October 20, 1965
PAGE 27541
DEBATE ON RENTAL SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM ENACTED IN THE HOUSING BILL
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I believe that everyone must understand what the program is all about, and what the Senate is trying to do today.
I realize that when the program was proposed by the President, there were many Members of Congress whose philosophy is opposed to this kind of program. I do not believe there has ever been a program that has come before Congress which has been so poorly explained, in many instances, and so badly misunderstood. It has been characterized as a rich man's program. The impression has been created abroad that someone who owns one of those extravagant ivory tower apartments overlooking the East River on Sutton Place in New York City, or persons paying rents of perhaps $1,000 a month, are going to get the Government to subsidize their rent.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The purpose of the proposed legislation would be to help the elderly.
The purpose of the proposed legislation would be to help the disabled.
The purpose of the proposed legislation would be to help those who are displaced by a Federal project such as a road being built through slums, the people being displaced and having to go elsewhere, but they cannot find a place to live cheaply enough because the slum in which they were living has been eliminated. Therefore, they do not have the money to pay the rent. That problem, therefore, becomes the concern of the Federal Government.
As our beloved President Kennedy said, "If a free society cannot take care of the many who are poor, how are we going to save the few who are rich?"
Not everyone in America drives around in an air-conditioned Cadillac.
The proposed legislation is a poor man's program. The basic requirements for eligibility are the same rules which apply to public housing.
In other words, if a person makes 1 penny more than anyone who is entitled to public housing, he is out, under the proposed legislation. He is absolutely out.
Once a person has qualified under that criterion for eligibility to receive one of these rent subsidies, then he has got to fit into one of five categories besides the income classification.
First, a person must be over 62 years of age; otherwise he is out. In other words, if he makes $4,000 a year and he has five children and he can go into public housing, he will not be entitled to the benefits of the proposed legislation, even though he could get into public housing, unless he is over 60 years of age, unless he is disabled, unless he has been displaced, or unless he lives in a slum. Those are the categories.
Therefore, Mr. President, when any Member gets up on the floor of the House or the Senate and characterizes the proposed legislation as a rich man's program, he does not know what he is talking about.
I do not believe that the Senate is so stupid as to bring that kind of bill before it. It did not bring that kind of bill before the Senate. It brought a good bill before the Senate.
Mr. President, we now come to the question raised by the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL]: Why are we asking for money in the bill? I can go along with his logic. He states that this is a new law, that it needs some consideration, that it needs some thought, that it needs some planning, and that it needs further development.
I realize that we are not going to stop paying rents tomorrow. I realize that implicitly. But we know that we have had experience in this field. I have been a Governor and the Senator has been a Governor. I have been a Senator for 15 years, and the Senator has been my senior in the Senate for many more years than that. I am sure that if we do not appropriate money we cannot get into a contractual obligation. What we are trying to accomplish by the proposed legislation is to take care of elderly people by letting private industry do it, instead of the Government building and owning public housing.
Who qualifies to do it?
It must be a nonprofit organization, or a corporation will have to be created which will be confined to a 6-percent return on its money. A 6-percent return on our investment will never make us rich.
Unless we appropriate money, no one is going to begin to build the housing. No one is going to build an apartment, or rehabilitate the slums in Harlem by 50 percent of their value in order to get people in there so that they can live decently.
That is the reason we are asking for the money.
The minute we take the money out, we set up an organization. It is true they can set up rules, which they should do, at any rate. They can take care of the developing and the planning, but they will not get one apartment. They will not get one unit built.
That is why we put this money in the bill.
When the proponents came up here, they asked for $30 million to provide for 50,000 units. We thought that was going a little too fast. The argument was made that there are 4 million people in the United States of America who are poor and, therefore, inasmuch as we cannot take care of all of them we should take care of none of them.
Mr. President, I cannot buy that. We must start somewhere. Many people are entitled to public housing and cannot get it. Every day, I receive many letters from elderly persons who would like to get into Dexter Manor, or Bradford Manor. We do not have enough projects of that kind. We should have more. But merely because we do not have enough -- let us have some. Let us get started.
Mr. President, the proposed legislation happens to be one of the jewels of President Johnson's administration. It is a part of his war on poverty. The idea is to take care of the poor, let me emphasize that. The idea is to take care of those who are displaced and who cannot pay the new rents in a new community.
Accordingly, what does the Federal Government intend to do? It intends to pay for a part of that rent. Why? In order that those citizens may live in respectability and not have to break up their families.
We build jails and reformatories, we do everything to house delinquents; yet we are parsimonious when it comes to doing something to prevent delinquency.
That is what the Federal Government is trying to do by means of this proposed legislation.
