CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
July 15, 1965
Page 16925
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2213) to assist in the provision of housing for low- and moderate-income families, to promote orderly urban development; to improve living environment in urban areas, and to extend and amend laws relating to housing, urban renewal, urban mass transportation, and community facilities.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the House version of S. 2213, H.R. 7984, specifically provides that Federal savings and loan associations are permitted to make loans on leasehold interest in real estate if the term of the lease is renewable for or runs 10 years beyond the term of the loan.
I introduced a bill, S. 114, on January 6 of this year, very similar to the objective of this specific section in H.R. 7984, but with language stipulating 5 years instead of 10.
Mr. President, as Senators may know, this matter is part of section 541.9 of the rules and regulations for Federal savings and loans associations and related definition of the various types of lending authorized in section 5(c) of the Home Owners' Loan Act of 1933.
The basic question is whether or not the Federal Home Loan Bank Boar d should be authorized to reduce the remaining life of the lease to less than 15 years beyond the maturity of the debts – as stipulated in the 1933 act.
It was due to my belief that mortgage loans should be permitted on leaseholds which expire less than 15 years beyond the maturity of the debt that I originally introduced in S. 114. This would facilitate sales of mortgages secured by leaseholds to Federal associations under the participation loan program.
Incidentally, the applicable Hawaii statute in section 180-54, Revised Laws of Hawaii, authorizes State savings and loan associations to make mortgage loans "provided the unexpired term of the lease at the time the loan is made thereon is at least 2 years beyond the maturity date of the loan."
Mr. President, I am not presently concerned as to the relative merits and demerits of lease land as against fee simple land for residential mortgage loans. The truth of the matter is that long-term leasehold provisions for residential purposes are a practical fact in my State. The existing 15-year provision, therefore, is a great disadvantage to potential homeowners on leasehold lots in Hawaii. The situation. is certainly a unique one and can probably be matched to a degree only by the State of Maryland.
For practical purposes, however, I believe that the reduced 10-year proviso pertains more directly to Hawaii. Since 1948, the Federal savings and loans associations there have been making loans on real estate secured by leasehold interest. The term of the loans run just a few years short of the term of the lease. As I have previously indicated, State chartered savings and loan associations operating under State law, make loans secured by a leasehold interest, as long as the lease runs 2 years beyond the term of the loan.
Practically speaking, the House proviso would permit Federal savings and loan associations to make loans on these leasehold interests provided that the term of the lease runs 10 years beyond the term of the loan. Incidentally, this would be similar to existing regulations on bank loans in this area.
Again, practically speaking, the House proviso of 10 years, which is 5 more years than I personally would prefer, would partially correct the present imbalanced competition between Federal savings and loan associations and State chartered associations in the area specifically, and only, of loans on real estate secured by leasehold interest.
The State chartered associations would also benefit by being able to generate additional needed mortgage funds through the sale of participation interests in leasehold loans to mainland Federal associations.
The effect, in short, should be a salutary one to all savings and loan associations dealing with leasehold mortgages. The 10-year proviso is at least a major step in the direction of recognizing leasehold residential real estate as a practical fact of life in Hawaii.
Mr. President, I had originally intended to introduce an amendment to S. 2213 along the lines of my bill, S. 114. However, in view of the House language on this point and after talking with the manager of S. 2213, I would like simply to go on record as requesting serious consideration be given to accepting the House language on this matter in conference.
Mr. MUSKIE. Let me say to the Senator from Hawaii that this is a problem that has troubled the committee. It has come to us in one or two different forms. I assure the Senator that we shall be happy to take it to conference and discuss it with the House managers of the bill.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my distinguished friend for that assurance.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need for a short colloquy with the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN].
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KENNEDY of New York in the chair) The Senator from Maine has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield myself 2 minutes.
Under the mortgage insurance for land development program, contained in section 201 of the bill, there is a requirement that the developed land be served by "public systems for water and sewerage." A question has arisen as to what constitutes a "public system" under the bill. In the State of Maine, for example, we have public water utilities, regulated by the Maine Public Utilities Commission. Some of these utilities are publicly owned. Some are investor owned. All are considered "public." It is the Senator's understanding that "public systems for water and sewerage," as contained in proposed "section 1005" under section 201 (a) of the bill, means a water or sewer system, whether publicly or investor owned, which serves the general public in a specified area and is owned and operated under the authority of and regulation by an appropriate State public utility regulatory, body?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have one further question. Referring to the same section of the bill, the Commissioner is authorized to "approve an adequate privately or cooperatively, owned -- water or sewer -- system which will be regulated in a manner acceptable to him." It is my understanding that this authority could be exercised where service by a public system is not feasible. The bill states that public systems must, be "consistent with other existing, or prospective systems within the area." Although the bill is not specific on this point, is it the Senator's understanding that the same condition applies to a "privately or cooperatively owned system"?
Mr. SPARKMAN. The answer again is in the affirmative.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator very much for clarifying this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?'
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I suggest absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to neither side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative. clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TOWER Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 4 minutes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I should like to direct two questions to the Senator from Maine for purposes of acquiring information concerning the rent subsidy bill.
The Senator from Alabama handed me a statement showing a sampling of the incomes which could qualify for a rent subsidy in 26 cities.
My first question is: Do I correctly understand that this sampling was made for the purpose of indicating what will happen if the rent subsidy bill is passed?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, the study shows the groups and indicates the incomes of typical groups in typical cities eligible for public housing, who, of course, would also be eligible under the pending bill.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The tabulation shows that in the 26 cities a $4,800 income is the low amount which would qualify an individual for a subsidy, and $6,500 is the high amount in Chicago.
Mr. MUSKIE. The $6,500 ceiling in Chicago applies to housing for seven or eight persons in four-bedroom housing.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That means that under certain conditions the amounts which I have described would qualify those families for subsidies?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes. For one bedroom housing in Chicago, the ceiling is $4,300 in the same table.
