CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

November 10, 1969

Page 33641

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HART. I yield.

Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to nail down what I think is a very important point. As I understand the amendment, its effect is to add something like $587 million in additional authorization; is that correct?

Mr. PASTORE. That is right.

Mr. HART. It would add an appropriation.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 additional minutes, or such time as I may need.

Mr. MUSKIE. The point the Senator has just made in his prepared remarks is that this amount would not be spent in the fiscal year that is involved.

Mr. HART. Indeed, it could not.

Mr. MUSKIE. Because it will be absorbed by the total cost of additional projects which are authorized under that figure, and those projects will presumably, if the past is any pattern, be stretched out over a period of years?

Mr. PASTORE. That is not right.

Mr. HART. That is not quite right. What it would do is increase the appropriation by the figure suggested, enabling the commitment for new projects, the total end cost of which must not exceed the amount of whatever appropriation we settle upon now.

Mr. PASTORE. To put it more simply, it would fund it up to the amount of the authorization.

Mr. HART. It would fund it up to the amount of the authorization, but the point the Senator is making is that, particularly with new starts in the first year, the actual expenditure would not be at the figure we were authorizing, and could not be, because the initial startups are relatively slow; but the inhibition is that we cannot even make the initial startup if it contemplates an end cost in excess of the figure we would now appropriate.

Mr. MUSKIE. I think the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Rhode Island, and I are saying the same thing, but it is a little difficult to express. Let me quote into the RECORD from the progress report on Federal housing which has been printed by the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs of the Committee on Banking and Currency. For example, last year, fiscal 1968, the total contract authorizations were $1.256 billion, but the actual spending, that is the budgetary impact, was $522 million.

That is an illustration of the point we are making. In other words, by adding the $587 million, we are not increasing the budgetary impact by that amount, but, rather, increasing by that amount the total cost of additional projects which can be authorized in this fiscal year.

Mr. HART. The completion of which may extend many years down the road, and the expenditure of which may not occur until then.

Mr. MUSKIE. I suppose there is no way of guessing, unless the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE), who is experienced in this field, can give us some guess, the amount of additional spending which might take place this fiscal year if the pending amendment is approved. How much additional spending would there be?

Mr. PASTORE. That would depend on the number of programs that came to fruition. We have already enacted the contractual authority up to the point of the budget estimate, plus what the Senator is asking for now. This just puts it in the pipeline. That is about the size of it.

Mr. MUSKIE. May I for the record indicate the increments by which the spending is increased?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. HART. I yield myself 2 additional minutes.

Mr. MUSKIE. If I may give some figures from this progress report to show the increments by which the annual spending has increased, in fiscal 1965, the annual spending was $285 million, next year $337 million, in fiscal 1967 $431 million, and in fiscal 1968 $522 million. I note that the last increment was something like $89 million, notwithstanding the fact that the contract authorizations in 1968 were almost $700 million more than the previous year. So the spending that will result in this fiscal year as a result of this amendment will be substantially less than the $587 million in additional funds which are represented by the amendment.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, this, I think, we would all agree on: The question really is, to what extent do we want to make possible new undertakings, remembering that only about $250 million of the figure proposed will be available for that purpose? The $250 million is the outside ceiling of the end cost of all and any of the new programs. Given the backlog, I would hope very much that we would be able to increase to the full figure that we are permitted to, under the authorization, the appropriation in this bill.

I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I shall not endeavor to duplicate the fine analysis of the figures made by the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from Maine. But, Mr. President, because I have had direct experience with efforts concerning housing in urban areas, especially with every major city in New York, I realize what this amendment means. The very base upon which the whole housing effort rests is the availability of urban renewal money, because, literally, before anything can be built there must be land to put it on. This appropriation covers both the urban renewal program and the neighborhood development program, with the funds subject to allocation by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; but unless you have the basis, unless you have the platform upon which to put housing, neither of these programs will have a chance to operate.

I am the first to hail the tremendous contribution which is being made to the development of the cities by the Independent Offices Subcommittee with the approval of the Appropriations Committee, dealing with the model cities programs, with the provisions of sections 235 and 236, with the very imaginative home ownership programs and low rent programs, with the rent supplement program and so forth. All of this is splendid, but I should like to point out that you still have to have a platform upon which to put these programs, and it is these urban renewal funds which give you the platform.

