The housing programs, which are vital to have decent housing for families and to cope with the problem of homelessness and such, those programs during the 1980's were cut by 82 percent.

Community development block grants, very important to all cities in America, were cut by some 40 percent.

The same thing with community service block grants, cut over 45 percent.

That's not the worst of it.

If you take general revenue sharing, very important to most of our communities-perhaps some were well enough off that they could get by without them-that program was eliminated altogether.

The urban development action grant program totally eliminated. The health planning grants were totally eliminated.

It's not surprising today, when we look across the country, and particularly in our urban areas, we see massive unemployment, we see very high death rates, infant mortality, we see death rates among our young people. Just the accidental deaths and shootings, drive-by shootings that are killing young people that have nothing to do with any dispute that may be going on but they just happened to be in the way of the gunfire.

We're seeing, in our inner cities, in case after case, and certainly here in the city of Washington, which everybody here is familiar with, it's an epidemic situation. And I think we're seeing more and more, the manifestations of what one could call a clockwork orange type society, as things break down, as the social order gets stretched beyond its capacity, essentially because of an absence of jobs.

I think if we had enough jobs to go around, that that would do more than anything else, it would start to enable people to support themselves, hold family structures together, and make many other things possible.

I'd just make one other comment in relationship to the reference that Mayor Schmoke made to a conversation that he and I had earlier today.

The word is out that we can't afford to do much about the problems in America because we don't have any money. Well, that's just not true. We've had plenty of money for a decade to spend all around the world, and we've had programs for every country in the world except our own.

There's a program today for Kuwait, one for Communist China, one for Mexico, one for all the separate parts of the old Soviet Union. You name a country, our Government today has a plan, an economic development plan for that country.

We need an economic development plan for America. And we need to concentrate on making sure there are enough jobs to go around in this country.

Now, let me tell you where the money's going.

Here's a story today on page 11-A of the Washington Post. "House Panel Approves 20 B-2 Bombers." The price tag on this is $44.4 billion.

Now, what do we need these B-2 bombers for? Are we going to send them over to bomb the Russians into submission? I mean,

they're having problems just feeding themselves these days, let alone mounting a military threat.

The cost of these airplanes, by the way, has gone from $430 million a plane, to $2.3 billion a plane. Now, everything I have heard so far being said about what should happen for the cities in terms of a new effort, emergency help, which is needed, would add up to less than the cost of just one of these airplanes. And yesterday, a step was taken to provide $44 billion to buy these 20 airplanes.

Now, I don't say that's the only issue that's the tradeoff issue, but how can it be said that we don't have the resources to respond to the urgent human needs of our people, particularly in the urban centers of this country-and we've got terrible problems in rural areas, as well—and yet we've got money for all this military hardware in the multiples of tens of billions of dollars?

It just doesn't make any sense. We've got to shift our direction here while there's still time and, offer some hope to people who I think, in almost every case, want to have better and more fulfilling lives.

I know you must go soon, mayor. I appreciate the fact that you're here. Let me just call on my colleagues for some brief comments, and then we'll go right to you.

Mayor DINKINS. Certainly.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAKE GARN

Senator GARN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mayor Dinkins, we're happy to have you here.

Let me make just a few observations. I have no prepared state

ment.

Maybe the new mayors don't know, but a lot of people know that I started my public career as a mayor. And in that capacity, I served on the Board of the National League of Cities. When Tom Bradley was the First Vice President of the National League of Cities, I was his Second Vice President. When he was President, I was his First Vice President. I'm amazed that he is still there and has been able to cope with it for 20 years.

I only indicate that because I had a very close association with most of the mayors of the large cities of this country over a period of 3 or 4 years.

Many of the problems that exist today existed then. I think they have become worse. I don't think there is any doubt that they have became worse.

The only reason I bring this up is because I think I understand local problems, having spent 7 years in local government before I came here, and I often wish that more of my colleagues had had this local experience. I think they might have developed a better understanding of these problems.

Yet, as I observe what is going on, I have some difficulty with requests that insinuate somehow the only solution to the problem is money.

As I look back at the programs that I dealt with, we had a lot of money in those days. We had revenue sharing, we had categorical grants and relatively speaking, we had a lot of money. We certainly had more flexibility of the disposition of those funds. That is one of the points that I want to make.

Congress is not smart enough to allocate money for all the cities of this country. That principle has not changed in 20 years. We also did away with revenue sharing. It seems to me that it would have made a lot more sense to trust the mayors of this country, who live in their cities and are there everyday, then try and apply straightjackets to them. Each of the cities of this country are different. Their problems may be similar, but they are different geographically.

I remember when Dick Hatcher and I used to discuss this subject. At the time he was the Mayor of Gary, Indiana. There is no way to have a uniform solution for Salt Lake City, Gary, Indiana, New York, Detroit, or Tom Bradley's Los Angeles.

So it's fine to say we need more money for some of these problems, but it's highly important how that money is distributed. The partisan bickering that is going on back and forth, should not be occuring. There is enough blame to go around for these problems, and the fact that we are Republicans or Democrats shouldn't have anything to do with it.

We are talking about billions of dollars, and if we continue to distribute it with mandates and tell the mayors and the city councils how to dispurse it, we're going to waste it just like we have in the past. Because in the past we weren't on tight budgets, and we weren't solving these problems.

I was telling the Chairman, before we started, that I can remember approximate numbers from those days. When I was mayor of Salt Lake City we had $3 million of revenue sharing, but the city council and I were allowed to determine how we spent that $3 million.

Model Cities had a $3 million budget, and 80 percent of it went to the administration of the program, and 20 percent was left over for programming. That's not a very good return.