Mr. LAUSCHE. That would mean that in Chicago a family which needs one-bedroom housing, if it had an income of $4,300, would still qualify for the subsidy?
Mr. MUSKIE. If the family were also a member of one of the five groups who are eligible under the bill.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Can the Senator tell me what amount of income in New York City under maximum conditions would qualify? The Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT] has stated that $10,100 income would qualify a person for a rent subsidy.
Mr. MUSKIE. The New York experience is not reflected in this table. I believe it would be germane to point out how the income levels are established. They are not established as a result of anyone's arbitrary judgment as to what income level should qualify. Rather, a survey was made of the housing market to determine what rent level-- not income level -- in private housing is available which is decent, safe, and sanitary, for the families who would be involved.
Then, once the rent level was established, it would be reduced by 20 percent -- that is, if it were $100, it would be $80 -- and the $80 figure multiplied by the factor of 4 would determine the income level. So the income levels will vary from city to city. Presumably, New York might be higher than any other community.
Mr. LAUSCHE. My inquiry was as to the maximum amount in New York City which under maximum conditions would qualify for a subsidy. It has been stated that it is $10,100. Can the Senator answer that question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do not have that figure.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Can the Senator from Alabama [Mr. SPARKMAN] answer it?
Mr. SPARKMAN. If the Senator from Maine will yield, I am sorry, but I do not have that figure. I do have a figure which I believe is much more relevant. Let us remember that the purpose of the program is to supplant and replace future public housing. The average amount of the rental subsidy on public housing built today is $58 a unit. The average unit on the subsidy of the rent supplement plan is estimated to be $40 a unit. In addition--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maine has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 1 additional minute.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Public housing pays no taxes. It is estimated that the cost to the Federal Government would be $4,800 a year. I have placed all that information in the RECORD.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator from Utah has stated that his calculations show that in New York City a family placed in the position of maximum strength can get the maximum subsidy which would qualify the family, if the income was $10,100. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. BENNETT. I stated that the figure I received indicated that it is possible in New York to go above $10,000. That is the ceiling. If we had an income of $10,000 and the ceiling were $10,100, we would have a $100 potential rent subsidy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The time of the Senator from Maine has expired.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Who has time to yield to me?
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President--
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield me 1 minute in order to complete my statement?
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from Ohio may require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio may proceed.
Mr. LAUSCHE Mr. President,. I will not vote for the establishment of this program in our Federal system because, in my judgment, it would be the beginning of a program which, although in its infancy today, will grow and grow and grow without limit in the future.
This is a dangerous, new program into which we are entering. Many difficulties lie ahead. I am not willing to take the position that the income levels which have been mentioned are so low that persons with those incomes should be entitled to a rent subsidy. I thank the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Texas for yielding to me.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am not going to attempt a recapitulation in a few minutes of all the colloquy that has occurred in the course of the day, nor on the point which the Senator from Ohio has raised. We are discussing the very same groups -- no larger groups -- of disabled, elderly, handicapped, displaced-by-Government-action persons that the Government has accepted as a responsibility, under the same criteria of eligibility, since 1937.
Therefore, we are not talking about whether those groups should not be subsidized. They are being subsidized at the present time, under the same income criteria as would be in effect under the rent supplement program. The groups eligible for rent supplements will be smaller than the groups eligible for public housing. The income ceilings are as relevant to the current public housing program as they are to this program.
We are discussing another way of dealing with exactly the same problem we have been dealing with since 1937, concerning exactly the same people that we have been dealing with since 1937.
But, I am for this method, because it is the cheaper way to do it. It may be a more effective way to do it. It is worth the experiment. The former colleague of the Senator from Ohio (Mr. LAUSCHE], Senator Taft, became an ardent supporter of public housing. Why? Not because he thought it was a perfect program, but because the public housing program was designed to meet the problems of people whose needs tugged at his heart and his conscience so that he could not ignore them. He therefore supported public housing as a means of dealing with the situation.
I am not happy with public housing. I am sure that the Senator is not happy with public housing. However, there is another way to deal with problems of exactly the same people because, in my judgment, it is cheaper, it may be more effective, and it is worth trying.
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Texas yield me 3 or 4 minutes?
Mr. TOWER. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator from Maine has made a seemingly effective argument. He contends that the program of granting direct subsidies is identically the same program that thus far has been in existence.
Mr. MUSKIE. If it were identical I would not be in favor of it.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator from Maine has been talking for 2 hours. I hope he will let me speak for a few minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator from Ohio may have as much time as he wishes.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I yield not at all to the Senator from Maine in his desire to be charitable and helpful to those who are in need. This proposal goes far beyond it. We are about to enter into a program which, the Senator says today, provides that if a person earns $4,800 he is entitled to a subsidy.
I say to the Senator from Maine that by 1968, the next presidential election will take place, he will be raising that amount. That is what will happen. Every 2 years, when we have a congressional election, he will be lifting up the amount. That will be done as a demagogic appeal to the many people whom he will not wish to leave out, and who will not want to be denied something.
If the money were available, I would say all right. How is the differentiation made? Why is $4,800 the sacrosanct amount? Why is $10,000 the sacrosanct amount in New York?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President--
Mr. LAUSCHE. Mr. President, I do not yield now. How will he answer those who will say--
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall be glad to answer.
Mr. LAUSCHE. How will he answer those who will say, "Why should I be barred? " He will not be able to do it.
Mr. MUSKIE. I shall be glad to answer the Senator's question.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator may answer it on his own time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I can answer it now on my own time.
Mr. LAUSCHE. The Senator will have time to answer. He has been speaking for 2 hours.
Mr. MUSKIE. I have not been speaking for 2 hours. I would be happy to answer the Senator's question on my own time. I would like to do that now, so that my answer will relate to his question.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I am quite sure that the Senator will need 2 hours to explain it and to sustain his point.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am willing to take that long if it is necessary to do so.
