee Metcalf (D Mont.)-As modified by Tunney
when it provided for matching funds...in an attempt to
amendment (above)-Set aside 0.25 percent of federal
keep many of our citizens off welfare...."
revenue-sharing funds for allocation to Alaskan native
Long defended the committee provision, arguing that
villages and Indian tribes, bands, groups, pueblos and
the existing "open-ended three-for-one federal match-
communities that perform government services. Voice.
ing for so-called social services takes the cake as being
Hartke-Provide that any state income tax col-
the most irresponsible, wide-open federal expenditure
lected by the federal government under the mechanism
to do things no one in Congress ever intended...'
established by the bill could be levied on a transporta-
The amendment was rejected on an 18-67 roll-call vote.
tion worker only if 50 percent or more of the worker's
(Vote 385, p. 60-S)
wages were earned within the state. Voice.
Child Care, Family Planning. In proposing a $600-
Sept. 12-Long-Substitute amendment for Roth
million limit on matching funds for child-care and family-
amendment (below) to delete a provision in the
planning programs, Long Sept. 12 insisted that Con-
bill authorizing $1-billion annually in supplementary
gress should enact a meaningful ceiling on federal
grants for social services other than child care and family
contributions to social services programs.
planning and substitute an authorization of $3.15-billion
Combined with the $1-billion ceiling on contributions
a year in federal matching funds for social services in-
to other social programs in the committee bill, he said,
cluding child care and family planning-Limit child-
the $600-million limit would place annual federal con-
care and family-planning matching grants to $600-million
tributions for social services at $1.6-billion-an amount
a fiscal year, allocated among the states according to
certain to be increased in conference with the House.
their urban populations. Roll call, 60-28.
With a total $1.6-billion ceiling in the Senate bill,
William V. Roth Jr. (R Del.)-As amended
Long added, "we might have to settle for $3-billion.
Long amendment (above). Voice.
However, if we go to conference with the $3.1-billion
Abraham Ribicoff (D Conn.)-Appropriate to a
(allowed by Roth's amendment), we might have to set-
Social Service Trust Fund out of Treasury funds $500-mil-
tle for $4.5-billion or $5-billion." Long's substitute was
lion in fiscal 1973, $1-billion in each of fiscal 1974-76
adopted on a 60-28 roll-call vote. (Vote 387, p. 60-S)
and $500-million in fiscal 1977 for payments to state and
Backing Roth's amendment, Robert Dole (R Kan.)
local governments as supplementary grants for social
said its provisions would establish "a fair and financially
services. Voice.
responsible formula for continued funding of the state
Daniel K. Inouye (D Hawaii)-Increase amounts
social services programs at a reasonable level."
available from the revenue-sharing funds for payments to
Amendments Accepted-Sept. 6-Russell B. Long
state and local governments by $2,390,000 in fiscal 1972,
(D La.)-Amendment to first Hartke amendment (be-
by $4,780,000 in each of fiscal 1973-76 and by $2,390,-
low)-Apply 1931 Davis-Bacon Act requirement, that
000 in fiscal 1977, and increase the revenue-sharing funds
workers on federally financed construction projects re-
allocated each year to those states where federal govern-
ceive prevailing local construction wages, to projects
ment employees received cost-of-living allowances by the
financed with revenue-sharing funds. Roll-call vote, 86-0.
same percentage as the increase in those employees' basic
Long-Amendment to first Hartke amendment (be-
compensation provided by such allowances (15 percent in
low)-Restrict wage requirements under Davis-Bacon
Hawaii and 25 percent in Alaska, increasing Hawaii's an-
Act and Hartke amendment to construction projects or
nual allocation by $3,405,000 and Alaska's by $1,-
government positions for which more than 25 percent of the
375,000). Voice.
financing came from revenue-sharing funds. Voice vote.