Mr. President, at the bottom of my street, in the town where I grew up, a freeway was built through the area where so many people used to live.
I often wondered, Where are they going? Who finds houses for these people? There are no houses. Wherever they go, the rent is more. They cannot move. They do not want to move. But those people are pushed out of there because some people want to drive on a freeway at 60 miles an hour.
Take the $12 million out of the appropriation today, and we will delay the appropriation for another year, because by the time we get to appropriating a single dollar that will lead to a contract, it will be 1967 before we have anything.
So I say to my colleagues, if they did not like this bill from the beginning, please get up and say so; but do not destroy it now. Now that we need the money, are we going to kill it? Thirty million dollars was wanted; 20,000 units are involved. We have proposals for 10,000 units.
It is calculated by the Housing and Home Finance Agency that it will receive proposals for 25,000 units. We are providing for 20,000 units.
I realize that my friend the Senator from Massachusetts is of good heart. He makes a rather good argument that we should proceed in a calm, prudent, and decisive way to develop the program. I am for that. But he slipped when he believes that we can build one unit without appropriating any money. That is why we insisted in having a bill that provides money for that program.
If Senators think the amount should be $12 million, or $6 million, or $3 million, or any other amount, that is another argument. But if we do not put any money in the bill for that program, we do not put life in the program, and we leave it a corpse, and nobody will invest one penny in it.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PASTORE. I yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am sure I could not add anything to the description of the program and its purposes which the Senator from Rhode Island has so eloquently described, but I would like to emphasize one point.
As I understand the point of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, first of all, he says we need a study. I am a member of the Banking and Currency Committee and of the Housing Subcommittee. We know how to write a bill to authorize a study.
If we thought as the authorizing legislative committee, that we would not allow for a program, but only for a study, we knew how to write such a bill. We could have brought such a bill to the floor of the Senate.
There has been no legislation in the housing field in the 7 years that I have been a member of the committee and subcommittee which has had more study, because the subcommittee and the full legislative committee and the Senate as a whole considered this matter. So we knew what the issue was. We decided that we had to move, on a much narrower basis than the administration had recommended, with a program, and not with a study.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator from Maine has my respect and liking, but I point out that the law was not passed and signed until August 10, 1965, this year. The regulations which I have mentioned have been changed or delayed. They were not supposed to go into effect until this month. They have been delayed. There are no regulations now that could be in effect. I point out to my friends from Rhode Island and Maine that there will be another supplemental bill in January. The way to do it is to make the regulations effective and make sure they are right, and get this program on a sound basis, as the Senator from North Dakota so well stated, rather than on a basis that will bring us trouble.
That is my only point. I appreciate the Senator's allowing me to make this comment.
Mr. MUSKIE. I appreciate the comment of the Senator, but may I point out that in all housing programs, including this one, a great amount of lead time is involved after the administrative agency starts moving. But if it has no authority to move and has no commitment or promise on which the agency can make contracts with private industry, the administrative agency must rest on its oars and wait until it has a green light. Until an appropriation is made and the agency receives a green light in addition to the authorization, that agency cannot move at all into the lead time period, which is a condition and a prelude to the implementation of the program.
I have in my hand a letter from the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, written to the chairman of the subcommittee, the floor manager of the bill [Mr. PASTORE], in which he states:
A delay in funding this program would come as a great blow to many of the families who have looked forward with hope and anticipation to the decent housing that this program would provide. Many private builders and nonprofit sponsors stand ready to proceed and have already announced their intention to permit the construction of several thousands of units under the program.
If we do not provide this money, the program will come to a screeching halt.
They will have to stand on the sidelines until Congress decides to provide the money authorized by the legislation, which was passed this year, to start putting the program into action.
That is the question involved.
The Senator from Massachusetts, like all New Englanders, is prudent and cautious, but I point out that the law provides for rent supplements at the rate of $150 million a year over a 4-year period. The supplemental bill involves less than 10 percent of that amount -- $12 million a year. So we are proceeding at a rate which is only one-tenth of the total amount authorized.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. MORSE. I have visited with the Senators on the legislative committee, including the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE]. I would like to have the Senator verify or deny the correctness of the conclusions I have reached.
My first conclusion of the authorization bill is that it had a sufficient statement of policy and criteria and clarity of expression as to what the purpose of the bill was -- to help the very people he has mentioned, those over 62, the crippled, the handicapped, and the displaced.
Does the Senator from Maine share that conclusion of the senior Senator from Oregon?
Mr. MUSKIE. I do. I may further supplement the statement made by the Senator from Oregon by pointing out we already had surveys community by community in order to establish eligibility, rent ceilings, and so on. These surveys have been made under the public housing law, which has been on the books since the 1930's.