Mr. LAUSCHE. I have asked for only a few minutes to speak. I admire the Senator from Maine for his desire to be helpful. However, I believe in a measure that must apply realistic fiscal programs to our country's policies.
Every day I hear the argument on the floor of the Senate, "Those who are not willing to continue spending more than they take in have callous souls. We who believe in deficit operations are persons who are gifted with a charitable and merciful attitude toward the people." That is the argument that is being made.
In conclusion, we shall be doing what the man did who killed the goose that had laid the golden egg. We have all read the Greek fable about the man who had a goose that laid a golden egg each day. He was not content with taking that golden egg. He decided he would kill the goose so that he would get all the golden eggs at one time. He killed the goose, and got nothing.
If we continue with our program, we shall achieve the same end.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I invite the Senator from Ohio to join me in the save-the-goose drive. We have heard from the opposition that the 4-year cost of the program would be $8 billion. HHFA, on the basis of an analysis which I think is accurate, reduced that figure to $5.8 billion. If a 40-year cost has any relevancy, the cost of an equivalent number of units of public housing over a 40-year period would run from $15 to $18 billion. I believe the Senator from Ohio will recognize, even better than I, that that is more money than $8 billion.
Therefore I invite the Senator to join me in the save-the-goose drive.
So far as I am concerned, I was opposed to the President's original rent supplement program. If it were here in that form today, I would vote against it.
I was opposed to the first modification in committee, which included the low-income group and the low-middle-income group. If that program were, before us today, I would vote against
I concede that the Senator from Ohio has a great heart. One reason why I am in favor of it in its present form, is that it is a cheaper way of dealing with the problems of exactly the same people --- exactly, I say -- as we are dealing with in public housing, and have been since 1937.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The Senator from Maine said that our figure is somewhat high when we say $8 billion. He says that HHFA has a more realistic figure, which he states is accurate, in the amount of $5.8 billion. I point out that the HHFA has gone up $1.1 billion since its representatives testified. When they testified, they said it would be only $4.7 billion.
To use a word that we hear very often these days, I believe this shows the pattern of escalation. I can see only escalation and an unsound, unwise, and unproved program. The burden of proof or justification rests on the shoulders of those who advocate it. I believe this is a program which is doomed to stifle incentive and retard the desire of people to improve their lot and improve their housing and their standard of living. It will retard home ownership. It will have an altogether deleterious effect.
I point out what was said about this bill. Since so many organizations have been quoted as being in favor of it, let us repair to the statement of Mr. Ira S. Robbins, president of the National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials, an organization which has more compassion and does more for the elderly and the underprivileged than probably any other group. This is what he said:
The bill proposes two complex new programs – rent supplements, and "new towns," (sometimes the HHFA Administrator likes to call these "new communities") – that both were formulated without long, thoughtful probing and give-and-take debate with local public officials who have a day-to-day exposure to the problems toward which the programs are directed.
The rent supplement plan, on which we will make extensive comments, is advanced as "the most crucial new instrument in our effort to improve the American city." Yet this plan, which, at least is administratively cumbersome and socially indefensible, came to the Congress without any review of testing by representatives of the various local operating agencies that should administer the program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. TOWER. I yield myself. 2 additional minutes.
This is the statement made by an official of the National Association of Housing & Redevelopment Officials.
The witness, I understand, was called as a friendly witness. I presume there was no little chagrin in the hearts of those who favor the program when they heard this testimony. This is what people who are closest to the problem think about it. This testimony should be given great credit.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I should like to ask the Senator a question.
It seems to me that the HHFA estimate in testimony before the committee was based on something other than the present program, which includes low income groups and greatly enlarges the number of people eligible. That estimate was directed at the earlier program.
Mr. TOWER. The Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], with his amendment, made the cost another $1.1 billion.
Mr. MUSKIE. Obviously, more people would be taken in, for the reasons I have indicated. I shall not suggest to the Senator that we have fewer people, because we are bringing in poorer people rather than the higher income people. There are more of them
Mr. TOWER. I understand
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes to Senator from Illinois on the bill.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator from Texas has brought into the debate the name of Mr. Ira Robbins, who has had an honorable career in public housing in New York. The public housing officials, though excellent citizens, have mesmerized themselves into believing that only public housing will solve the slum problem. Unfortunately, the fact remains that, excellent as that program is, it has not done so. A half million people are on the waiting list for public housing. Last year, 21 out of 25 large cities did not initiate a single unit. Although 35,000 units had been authorized each year, not more than 24,000 have been built in recent years. The program is moving more and more into smaller cities and for the elderly, disregarding the slums of the larger communities and yet the public housing authorities cling to the idea that they have a vested interest in the whole problem of poverty and will not permit another approach to be made to housing the poor. We are not opposing public housing; we are proposing to increase it. But we say that there should be another method as well, and we say to the public housing people, "Do not believe that you have a vested interest in misery."
Mr. TOWER Mr. President, as the saying goes, "You all called them. We did not." The Senator is trying to discredit his own witness. What I have stated is what he said about the program.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a question?
Mr. TOWER I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Only for a brief statement. I wish to correct the impression that might be left. I am appearing as amicus curiae, a friend of the court. As chairman of the subcommittee, I supervise the calling of witnesses. We do not call friendly or unfriendly witnesses We always insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD notices of our hearings. We send notices to organizations. We invite all interested organizations, groups, and persons who wish to appear before the committee to let us know, and we put them on the schedule. That is exactly what was done with every single one of the organizations listed. We had no idea as to how their representatives might testify.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I should like to ask a question or two.
If I remember correctly, under the 1949 program we supposedly committed ourselves to the building of 810,000 public housing units. That was 16 years ago. In that period of time, instead of building 810,000 units, we built only 400,000. Is that correct?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I shall check that figure.
