42 U.S.C. § 6721

Congressional findings of fact and declaration of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Congress finds—(1) that State and local governments represent a significant segment of the national economy whose economic health is essential to national economic prosperity;(2) that present national economic problems have imposed considerable hardships on State and local government budgets;(3) that those governments, because of their own fiscal difficulties, are being forced to take budget-related actions which tend to undermine Federal Government efforts to stimulate the economy;(4) that efforts to stimulate the economy through reductions in Federal Government tax obligations are weakened when State and local governments are forced to increase taxes;(5) that the net effect of Federal Government efforts to reduce unemployment through public service jobs is substantially limited if State and local governments use federally financed public service employees to replace regular employees that they have been forced to lay off;(6) that efforts to stimulate the construction industry and reduce unemployment are substantially undermined when State and local governments are forced to cancel or delay the construction of essential capital projects; and(7) that efforts by the Federal Government to stimulate the economic recovery will be substantially enhanced by a program of emergency Federal Government assistance to State and local governments to help prevent those governments from taking budget-related actions which undermine the Federal Government efforts to stimulate economic recovery.(Pub. L. 94–369, title II, § 201, July 22, 1976, 90 Stat. 1002.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1977–1983 · leading case: United States v. Arlan Lamar Robinson, 700 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Arlan Lamar Robinson, 700 F.2d 205 (5th Cir. 1983). “The funds, authorized under the Intergovernmental Antirecession Assistance Act of 1977, 42 U.S.C. § 6721 et seq., were provided to avoid layoffs of county employees and were not intended for private use.”

Michigan Dist. Council 77 of Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees v. City of Detroit, 436 F. Supp. 858 (E.D. Mich. 1977). · cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 6721 (2) and (3). As a result, the Act was intended to provide state and local governments with additional financial resources so that the efforts of the federal government toward economic stimulation would not be defeated by reductions in employment, 42 U.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.