Amendments Rejected-Sept. 6-Abraham Ribi-
Vance Hartke (D Ind.)-As modified by Long amend-
coff (D Conn.)-Revise formula for distribution of fed-
ments (above)-Require that a state or local govern-
eral revenues among states, allocating 40 percent of re-
1972 CQ ALMANAC-649
Revenue Sharing 15
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
venue-sharing funds according to each state's share of
Sept. 11-Frank Church (D Idaho)-Repeal the as-
total U.S. population and percentage of U.S. urban
set depreciation range (ADR) system of accelerated de-
population, and allocating the remaining 60 percent in
preciation allowances on business plant and equipment
ratio to each state's local and state tax effort weighted
put into effect in 1971 by the Nixon administration. Re-
by per capita income levels. Roll-call vote, 24-61.
jected by adoption of Long motion to table. Roll call,
Vance Hartke (D Ind.)-Prohibit use of revenue-shar-
56-21.
ing funds to induce a business or industry to move a
Gaylord Nelson (D Wis.)-Modify existing minimum
factory or other facility from one area to another. Roll
tax on personal income given preferential tax treatment
call, 26-56.
by reducing to $12,000 from $30,000 the exemption on
Hartke-Apply the 1964 Urban Mass Transporta-
preference income through stock options, bad debt reserves,
tion Act labor requirements to urban mass transportation
depletion allowances and capital gains and increasing the
systems that would be acquired by local government units
tax rate on such income. Rejected by adoption of Long
with federal revenue-sharing funds. Roll call, 27-54.
motion to table. Roll call, 60-23.
Sept. 7-John L. McClellan (D Ark.)-Delete pro-
Edward J. Gurney (R Fla.)-Require the secretary
visions for permanent appropriation of 7 percent of fed-
of the treasury to withhold revenue-sharing payments to
eral personal income tax revenue in fiscal 1972-76 to a
local government units that failed to revise property tax
revenue-sharing trust fund for payments to state and
assessments after the secretary had determined that the
local governments, and substitute a provision appropriat-
ratios of their assessments to property market values
ing $2,650,000,000 retroactively in fiscal 1972 and $5,450,-
varied by more than 15 percent from the statewide aver-
000 in fiscal 1973 from the trust fund for payments to
age ratio of assessments to property market value. Roll
state and local governments (thus requiring separate
call, 8-75.
congressional appropriation of funds for revenue-sharing
Lawton Chiles (D Fla.)-Delete provision authoriz-
in fiscal years 1974-76). Roll call, 34-49.
ing supplementary social services grants to state and local
Hubert H. Humphrey (D Minn.)-Require the
governments of $1-billion a year, limiting existing match-
President to report to Congress and the comptroller gen-
ing fund grants for social services to child-care and
eral of the General Accounting Office whenever he im-
family-planning programs and limiting 1972 social services
pounded funds appropriated by Congress, giving the
matching grants to existing programs. Roll call, 18-67.
amounts impounded and his reasons for doing so. Re-
Jacob K. Javits (R N.Y.)-Create a Urban Dividend
jected by adoption of Long motion to table. Roll call,
Trust Fund providing an additional $1.5-billion over five
46-39.
fiscal years for distribution among the states according
Sept. 8-James L. Buckley (Cons-R N.Y.)-Limit
to the size of their urban populations. Roll call, 27-57.
federal revenue-sharing to two years (July 1, 1972-June
Sept. 12-Taft-Increase revenue-sharing funds for
30, 1974) instead of the five years (Jan. 1, 1972-Dec.
each year covered by the bill by $360.7-million and al-
31, 1976) provided by the bill. Roll call, 14-62.
locate for each of these years to the states the greater of
Buckley-Delete provisions requiring reports by local
the following amounts: an amount in ratio to a state's
and state governments on their use of revenue-sharing
population weighted by tax effort and average income
funds, barring discrimination in programs financed with
level (as under the committee bill), or an amount in ratio
revenue-sharing funds, barring use of revenue-sharing
to its population alone. Rejected by adoption of Long
funds as state or local contributions for obtaining fed-
motion to table. Roll call, 60-30.
eral matching funds under other programs and setting
Taft-Revise formula for allocating revenue-sharing
conditions for administration of revenue-sharing funds by
funds among the states to distribute one-third of the
state and local governments. Roll call, 6-70.
total amount in the bill by population, one-third by tax
Edward M. Kennedy (D Mass.)-Require the
effort and one-third by relative income (rather than
President to submit to Congress preliminary proposals for
determining each state's share by computing the amount
tax reform by Oct. 31, 1972, and final proposals by March
for each state on these factors together). Roll call, 32-49.