I think we have in my State as imaginative a unit for the purpose of trying to develop the housing picture and deal with the housing problem in the cities as there is in the United States. It is the Urban Development Corp. This corporation, organized by the State, has the power to condemn property, and to cut across county lines and zoning regulations -- really to level every barrier which stands in the way of trying to develop a solution to the problem which is raised by the slums and ghettos of our big cities.

But even the corporation cannot operate, and we have representation to that effect, unless there is land available within economic reach; and it is this Federal program, which even takes up some of the essential write-down costs of condemnation, that will enable local governments to put up limited-income housing. Upon that financing structure, tax abatement and other provisions can be affixed; but that fundamental platform must be available, or everything else does not really help. So the very basis of everything we wish to do depends on adequate urban renewal funds.

In the committee -- and I have served on the Appropriations Committee -- there was always a very sympathetic understanding of that proposition, and I found, time and again, that the committee went farther with urban renewal funds than with other matters. But I think this time, in all fairness, they really have not gone far enough; I think the crunch is on now because we are fighting time deadlines and tremendously increased costs. I hope my colleagues will realize that if you slow up these housing programs, they cost 7½ percent more every year in escalated construction costs to ultimately build.

Every time we have tried to get a higher costs limitation, we have been successful. But we do not like it. We would rather have the construction done promptly, and not have to seek higher cost limits.

For all those reasons, Mr. President, because we are really dealing with the bedrock platform upon which all housing stands, I hope the Senate will agree to this amendment. Mr. President, I am not saying a word in criticism of the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. PASTORE) who chairs the Independent Offices Subcommittee; he has in this respect his own problems, and will speak for himself. But I should like to testify right now to the fact, and let no one assume anything otherwise, that he is one of the greatest friends the cities have ever had in the U.S. Senate, whatever his position on this matter.

Mr. President, on the inflationary question, it seems to me that when you add to the stock of housing in the country, especially when there is an availability of materials and labor, and you create a tax-producing entity for the local government, you are not contributing to inflation. If there is any expenditure, it is a productive expenditure, and it adds to our assets and resources. It seems to me that if there is any expenditure we can justify, notwithstanding an inflationary budgetary situation, it is an expenditure which builds our assets and produces income, which is definitely what this program is designed to do. This is Federal facilitation of that purpose. Every municipality is much better off from where it presently stands when it gets an urban renewal project, in which it writes up the value of its land and puts something on it which will be tax-paying in the future.

For all those reasons, I hope very much that the amendment will be agreed to. On behalf of my able colleague, the junior Senator from New York (Mr. GOODELL), I ask that the remarks which he has prepared, in support of the Hart amendment, be included in the RECORD:

There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

Mr. GOODELL. Mr. President, I rise to commend the members of the Appropriations Committee for the work they have done on the HUD Appropriations Bill. They have demonstrated a sensitive approach and a serious commitment to the housing crisis which plagues our nation today.

The Committee has requested the full funding requested by HUD of three vitally important housing programs which will help ease the housing shortage faced by low income families: Section 235, Homeownership, Section 236, Rental Housing, and Rent Supplements. In a letter to the distinguished Chairman of the Independent Offices Subcommittee (Mr. Pastore) I strongly urged for such full funding and I am delighted that the Committee has made these recommendations.

The Committee has restored the cuts made by the House and has recommended the Administration's request of a $100 million contract authority for each program.

Full funding of these three programs will provide 125,700 homeownership units, 118,100 rental housing units, and 84,600 rent supplement units of housing by the end of 1970. Mr. President, at this time in our history over 20 million Americans are forced to live in substandard homes. Last year, only 100,000 units of housing were built for low income families. The appropriations bill, H.R. 12307, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, will provide funds for over 328,000 homes to house more than 1.2 million Americans.

Obviously, these units will not be sufficient to meet our housing needs. The recommendations do, however, indicate that the Congress is willing to begin a serious commitment of resources to ease the housing crisis.

The Committee has also recommended that the urban renewal program be funded at the Administration's request of $1 billion which was cut by the House to $850 million. While this is an improvement over the House-passed provision, it was my hope -- expressed in a letter to the Committee -- that urban renewal be funded at its authorization level of almost $1.6 billion.

I rise, therefore, to lend my support as a co-sponsor of the amendment introduced by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. HART) which would increase funding of urban renewal from the Committee recommendation of $1 billion to the full authorization of $1.587 billion.

The urban renewal program has been hit particularly hard by inflation and soaring construction costs. In order to offset these inflationary pressures, I believe this amendment must be passed today.