Exactly the same approach is involved as to income and rental charges, as are necessary for the rent supplement program. We have had the public housing program for more than 25 years. We do not need new experience.
Mr. MORSE. The Senator got ahead of me, because I was about to ask for a clarification of this very point. However, I want to make legislative history.
It is also my understanding, from talking with members of the legislative committee, that the legislative procedures involved herein are no different from a whole series of programs we have authorized. The Senator mentioned public housing. I might mention procedures which exist in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in regard to programs we have authorized and for which the Appropriations Committee has appropriated money. They have administrative duties of preparing regulations and rules in keeping with the policy criteria Congress has set forth in the legislative committee.
Therefore, I have come to the conclusion -- and I ask if I am correct -- that administrative problems in this program are no different from those in programs for which we have provided money in somewhat comparable fields.
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator is correct. I again supplement what he said by pointing out what I believe to be true. The Senator from Rhode Island can correct me if I am in error. This bill includes other appropriations to implement other new programs enacted by Congress without the study and delay that is urged by the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. MORSE. I would like to intervene once more, if the Senator will permit.
I should be at a hearing of the District of Columbia Committee now, rather than on the floor of the Senate, but this bill is of too great a concern for me to be there. The District of Columbia Committee is holding hearings today on the District of Columbia revenue bill.
I did a little cross-examining of Mr. Tobriner, the President of the District of Columbia Commissioners, this morning because we have a serious problem in regard to highways. Everyone knows what the traffic conditions are in the District of Columbia.. Some objections are being raised about the District of Columbia revenue bill by these who feel that it is going to displace some people in some of the very low income areas of the District of Columbia, in some of the slum areas through which the highways are to go.
One of the criticisms is that we displace people but we never find places for them to live, and that instead of helping the situation in the District of Columbia, and the social, economic, and crime problems in the District of Columbia, we make them much worse.
I was gratified to hear Commissioner Tobriner say this morning, first, that they cannot build these highways, for example -- they cannot follow other programs in the District of Columbia revenue request for funds -- unless the District Commissioners can certify that the displaced persons can be and will be put in other housing equal to, and we hope better than the housing from which they are being displaced. We have to have money for that.
Therefore, we cannot start any of these appropriations until the Appropriations Committee gets approval to appropriate the money. That has to be done first. If we get the money appropriated, the administrative agencies agree on each of those, and then we can proceed with the study and examination of who is eligible, community by community, to the extent of $12 million.
I believe that the Committee on Appropriations recommended in an amount too small. The Senator from Massachusetts would hold that in abeyance, in effect, and it could not be passed until there was a long study. I believe the study should be made by the agency. If they do not do a good job we have a check on them. The Senator from Rhode Island educated me on this point.
I shall enthusiastically support his opposition to the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. If, indeed, we are not ready to move with this program to help poor families who are displaced by reason of governmental action, we should be willing to follow through logically and hold up programs that displace them. We ought to hold up the highway program, the urban renewal program, and programs that displace people in this country until we are ready to accept the responsibility for dealing with their problem in the public interest.
There has been no suggestion from those who support the delay as to how these families could be taken care of. This is more than a delay. It follows on the action of the House in trying to kill this program a short time ago. The action of the Senate, if it were to follow the recommendation of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, would be interpreted as a defeat of the program.
I want to remind the Senate that in considering this provision in the housing bill that justification for the program was established after a full, vigorous, and sometimes heated debate both in the committee and on the floor of the Senate. There was a close debate before it was decided, but there was a decisive vote favoring the rent supplement program.
I say that we should not take this means of reversing the action taken by the Senate at that time.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I will not debate the question further. My amendment would provide for $850,000 as opposed to $450,000 in the committee report and $170,000 in the House bill in order that the detailed plans for this program may be carefully worked out.
Mr. MUSKIE. I understand, but I say to the Senator from Massachusetts that because of the doubts created by the House action as to the future of the program, if the Senate were to agree with the House, the administration could not deal in a meaningful way with the representatives of private industry who are ready to go forward. The agency would be powerless to move ahead. It could not deal with industry people with any assurance that even if they could work out new procedures Congress would permit them to operate.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. That is exactly the fault I find with the amendment. I realize that he is being generous in the engagement of personnel, and the work and planning of the Department.
I do not believe he means a study in the sense that we are going to debate this question again. He means a study of the development and the planning. I realize that.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. The Senator expresses my views better than I express them.
Mr. PASTORE. I realize that, but it is not enough. Unless we put up the money to encourage the building of these units, we have nothing.