31, 1973. Rejected by adoption of Long motion to table.
Taft-Delete the formula for allocating revenue-shar-
Roll call, 52-24.
ing funds among the states and determine each state's
Kennedy-Establish a Voter Registration Adminis-
share solely by its population. Rejected by adoption of
tration within the Bureau of the Census to administer a
Long motion to table. Roll call, 60-28.
voluntary voter registration program for state and local
government with federal assistance. Rejected by adop-
tion of Talmadge motion to table. Roll call, 48-28.
Conference Agreement
Robert Taft Jr. (R Ohio)-Increase to 7.33 percent
from 7 percent the percentage of annual federal income
House and Senate conferees Sept. 25 filed a confer-
taxes available for revenue sharing (thus increasing
ence report on HR 14370 (S Rept 92-1229) establishing a
the total amount provided for each year by $374,500,000),
five-year program to share $30,236,400,000 in federal
and revise the formula for allocation of the funds among
revenues with state and local governments.
states to give each state the greater of two amounts: an
In an unusual compromise, the conference agreement
amount based on its share of total U.S. population or an
allowed each state the larger of the revenue-sharing allo-
amount based on its relative per capita income. Rejected
cations its state and local governments would receive
by adoption of Long motion to table. Roll call, 52-24.
under conflicting House- and Senate-approved distri-
Buckley-Replace provision for sharing federal
bution formulas.
revenues with the states with a provision directing the
The House formula, based on five factors, provided
Internal Revenue Service to return to each state 7 per-
larger amounts to more populous, urbanized states. The
cent of the federal income tax collected from each tax-
Senate formula, based on three factors, favored less
payer in the state. Roll call, 6-55.
populous, rural states.
(Continued on p. 652)
650-1972 CQ ALMANAC
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
Revenue Sharing at 16
Revenue Sharing: State Allocations in 1972 Under Conference Bill
(in millions of dollars)
CONFERENCE AGREEMENT
Before
After
House
Senate
scaling to
scaling to
States'
Local
States
bill
bill 1
$5.3 billion
$5.3 billion
share 4
share 5
United States, total
$5,300.0
$5,300.0
$5,821.1
$5,303.9
$1,767.8
$3,536.1
Alabama
80.2
127.6
127.6
116.1
38.7
77.4
Alaska
6.6
5.5
5.5 2
6.33
2.1
4.2
Arizona
46.1
55.1
55.1
50.2
16.7
33.5
Arkansas
38.3
60.4
60.4
55.0
18.3
36.7
California
610.8
510.4
610.8
556.1
185.4
370.7
Colorado
59.4
60.0
60.0
54.6
18.2
36.4
Connecticut
72.6
57.5
72.6
66.2
22.1
44.1
Delaware
17.3
12.9
17.3
15.8
5.3
10.5
District of Columbia
26.0
14.1
26.0
23.6
7.9
15.7
Horida
150.0
160.3
160.3
146.0
48.7
97.3
Georgia
103.4
120.7
120.7
109.9
36.6
73.3
Hawaii
25.9
22.7
22.7 2
23.8 3
7.9
15.9
Idaho
15.4
21.8
21.8
19.9
6.7
13.2
Illinois
301.8
250.9
301.8
274.7
91.5
183.2
Indiana
113.8
114.6
114.6
104.3
34.8
69.5
lowa
67.8
84.6
84.6
77.0
25.6
51.4
Kansas
47.7
58.0
58.0
52.8
17.6
35.2
Kentucky
71.8
95.9
95.9
87.3
29.1
58.2
Louisiana
83.2
124.8
124.8
113.6
37.9
75.7
Maine
19.9
34.2
34.2
31.1
10.3
20.8
Maryland
117.5
94.8
117.5
107.0
35.7
71
Massachusetts
179.0
143.5
179.0
163.0
44.3
Michigan
243.7
210.9
243.7
221.9
74.0
Minnesota
114.1
108.2
114.1
103.9
34.6
Mississippi
46.0
99.6
99.6
90.7
30.2
60.5
Missouri