The Construction Cost Index (CCI) compiled by the Department of Commerce indicates that construction costs will rise 7.2% this year, based on national estimates. If the CCI is applied to the HUD $1 billion budget request for urban renewal, the funds in terms of actual purchasing power will be worth only $933 million. Therefore, the effects of inflation cut into the appropriation before the funds are even available.

Conventional urban renewal programs, because of their scope and complexity, often take 10 years and in some cases longer to complete. Due to the annual increase in construction costs, cost over-runs and other results of inflation, the sums originally reserved for a project normally will not be sufficient for completion. As a result, amendatory grants must be allocated by HUD to city officials to meet the higher costs. The Department estimates that of the $1 billion requested, about $400 million will be for amendatory grants attributable to past cost increases.

Inflation, therefore, consumes over 40% of the Department's $1 billion budget request. This would leave only about $500 million for new urban renewal programs.

The increased demands for urban renewal funds far exceed the available supply. The Committee Report to accompany the appropriations bill states, on page 14, that:

. . . the demand for urban renewal programs has reached the highest level in its history, with applications on hand of $2 billion in new and expanding programs, and $2 billion in additional applications expected during 1970."

An appropriation of $1.587 billion would yield almost $1 billion for existing and new applications. Needless to say, this amount falls far short of the total funds needed to meet actual needs. However, it will provide twice as much money for new urban renewal program as the HUD request, after the effects of inflation are taken into account.

While I am fully aware of the need for budgetary restraints to overcome inflation, I believe that urban renewal is of such high priority that the additional expenditures are fully warranted.

It is false economy not to provide the adequate funding for urban renewal. The funds spent for the program bring economic returns by creating jobs and a stronger tax base in blighted areas.

More importantly, if we fail to act now, decay will continue to spread, and the cost of correcting it will continue to rise with soaring construction costs. Ultimately, we will be faced with a far greater -- and much more costly -- task of renewal than if we take action now.

In the meantime, millions of Americans will be forced to live in substandard and deteriorating areas.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment which will allow the urban renewal program to more adequately fill the needs of our cities.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, today, speaking against this amendment is like speaking against motherhood. Already the Senator from New York has apologized for me. I am the manager of the bill, and I dare say to the Members of the Senate that the House of Representatives really used an ax on these programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

I want my fellow Senators to understand that it was principally through my insistence that the money was restored to the budget estimate. I have had mayors of cities in my own State call me, and I have had visiting mayors come in. Naturally, they would like to see it go up to the contractual authority, and we would like to see the advance funding. But the Secretary of the Department came before our committee, and I must say in fairness to him he scrutinized these programs very carefully, and I want my colleagues to understand further, in fairness to George Romney, that he has insisted continuously with me that we restore the money up to the budget estimate.

If Senators will look over the charts in the back of the report of the committee, they will find that the largest amount restored in this bill was under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. That is where practically all the restorations were made. I repeat, through my insistence the members of the committee, and I was very grateful for it, finally saw it my way.

Senators will notice that on model cities, the House of Representatives cut out $175 million. We did not restore the full amount there. But that is the only place we did not restore the full amount; we did it under section 235, we did it under section 236, and we did it under rent supplements; but when it came to model cities, instead of restoring the $175 million the House of Representatives had cut out, we put back $100 million, because we were told this was phase 2, and the chances were the cities would not be prepared to come up with their share, and for that reason, we did not have to put the full amount back. I had two conferences on that subject before we reached that conclusion.

I point out to the Senate that the President of the United States has already said:

You have limited me to spending in this fiscal year to $191.9 billion. I have pledged to the American people that I will not spend more than that.

And he made a speech on the radio not too long ago in which he talked about stopping inflation and the other things he is trying to accomplish in order to simmer down these inflationary tendencies.

I am going to have a tough enough job defending the budget estimate in conference. Does the Senate want to add another $587.5 million? It will make Senators feel good on the floor of the Senate. However, I do not know how far we will get with it.

I repeat that I am the manager of the bill. The Senators who have just talked have been managers of other bills themselves. They know that one has a mandate from the committee.

I had hoped that the amendment would not come up. I was approached by the mayors. I told them that I am for the top dollar, meaning of the budget estimate. I will hear about it later. However, that is still my position. I will vote against the amendment.

I do it with tongue in cheek. I do it regretfully. However, I have no other alternative. I think that if the Senators win, they will not get very far with the amendment. I will be mighty lucky if I can restore the amount of money the committee included.