Mr. DIRKSEN. The Senator ought to be able to tell me now.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I believe the total is about 600,000. But stating such figures is not quite so simple. As the Senator knows, following the end of World War II, many defense projects were transferred over to cities and converted into public housing. So the program does not all come under the program to which the Senator refers.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I thought I had received correct figures. That would mean that in 16 years we have reached half the goal that was set in 1949. As I said, in 1946, there were commitments for 500,000 supplemental units, I suppose; and if we got only half of the 800,000 in 16 years, how would we get 500,000 in 4 years?.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator starts with a premise--
Mr. DIRKSEN. I did not start with anything.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Yes; I believe the Senator did when he said that we established a program which anticipated 810,000 units. It is true, I believe, that Senator Taft, in his estimates of costs as they prevailed at that time, stated that 810,000 units would be constructed. But he arrived at that figure on the following basis, and this is the way the Public Housing Act was set up: The Government obligated itself to a certain amount in support of the bond issues of various municipalities throughout the country.
Over 40 years a total of those projects was set at $336 million. As costs went up, it meant that the number of units to be built under that kind of obligation would go down. That is the reason why I say that we probably proceed on the cost premise that if we take the 810,000 units as the tie down point, actually it is $336 million. In that case, the proposal in the bill as it came from the committee was $200 million for the program. As I understand, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] proposes to offer an amendment to bring that figure in line with the House figure.
Mr. DIRKSEN. So costs increase.
Mr. SPARKMAN. They do.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Now we have a 40-year program. Has the Senator any reason to believe that costs will not go up like that over a 40-year period?
Mr. SPARKMAN. They may, but they are anchored.
Mr. DIRKSEN. "May?" They cannot help but increase.
Mr. SPARKMAN. They are anchored by the number of millions of dollars that may be assigned to do the job.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, one of the most interesting things that a great Senator named Reed Smoot from Utah said to me one day was:
Young man the course of the budget and expenditures is always up.
One of the most interesting statistical graphs that the Senator can ever look at is one which starts with 1789 and shows where we are in 1965. This is a 40-year program.
I have another question. Is it true that we had to increase subsidies on public housing twice?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Again we make a false conclusion by not keeping anchored to the original authorization, which has stood throughout the years. This is a $336 million involvement, to supplement rents. Somehow the term "rent supplement" seems to have become a bad name.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Let us call it a subsidy.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Very well, a subsidy. Using the term in the same way, it is proposed to subsidize rents not to exceed 3 ½-percent of the investment that an individual city has in a project. So the amount of the subsidy paid would always be limited by that 3½-percent figure. That has never been increased.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. ROBERTSON. I find it difficult to understand the reference to $336 million. We are at the moment committed to over $12 billion in public housing. Once we go 1 year into the new program, we shall be in it for the next 39 years. That is the point. When I heard the figure a few years ago, $9 billion was already committed then.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Over a period of years $9 billion will not even touch the program in my book.
I should like to ask another question. What is a limited dividend corporation?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I am not personally familiar with them. Frankly, I do not know whether they exist in my State or not. They did not when I was practicing law. But, as I understand, a limited dividend corporation is a corporation that is organized in which the amount of earnings is limited to 6 percent. So far as the housing program is concerned, 6 percent profit is the limit.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Is there anything in the bill that would fix a limit to the salaries of the officers and the directors of a limited dividend corporation? If there is, I have not found it. My concept of a limited dividend corporation is one that could pay up to 6 percent.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. It might be that we could enlist the services of the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS] because there are limited dividend corporations in New York.
Mr. DIRKSEN. He knows. It is 6 percent.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I am not certain to what the general law might be on the question of the salaries of officers. There is no provision in the bill which would limit salaries. But I invite the Senator's attention to the fact that yesterday the Senate accepted an amendment of the Senator from Iowa [Mr. MILLER] that in the setup of charges, costs, and so forth, overhead could not exceed that of a normal housing corporation.
Mr. DIRKSEN. But what about direct subsidies?
Mr. SPARKMAN. They would be a part of the costs.
Mr. DIRKSEN. All I have to say is that this looks like a pretty lush business.
It will be like the poverty program. Consider the astronomical salaries that are being paid to administer it. Six percent is not high today when building and loan institutions are paying 4 or 4¼ percent and banks are paying 4 or perhaps 4¼ percent. But here it is 6 percent. Let me get my band on the wheel of one of these contracts and make myself $100,000 a year. I cannot think of anything fancier. Limited dividend corporations sprout like mad.
The Senator has not answered my question. Perhaps he has, so now I have another question.
Suppose there is a community in which there are vacancies, but someone wants to get in under the program. What would happen? Would the vacancies be ignored?
Mr. MUSKIE. Is the Senator asking with respect to housing under the rent supplement program?
Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes; or housing which is proposed to be built. Suppose a man puts up a string of houses and is looking for tenants. Suppose some "eager beaver" in town says, "Let's not bother with them. Let's get on the gravy train. Let's get into supplemental housing." The people who will be displaced or who live in slums or industrial areas will be invaded next, and they will go.
But suppose there is a man who has his own hard dough invested in buildings, buildings that are not substandard, either. What is proposed to be done? Let them stand there and bereave the owner of any tenants he might get?
Mr. MUSKIE. But if I understand the Senator's point correctly, he is asking about people who are eligible under the criteria of the bill, which are the same criteria as for public housing. The Senator is asking whether if someone wants to do something about it he can do it. Of course he can.
If the Senator is asking me whether the practice would be abused by someone who has vacant housing on his hands and is trying to get revenue, and sees this program as a convenient way to get rich -- if the Senator is postulating the possibility of such abuse, I say that whether that would happen would depend on the integrity and judgment of the people who administer the program.