If there's a request for money for a bunch of categorical programs that a bunch of Congressmen and Senators designed, who have never had local experience, and these people are going to take 75 or 80 percent off the top, that isn't a very good deal for the taxpayers, the cities or anybody else.

So whatever we do, it ought to be directed at trusting the mayors, governors, and city councilmen and women of this country, who are better qualified to make decisions in their areas and tailormake the solutions to their city problems.

I hope the mayors still feel this way about their jobs. I hope they still think that they're elected and accountable to their citizens, and they ought to be able to make better decisions than we can, in trying to solve these problems. That has not been the trend in past years.

We chose to do away with revenue sharing because we did not like the way the mayors were spending the money in some cases. And yet, I would suggest that there was a great deal less inefficiency in the delivery of those programs when local officials were making those decisions, rather than when we were making decisions uniformly; supposedly a cookie-cutter that's supposed to fit every different city in this country.

You've got a contrast right here. You've got Atlanta and you've got New York. You've got similar problems but you've also got dif

ferent problems. And each of these mayors before us is better qualified to address the problems of their local jurisdiction than we are. Now, that's my number one observation.

The second observation that I would like to make, is that it bothers this Senator that as a sympathetic former mayor, confronted with the problems of the cities, I constantly hear that the only solution is to cut the military budget.

I would only suggest to you gentlemen the facts that, in most of the years of peace time, even in the last year of John Kennedy's presidency, 30 years ago, 48 percent of the total budget of this country was for the military.

When Ronald Reagan became President, it was down to about 23 percent. And the vast, huge, military buildup we hear about during the period of the 80's, is the biggest in peace time history. Well, it depends on what base you're starting on. We got to about 27 per

cent.

Under the current military budget 5-year program, with out any additional cuts, at the end of 5 years, we will be at 14 percent, which is the lowest level since 1940. Maybe some people think that's too much.

I'm just suggesting to you that this is not a honey pot that has been growing dramatically. For the last 5 years, it has been cut in real terms, year after year after year. And when somebody can tell me who controls the 30,000 nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union, when they can tell me whether Yeltsin's still going to be in power 6 months from now when there's more stability, then maybe this Senator will be for more cuts.

But we've got to find some other solution than just constantly saying, well, we can get it out of the military budget. Because 58 percent of that military budget is people. It isn't B-2s, and that's life cycle costs the Chairman is talking about.

I would also say that everybody ought to read David Broder's column in the Post today. It's a very important column about the value of the military, particularly to minorities. And I think David Broder is one of the most thoughtful columnists that we've ever had in this country.

It reminds me of back in 1957 when I was a young lieutenant junior grade, reporting to my first squadron. I was a young man of about 22 years old, and my chief petty officer in charge of my division was a black officer who one day said, "Lieutenant, I realize you're an officer and I'm an enlisted man, but I'm going to teach you how to run this division." And he did.

He taught me a great deal about how that division ought to run. And he said to me, keep in mind this is a long time before the Civil Rights Bill, "The only place I've ever had any opportunity is in the military. It's the only place I can be treated with respect, and the only place that I can ever hold the kind of position that I do."

That's what David Broder is talking about today. There's a lot more aspects to the military than B-2s. It has also given many opportunities to many human beings.

So, Mr. Chairman, those are the two observations I have made. We need to place a lot more reliance on the judgment of mayors and city councilmen, and we should not think we're so smart and that we can solve this problem by making our military weak where

it's already being cut rather dramatically and it's on a downward scale over the next 5 years.

I appreciate you mayors being here today, and challenge you to fight for some independence. Tell Congress you're tired of us telling you how to run your cities.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand that Mayor Dinkins particularly is going to have a timing problem where he must leave before too long, and so I want to, as quickly as we can, get to the mayors. The rest will be arriving.

Senator GARN. Mr. Chairman, may I just interrupt to say I'm very sorry, particularly with mayors here, that I can't stay. But we have a conference on the recision bill that started at 2:30 p.m., and I need to be there to protect some recisions.

The CHAIRMAN. So I'm going to now call on any member that wants to make a brief comment, so that we can get to the mayors. And let me go in the order in which people arrived, if there's such an interest.

Senator Kerry, did you want to make a comment?

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY

Senator KERRY. Well, I'd like to just take a moment for a quick comment, if I can. We want to hear the mayors, and mindful of what Senator Garn just said.

First of all, I'd like to thank the mayors for coming today. But more particularly, I'd like to thank you for the job you've all been doing on the front line out there, which I think an awful lot of Americans overlook, and particularly in the wake of what happened in Los Angeles.

There could have been a lot more explosions in this country. And I think it is a tribute to the relationships that many of you have built up, and literally the day to day vigilance with which you are governing your cities, that it didn't happen.

And it's a tribute, also, to progress that in many regards has been made between different groups within our cities who have come to understand each other, and who are struggling to make things work under some very difficult circumstances.

I think the whole Nation owes you a debt of gratitude for the peace that was kept, as well as for the ongoing struggle of everyday.

My plea, Mr. Chairman, is that the President is going to hear what is going to be said here today, and what is really represented in this gathering. I regret that Senator Garn has left.

You know, the issue is not really whether we're going to have a strong or weak military. And what I heard you saying was whether or not we need a B-2 bomber, and whether $44 billion ought to be going into that. And I think that's a different set of choices from the ones that Senator Garn was postulating.

The CHAIRMAN. Especially when the claim is made that we really have no money for the cities.

Senator KERRY. That's exactly correct. And the point is, this country does have the money for the cities.

But far more importantly, what I hope the President will not miss, and what scares me about the reaction of the last few days, and I kind of smell it around the country, is that there's a big sigh