107.6
108.5
108.5
98.8
33.0
65.8
Montana
16.7
22.6
22.6
20.6
6.9
13.7
Nebraska
34.5
47.1
47.1
42.9
14.3
28.6
Nevada
12.2
11.9
12.2
11.1
3.7
7.4
New Hampshire
13.5
16.7
16.7
15.2
5.1
10.1
New Jersey
179.7
142.6
179.7
163.6
54.5
109.1
New Mexico
22.5
36.5
36.5
33.2
11.0
22.2
New York
649.6
507.1
649.6
591.4
197.1
394.3
North Carolina
113.0
148.8
148.8
135.5
45.2
90.3
North Dakota
12.0
21.7
21.7
19.7
6.5
13.2
Ohio
227.4
185.4
227.4
207.0
69.0
138.0
Oklahoma
52.9
65.3
65.3
59.4
19.8
39.6
Oregon
60.1
61.8
61.8
56.2
18.7
37.5
Pennsylvania
300.9
290.2
300.9
274.0
91.3
182.7
Rhode Island
25.9
23.1
25.9
23.6
7.9
15.7
South Carolina
57.9
89.5
89.5
81.5
27.2
54.3
South Dakota
13.5
27.6
27.6
25.1
8.4
16.7
Tennessee
79.3
108.1
108.1
98.4
32.8
65.6
Texas
248.3
268.6
268.6
244.5
81.5
163.0
Utah
29.0
34.5
34.5
31.4
10.5
20.9
Vermont
11.0
16.3
16.3
14.8
4.9
9.9
Virginia
115.6
109.7
115.6
105.2
35.0
70.2
Washington
79.1
92.3
92.3
84.1
28.1
56.0
West Virginia
36.4
57.5
57.5
52.3
17.4
34.9
Wisconsin
137.0
147.1
147.1
133.9
44.6
89.3
Wyoming
6.1
10.7
10.7
9.7
3.2
6.5
1 Excludes $1-billion in supplementary grants for social services programs.
5 Local share includes amounts to be redistributed to state governments to reduce
2 Before cost-of-living adjustment for states outside continental United States
a local government's share to no more than 50 percent of the local government's
3 After cost-of-living adjustment.
tax and intergovernmental transfer receipts.
4 One-third to state governments and two-thirds to local governments.
SOURCE: Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation
1972 CQ ALMANAC-651
Revenue Sharing - 17
MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
(Continued from p. 650)
While allowing a choice between two methods of
The Senate formula, which would multiply the
determining how much federal revenue would go to all
state's population by its general tax effort and by its
relative income, would determine the state's revenue-
governments within a state, the conferees adopted the
Senate bill's provisions for determining how the state
sharing allocation by comparing the product to the figure
total would be allocated among the state government and
produced by the same factors for the nation as a whole.
various local government units.
Under the conference agreement, only 15 states and
the District of Columbia would be funded under the
Accepting a principle followed by the House bill, the
conference committee agreed to a modified provision
House-passed formula. Those states were California,
placing restrictions on how local governments could use
Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachu-
federally shared revenues.
setts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New
The conferees also agreed to drop a Senate provision
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Virginia.
The remainder would be funded under the Senate formula.
providing $4-billion over four years for supplementary
social services grants and to propose a substitute limiting
With each state given the higher of two possible
existing federal matching grants for state and local social
shares, total funding under the first-year program in 1972
was increased to $5,821,000,000 from the $5.3-billion
service programs to $2.5-billion a year for specified
planned in both the House and Senate versions. To offset
purposes.