The Senator is, of course, free to postulate that; and I can see the possibility. All people are not angels; there is venality; and abuses can creep into a housing program unless people of integrity and honesty administer it. If the Senator's question is intended to get me to concede that there could be abuse, his point is made.
DIRKSEN. I would not have my beloved brother from the State of Maine concede anything. I am searching for information, because we have some public housing setups back home, and I have been through them. I once wrote a little booklet for Lewis Strauss, when he was Housing Administrator. The title was, "How To Live in a House." It was never published. It gave me some concern as I went through those properties. After a little while, they were reduced to slums. That is why I approach this program with a baleful eye.
Mr. MUSKIE. The State of Maine does not have much public housing, as the Senator, from Illinois knows, so I do not know about those conditions as well as he undoubtedly does. This is one of the reasons why some of us who find ourselves on the Committee on Banking and Currency, charged with some responsibility for the legislation, have been studying the problem since the days of the late Senator Taft, seeking to deal with some of the difficulties. We do not say that we believe, that the programs will work perfectly and will insure 100 percent beneficial results. Obviously, it will not.
I opposed the bill in its original form and in its first modified form. I find myself supporting it here principally as an alternative to public housing, with all the difficulties that public housing has encountered in its years of experience
Although we all entertain reservations about new programs, I should like the Senator from Illinois to realize that, on, balance, weighing the pros and cons, this is a reasonable approach.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I merely say to my good friend from Maine that this is like getting married.
Mr. MUSKIE. I had a few reservations about that, too.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Forty years. I am getting close to it. This program will extend beyond the year 2000. Yet it is proposed to commit the Government that far and hope to get out with the amount of money that is put in. I think it will have to be multiplied by 3 before we are through.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. As the Senator from Virginia has said, when we took the first step in public housing, we were committed to a number of years.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Surely.
Mr. MUSKIE. If we take the first step in rent supplements, we shall be committed to a number of years. So the programs are alike. If this is a shortcoming, the programs are alike in that respect. I would agree that because we are being committed, we should take an extra good look at it.
Mr. DIRKSEN. But this is a different dish, because the man who builds the house, who is the landlord, will get the money. The tenant will not get the money.
Mr. MUSKIE. He will get the service.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Twenty-five percent of his monthly paycheck is the base for the rent.
Mr. MUSKIE. The tenant will not own the house in either instance. He will get a rental.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I know. That is another thing. The title will be somewhere in orbit with Gemini 2.
Mr. MUSKIE. Perhaps it will be in orbit in Illinois, but in Maine it will be nailed down.
Mr. DIRKSEN. That I shall have to see.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator from Illinois has been quite familiar with the operations of the Federal Housing Administration.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I was a member of the Committee on Banking and Currency when that bill was written.
Mr. SPARKMAN. That is correct. The Senator has been familiar with its operation over the years. I believe he will agree with me that the FHA has done an excellent job as a whole.
I invite attention, first of all, to the fact that this is not a program under which a person could build, go out into the free market, and say, "Come in, tenants; I will get you in and reap a harvest for you." This program will be authorized and supervised by the Federal Housing Administration.
Perhaps the Senator has not read the Miller amendment, which was agreed to yesterday. I should like to read it; it is brief.
Mr. DIRKSEN. That will not be necessary.
Mr. SPARKMAN. It is only 5 or 6 lines long. It reads:
No payments under this section may be made with respect to any property for which the costs of operation (including wages and salaries) are determined by the Administrator to be greater than similar costs of operation of similar housing in the community where the property is situated.
The Senator from Iowa offered that amendment, and we promptly accepted it.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Yes; and it is as wide as a 40-acre field.
Mr. SPARKMAN. It is so far as the discretion of the Administrator is concerned; but I think we can rely on the FHA doing a good job. The FHA has done a good job through the years. I think it will continue to do a good job.
So far as competition with existing buildings is concerned -- the Senator mentioned that -- remember that if there is anybody in this country who is concerned about free bidding and free competition, it is the people who build homes.
If the Senator will read the testimony of the National Association of Home Builders, which appears in the hearings, he will see how strongly they endorse the program. They are confident that the FHA will not approve a project that will draw a pall of gloom, despair, and disaster over housing that already exists in a community.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I have one further question. I foresee that among those who qualify for this assistance, there may be those who would be displaced by governmental action. That would be when the Federal bulldozer would come into play.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, does the Senator mean for the purpose of building highways, public buildings, or some other public purpose?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I mean for whatever displacement is occasioned by governmental action.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I understand.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Here is an opportunity for a family to get a house with a conventional mortgage on it. Perhaps the mother in the family would say, "We have been displaced by governmental action.”
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator from Illinois ought to read further. That is only one condition. There is another very important condition.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I know.
Mr. SPARKMAN. It would not take effect at just any time.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, may we have order in the Chamber? I am interested in what is going on, if no one else is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Chamber.
Mr. DIRKSEN The family about which I spoke would discuss the subject around the family table. The father would say, "I have a chance to get a little family place with a conventional mortgage." The lady would say, "Don't be in a hurry. I see a chance to receive a big chunk of rent supplement from that great big Treasury in Washington, D.C." That family could qualify under the criteria established by the pending bill.
Would this provision be somewhat of a restraint on people going ahead in the field of home ownership? I am talking like a building and loan man. I could say "building and loan" before I could say "jackrabbit." I have been brought up that way. I have lived in a community in which people continue to build and own their homes. I do not want to see that feature discouraged at all.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to remind the Senator from Illinois that the building and loan interests strongly endorse this legislation.
Mr. DIRKSEN. That may be. Does the Senator mean that they all do?
Mr. SPARKMAN. The leagues which represent them.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I formerly belonged to a savings and loan association. Later I resigned. I was on the board of directors of the third largest savings and loan association in the United States. I have not heard a word from them as to their intention to support such a proposal.
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator knows that there are two associations.
Mr. DIRKSEN. There is the Federal League.
Mr. SPARKMAN. There is the U.S. Savings League.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I know.
Mr. SPARKMAN. There is also the National Savings League. Both organizations appeared, and their testimony is contained in the transcript of the hearings.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Those leagues do not deal particularly with rental property, They deal in, and their primary function is, home ownership.
Mr. SPARKMAN. They are interested in the other field also.
Mr. DIRKSEN. This proposal would not deal with home ownership at all. In 40 years, the cost of this proposal would be away up there with Gemini..
Mr. SPARKMAN. They would have the privilege of buying a home if their income were to increase.
Mr. DIRKSEN. After a long time. However, they would not have to sell it to them. With 6 percent interest, a good salary for the company board of directors, and the necessary cost and expenses, this would be a good dish. This would be a pretty lush business,
Mr. President, I say to my friend, the Senator from Maine that, dearly as I love him, I am not going to vote for this kind of thing. I am going to support the amendment of the Senator from Texas to strike this provision from the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. P resident, I was never in any doubt from the beginning of the questions of the Senator as to what his position on this portion of the bill would be. However, the Senator began to ask a question which he did not finish. That question related to eligibility for this program.
I repeat what I have said several times this afternoon. The eligibility is exactly the same as it would be in the case of the public housing program as a first condition. However, that would be followed by five other conditions which would affect the number who would be eligible.
The first group would be those displaced by governmental action. Those displaced by governmental action are now covered by the public housing program. The second group would be the elderly. The elderly are now covered by the public housing program.
The third group would be the physically handicapped. They are now covered by the public housing program. The next group would be those occupying substandard housing. They are now covered by the public housing program. Those groups have been our concern since 1937. They were our concern when the public housing program was established.
This amendment is offered as a reasonable alternative to public housing for exactly the same people. To those groups we have added those hit by disaster. I said earlier that I had reservations about the President's original proposal, and until it reached its present form, I would not have supported it. I support it in its present form.
The Senator from Alabama has indicated that I plan to offer an amendment later to reduce the total amount that would be available. I do intend to offer such an amendment to bring the authorization in the Senate bill in line with the bill approved by the House last week. I intend to offer an amendment which would reduce the contract authorization from $200 million to $150 million.
The principal point that I emphasize is that the group who are covered by the public housing program is exactly the same group.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Maine would state more explicitly what his intended amendment would do, provided the Senate first votes down the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
Mr. MUSKIE. The present authorization for rent supplement contracts is $50 million a year for 4 years. The amendment I intend to offer would change that provision so as to reduce the authorization by $50 million, from $200 to $150 million for the 4-year period.
That would be the aggregate amount of the subsidy payments that could be contracted for, if the appropriations equaled the authorizations. The specific new contract authorizations under my amendment would be $30 million prior to June 30, 1966; $35 million on July 1, 1966; $40 million on July 1, 1967; and $45 million on July 1, 1968. The net effect would be to reduce the total contract authorization from $200. to $150 million.
Mr. DOUGLAS. The purpose of that provision would be to reduce the total number of authorized units from 500,000 apartments to 375,000.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOUGLAS. First, we would have to defeat the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas, which would cut it out completely. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct.
Mr. TOWER. First we would have to defeat the Tower liberation amendment.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, before the Senator yields back his time, will he yield for a question?
Mr. TOWER. I yield.
Mr. ROBERTSON. A staff member has just informed me that in this bill, if we add the authorization for rent subsidy and public housing, we would have an authorization of $15 billion over a period of years. Is that correct?
Mr. TOWER. That figure might be a little low.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield five minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the legislative achievements of this session of Congress have led some to describe the Senate and our colleagues in the House in rather generous terms.
The landmark legislation of this and the last session do indeed justify some pride of accomplishment on the part of all Americans.
But these legislative achievements, designed to meet the problems of conservation, education, civil rights, health, poverty, and a whole bundle of other national problems, are significant not so much because they have been passed, but rather because have been passed at last.
For the problems of poverty predate the Republic. The denial of equal civil rights for all citizens has afflicted us for a century.
The crisis of educational deficiency has existed for decades.
The destruction of our nation’s beauty has been accelerating for many years.
All these problems have long been critical. They are not new.
What is new is effective congressional action to answer these crises which eat at the hope and heart of our civilization.
This Congress should not be called the "Civil Rights Congress" or the "'Education Congress" or any of the other names with which it has been flattered. We have only recognized and done our duty to provide the loom upon which the threads of American greatness may be spun into the fabric of a rejuvenated and improved American life. If this Congress must be named, let it be known as the "Congress of Conscience," provided that we meet the urgent problems in American life which we have yet to take up.
The crisis of the American cities is one of those urgent problems we have yet to answer.
Ever since the first family units combined into communities, the quality of the community has influenced the quality of family life and the character of every member in the community. Nothing on earth since those first days has changed that fact.
Yet today, when crime and unemployment rates rise, when critics decry the meaninglessness of much of modem living, and when more and more of us are increasingly concerned with a lowering of ethical and cultural standards, urban decay remains the greatest unanswered domestic problem in America today.
The cities in which we live and raise our children are declining relentlessly into the decay of slums and the streams of concrete strips running endlessly on toward new suburbs into which we flee to postpone our slide.
Meanwhile, in the central parts of our cities, slum life grows darker, choking the downtown heart which once invigorated urban living. There the hope of people flickers dimmer with each passing year of inaction.
We have had Federal programs for the cities.
We have built public housing. We have cleared some slums. And, recently, we have encouraged construction of decent private housing for people of low income.
But these programs have not even begun to meet the crisis of the cities.
Tentacles of the decay and desolation of urban blight squirm outward every year between the highways we build to escape them. The murky grip of blight closes its grasp on the central city.
The American dream is a nightmare for the child whose home is two rooms with bare bulbs, leaking plumbing, rats in the bedclothes, and numberless brothers and sisters.