Under the conference agreement, the federal govern-
the increase, the conference agreement provided for re-
ment would distribute $5,303,900,000 to state and local
ducing each state's allocation proportionately to keep the
total for 1972 at $5,303,900,000.
governments in 1972. The effective date of revenue shar-
Of that total for calendar 1972, $4,780,000 was in
ing was retroactive to Jan. 1.
the form of cost-of-living adjustments for Alaska and
In subsequent years, the amount of federal revenues
shared with other governments would rise by $150-million
Hawaii, both geographically separate from the rest of the
a year, reaching $6,350,000,000 for the last full fiscal year
country and both with higher costs of living.
(1976) of the program. On a fiscal year basis, the confer-
The extra funds for Alaska and Hawaii were provided
ence agreement provided for sharing federal revenues in
by a Senate floor amendment accepted by the conferees.
the last half of fiscal 1972, fiscal 1973-76 and the first half
The conference agreement appropriated an additional
of fiscal 1977. On a calendar year basis, the program
$23.9-million over five years for the adjustments.
would run from Jan. 1, 1972, to Dec. 31, 1976.
Local Governments. The conference agreement, like
State Allocations. Under the conference compromise,
the Senate bill, allocated one-third of each state's share
each state would receive the greater of two amounts
to the state government and the remaining two-thirds
computed in the following methods:
to local government units within the state. At the 1972
The House formula, which at the initial annual level
level of $5,303,900,000, for instance, $1,767,800,000 would
of $5.3-billion would allocate $3.5-billion among the states
go to state governments and $3,536,100,000 to local
on the basis of population (one-third), urbanized popula-
governments.
tion (one-third) and population weighted by per capita
Following the Senate version's method, the confer-
income (one-third). The remaining $1.8-billion would be
ence agreement allocated the local government share of
allocated among the states on the basis of individual
each state's entitlement as follows:
income tax collections by state governments (one-half)
Each county would receive an amount computed on
and general tax effort by state and local governments
the basis of population, tax effort and relative income
(one-half).
(the three-factor Senate formula for state allocations.)
Each county government would receive a share deter-
mined by the ratio of its tax collections to tax collections
by all governments in the county.
Revenue Sharing Conferees
All township governments within a county together
would receive a total amount determined by their cumu-
The conferees, all senior members of the Senate
lative share of tax collections, with each township's
Finance and House Ways and Means Committees,
amount determined by the three-factor formula.
reflected the large-state small-state differences
Municipal governments would share the remainder of
between the two versions of the bill.
each county's allocation according to the three-factor
Of the Senate conferees-Democrats Long, Clin-
formula.
ton P. Anderson (N.M.) and Herman E. Talmadge
The conference agreement included a provision allo-
(Ga.) and Republicans Wallace F. Bennett (Utah)
cating part of a county area's allotment to the govern-
and Carl T. Curtis (Neb.)-none was from a large
ing bodies of local Indian tribes or Alaskan native
industrial state.
villages that performed substantial governmental func-
The House conferees-Democrats Wilbur D.
tions. A Senate floor amendment to HR 14370 set aside
Mills (Ark.), chairman of the Ways and Means
0.25 percent of total revenue-sharing funds for Indian
Committee, Al Ullman (Ore.), James A. Burke
tribes and Alaskan natives; the conference agreement
(Mass.) and Martha W. Griffiths (Mich.) and Repub-
provided them a share of county allocations on the basis
licans Jackson E. Betts (Ohio), Herman T. Schneebeli
of population.
(Pa.) and Joel T. Broyhill (Va.)-gave greater repre-
As did both the House and Senate versions, the
sentation to larger states. Mills, the most influential
conference agreement permitted states to legislate
House conferee, was from a small state that would
optional formulas for distributing local government funds
gain an additional $26.9-million under the Senate
after the first year of revenue sharing. The conferees
version.
approved Senate guidelines for such optional formulas,
however, and discarded the House-approved guidelines.
652-1972 CQ ALMANAC