The Horatio Alger story is a sneering joke for a youth who spends his formative years in filthy squalor many of us choose to pretend does not exist.
The vision of a better life is as faint for the prisoner of the slum as is our realization of his desperation.
Our answers to these problems of the cities have been ineffective and stingy.
Our attempts to provide decent housing for the families of very low wage earners have been shortsighted.
The number of units built has been too small. After nearly 20 years of Federal housing programs, almost 8 million American families still live in substandard housing.
Moreover, the Federal public housing program penalizes ambition and initiative.
The law limits public housing to those who make 20 percent less than a family needs to rent decent housing in the same community.
Yet the law also expels from public housing anyone who makes more than a subsistence income.
Faced with the prospect of losing their public housing if they improve their living standard, yet knowing they will be unable to afford decent living elsewhere, many of the occupants of public housing sacrifice their chances for self and family improvement in order to be able to have a decent roof over their heads.
This vicious circle of despair inherent in the Federal public housing program illustrates how far we have failed in our obligation to meet the urban crisis.
We have been trying to answer 20th century problems with an 18th century poorhouse philosophy.
The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, now pending before the Senate, contains what may eventually be an answer to this pressing problem of providing decent housing for the economically disadvantaged. The bill provides limited funds which can be paid to certain families to allow them to afford decent private housing.
These families will not be forced to wear the poorhouse badge of public housing.
They and their children will not be forced to live in a ghetto with the most poverty stricken in the city.
They will be able to earn as much as their talents permit them to earn, without losing their homes.
[INTERVENING DEBATE OMITTED]
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration of the, bill (S. 2213) to assist in the provision of housing for low- and moderate income families, to promote orderly urban development, to improve living environment in urban areas, and to extend and amend laws relating to housing, urban renewal, urban mass transportation, and community facilities.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President
The PRESIDING OFFICER. How much time does the Senator from Texas yield to himself?
Mr. TOWER. I yield myself 3 minutes.
The rent supplement program provided for in the bill in effect calls for an authorization of $8 billion. That would be for the next 40 years.
To clarify it, the authorization would be for $50 million for the first year, $100 million for the second year, $150 million for the third year, and $200 million for the fourth year.
This is too great an expenditure for a program with as many difficulties as are readily apparent in this one. I believe that such a radical departure from our public housing approach should be undertaken in a more cautious manner.
Administrative difficulties will be voluminous. What we are doing here is increasing in a virtually unlimited manner the complexity of our already complex housing statutes.
The effect of my amendment would limit the total authorization to $100 million. In effect, what I am proposing is merely to continue the program, but not in such magnitude. I do not propose changing the program at all. For all practical purposes, it would be a demonstration program. We can then take a look at it and see how it is working and later appropriate much larger sums if we feel that the program is worthwhile.
As I said earlier, we do not know what the results of the program will be. We do not know whether it will destroy the incentive to own homes or destroy the incentive of an individual to improve his own economic condition and, in that manner, improve his housing condition. There are too many unanswered questions.
We have noted, too, that the program as now drawn is vulnerable to abuse. That has been admitted by the managers of the bill. I am not proposing that we throw out the program; I merely propose to make it a smaller program, a demonstration program, to the extent that we may take a look at it and see how it is working, before we plunge into a costly program extending over 40 years.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I object to the amendment and urge that it not be supported.
Whichever version of the program becomes law as a result of the action of Congress would be fixed into the program for 4 years. So the character of it would be fixed into the program for 4 years.
The Senator from Texas has identified his amendment as reducing the program to, and correctly, a demonstration program. The problems of the group we are dealing with in the bill are such that something more than a demonstration program is needed. A program is needed that will effectively meet the needs of the people. That action should not be postponed for 4 years.,
Under the program provided in the bill, ample opportunity would be provided for the legislative committees of both Houses to supervise and observe the progress of the program. In addition, the Appropriations Committees of both Houses will have an opportunity to control the levels of appropriations which will implement the program. It seems to me that this will afford ample control while, at the same time, affording an opportunity to deal effectively with the problem, if experience justifies that kind of activity.
I concede that any new program is an experiment in the sense that it is untried as an operational program. So in that sense the rent supplement program has been referred to as an experimental program. But that is not to suggest that much thought, study, and consideration have not been given to it. To the extent that it is possible to judge the prospects of this kind of program for success, that kind of consideration has been given. Now we are ready to launch it. As we launch it, the amounts proposed in the committee bill are not excessive in terms of the program. We are dealing with a group of people consisting of 500,000 who are already on the waiting list and unnumbered other hundreds of thousands whose problem is not being dealt with to the extent of placing them on the list.
It is a big problem. It has commanded the attention of the Nation for a long time. To convert this program, which I think has real prospects for success, into a mere demonstration program for 4 years would not be a wise step to take.
Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I strongly oppose the pending amendment. In my judgment, the $50 million authorization contained in the bill is wholly inadequate. If I had my way, we would have authorized a minimum of $200 million for the first year. Measured against our needs, on the one hand, and our potential, on the other, the bill does not provide enough money to do the job. If
this most important new program, in which I have great faith, is to be cut down to 20 percent of the amount now in the bill, we shall find that it will be, as the Senator from Maine has so well said, a mere demonstration program.
In my judgment, the cities of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which I represent, in part, could, within the 4-year period, use the entire amount of the present authorization. We could use a great deal more of the $50 million in the first year than the 12½-percent to which we would normally be confined because of the wise rule that no individual State should be permitted to take more than that percentage of the amount of money provided for Federal housing.
When one thinks of the teeming cities all over the country, north, south, east, and west, full of old and needy people -- yes, and I shall use the term "poverty-stricken people" – who do not presently have over their heads a roof that will not leak and a floor that will not fall under their feet, and who do not have plumbing of the most rudimentary nature, and when one remembers that 9 million Americans are now living in unsafe, insanitary housing, one can begin to appreciate in some measure the great need for this new program. Housing has been a great disappointment to me since I became mayor of Philadelphia in 1952. Philadelphia has perhaps as much public housing per capita as any other city in the country. Yet the lists of requests for admission to public housing projects grows and grows by the years. The sites available to build new projects become more and more expensive and less and less available.
I am strongly of the view that this new and imaginative approach to taking care of the housing needs of our low income citizens should be approved and expanded rather than to go out by what may be the back door.
Both Houses of Congress have now approved a rent supplement program, to be sure, by quite close votes. But I would hope that having approved such a program, we would not now indirectly destroy a major part of its utility by cutting the amount of money authorized from $50 to $10 million, in effect cutting the heart out of it. I hope the amendment will be rejected.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I emphasize that if the program proves itself, Congress can next year or the year after raise the amount of money that is provided in the program. But if we commit ourselves now to $50 million, and that $50 million is let out in contracts, we cannot cut the amount once it has been obligated. The point is that we should allow the program to prove itself first. If it proves itself to be effective in the first few months, next year Congress can raise the amount to $100 million or to any other amount it wishes. But once we have committed $50 million, it will be committed, and we cannot reduce the amount, whether the program proves itself or not.
On that basis, I believe that very serious consideration should be given to my amendment.
I am prepared to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I indicated in debate prior to the last vote, I have an amendment to propose which would, if agreed to, reduce the cost of the program on a 4-year period from $200 million to $150 million in new contract authorizations.
The Parliamentarian tells me that I cannot offer my amendment as a substitute to the pending amendment. Therefore, I will call it up immediately after the vote on the pending amendment. In order to give Senators an opportunity to vote on my amendment at the proper time, when Senators are ready to yield time – I have no desire to limit debate – I shall move to table the amendment of the Senator from Texas.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I first suggest the absence of a quorum so that enough Senators may be present to order a yea and nay vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I do not intend to move to table. There will be a straight rollcall vote on the Tower amendment. With that understanding, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 1 minute on the bill?
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute on the bill to the senior Senator from New York.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have not spoken in detail on the rent subsidy proposal.
That issue has now been basically decided, and I say to the Senate that I believe I know of this situation from a social point of view. I believe I can say to the Senate that socially it is a wise move.
One of the real problems that we have had is that we have cased people up, from a social tension point of view, in barrack-like housing structures in which they feel that they are shut off from the rest of the world. They feel that they do not necessarily belong to the rest of the world because they are part of the large segment of substandard housing. Such amount of substandard housing is reflected by the fact that in 1950 New York City had approximately 367,000 units of substandard housing. Today it has a good deal less, but much more remains to be done.
I believe that the rent supplement experiment -- and I say this with the greatest respect for those who oppose the bill -- may very well prove to be a very desirable social effort in the big cities in which we have had a tremendous buildup of tensions, including racial tensions resulting from inadequate housing. I believe that has been somewhat attributable to the fact that we have segregated people in enormous housing structures and immunized them from a broad community responsibility. New York has a vital need of new housing units and improved housing. Also of importance is the legislative oversight which we should give to the program to insure that it is administered constructively and well no matter what amount of funds we finally agree on.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds to make a statement for the benefit of Senators who have just entered the Chamber.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Tower amendment would not afford us an opportunity to get started. The amendment is identified by the Senator from Texas himself as a demonstration grant amendment.
I shall offer another amendment which would reduce the authorization contained in the bill by $50 million.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas. On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.,
The result was announced -- yeas 38, nays 49, as follows:
So Mr. TOWER's amendment was rejected.
[ROLL CALL VOTE LISTING OMITTED]
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move that the vote by which the amendment was rejected be reconsidered.
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I move that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965
The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2213) to assist in the provision of housing for low- and moderate income families, to promote orderly urban development, to improve living environment in urban areas, and to extend and amend laws relating to housing, urban renewal, urban mass transportation, and community facilities.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I suggest to Senators that I believe we can dispose of the bill tonight. The remaining amendments could probably be disposed of by a voice vote, with the exception of the amendment of the Senator from Maine. Therefore, if Senators will not take up time with unrelated matters, I believe that we can press the pending bill to a conclusion this evening.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I believe that we can come to a yea-and-nay vote on my amendment in the next 2 or 3 minutes, if Senators will stay in the Chamber.
Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina in the chair) The amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.
The legislative clerk proceeded to state the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered; and the amendment will be printed in the RECORD at this point.
The amendment offered by Mr. MUSKIE is as follows:
On page 2, lines 16 through 22, strike the last sentence of Sec. 101. (a), and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"The aggregate amount of the contracts to make such payments shall not exceed amounts approved in appropriation Acts and shall not exceed $30,000,000 per annum prior to July 1, 1966, which maximum dollar amount shall be increased by $35,000,000 on July 1, 1966, by $40,000,000 on July 1, 1967, and by $45,000,000 on July 1, 1968."
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me say to the Senate that this is the amendment I promised to bring up in the course of debate on the first Tower amendment.
What the amendment does would be to reduce the total amount of contract authorizations for the rent supplement program by $50 million.
Mr. ELLENDER. Is that over a period of 4 years?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, over a period of 4 years.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. What would that make it per year?
Mr. MUSKIE. Over a 4-year period for $200 million, this amendment would reduce it to $150 million or $50 million a year, but it is scaled for $35 million up.
Mr. TOWER. I join the Senator from Maine in supporting his amendment. This would enable me to be on the winning side at least once today.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would be happy to accept the Senator's support.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time on the amendment has now been yielded back. The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Maine.
On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to Call the roll.
The result was announced -- yeas 79, nays 6, as follows:
So Mr. MUSKIE's amendment was agreed to.
[ROLL CALL VOTE LISTING OMITTED]
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move to table that motion.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.