[Intervening Senate action omitted]

INDEPENDENT OFFICES AND DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS, 1970

The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 12307) making appropriations for sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, corporations, agencies, offices, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for other purposes.

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the morning business on tomorrow; there be a time limitation of 1 hour on the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Ohio (Mr. YOUNG), the time to be equally divided between the sponsor of the amendment and the manager of the bill; that there be a 10-minute limitation on an amendment or measure to be offered by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD), the time to be equally divided between the sponsor of the amendment and the manager of the bill; that on an amendment to be offered by the distinguished Senator from Kansas (Mr. PEARSON), there be a time limitation of 40 minutes, the time to be equally divided and controlled by the sponsor of the amendment and the manager of the bill, 20 minutes under the control of the Senator from Kansas and 20 minutes under the control of the manager of the bill.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, does that imply that the pending amendment will be the last amendment to be acted upon tonight?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, indeed.

It is my understanding that perhaps the Young amendment may be pending at the conclusion of the morning business on tomorrow.

I remind the Senate that we will convene at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. That is a very important hour in connection with Veterans Day observance, because at 11 o'clock on November 11, 1918, World War I came to a close by virtue of an armistice.

What used to be Armistice Day is now Veterans Day. Some of us expect to make appropriate remarks paying tribute to those who have served and those who have given their lives in the various wars in which this country has been engaged.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, may I ask the manager of the bill whether a rollcall vote will be requested on final passage.

Mr. PASTORE. There will be a rollcall vote in view of the fact that it is an appropriation bill.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to put the Senate on notice that sometime tomorrow we will try to give 25 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. COTTON) in which to talk on a very important subject.

Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I gather that the pending amendment will be the last amendment to be acted upon this evening, even though another amendment may be offered on the pending bill.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The pending amendment will be the last amendment to be acted on tonight.

The unanimous-consent agreement, subsequently reduced to writing, is as follows:

Ordered: Effective at the conclusion of the morning business on Tuesday, November 11, 1969, that during the further consideration of H.R. 12307, making appropriations for sundry independent executive bureaus, boards, commissions, etc., and HUD, debate on an amendment by the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. BYRD, be limited to ten minutes, debate on an amendment by the Senator from Ohio, Mr. YOUNG, be limited to one hour, and debate on an amendment to be offered by the Senator from Kansas, Mr. PEARSON, be limited to forty minutes. The debate on each amendment is to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent of the amendment and the manager of the bill, the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. PASTORE.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 10 minutes remaining.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I would like to add to the observations made by the distinguished Senator from New York with reference to the performance of the Senator from Rhode Island. I know the Senator from Rhode Island is a friend of the programs and has fought for them in committee.

I know that the figure contained in the pending bill represents the herculean efforts of the Senator from Rhode Island.

I point out that what I have to say ought not to be interpreted as any kind of criticism of the Senator from Rhode Island. Indeed, I expect the Senator has given us in reality what is likely to come from the conference.

I think the case for the amendment is very strong. I think the case for the cities ought to be made on the Senate floor. I think they will feel better that it is made. However, I think there is a greater prospect that there will be better efforts in the future if we make the case today. I hope that we may strengthen the hand of the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island in conference.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan (Mr. HART) to increase the appropriations for the urban renewal program for fiscal year 1970 from $1 billion to the authorized amount of nearly $1.6 billion. At this time I should like to express my concern about the serious effects of failure to provide adequate funding for conventional urban renewal and new neighborhood development projects.

Mr. President, appropriations last year for the urban renewal program totalled $1.080 billion.

This figure included a carryover of $17.5 million from the previous fiscal year. Of this amount, $409 million was allocated to already existing urban renewal projects; $465 million to new, conventional urban renewal projects; $105 million to related programs, such as code enforcement; and $100 million to neighborhood development projects, which are an integral part of the model cities program.

At the present time, urban renewal applications, including both conventional and neighborhood development projects, total $2.6 billion, and they are increasing at a rate of nearly $200 million a month.

Failure to appropriate an adequate amount for the urban renewal effort will have serious consequences for the model cities program and the neighborhood development project areas, which rely in part on adequate urban renewal funding. There are currently 296 neighborhood development projects throughout the Nation with applications pending or being developed, including projects in Portland and Presque Isle, Maine. Ninety-six of these applications are from towns and cities which have had no previous urban renewal project, and the great majority of them are from small cities and towns.

Mr. President, I have seen letters and telegrams from local officials expressing great concern over the level of urban renewal funding for fiscal year 1970 and urging the Senate to support the $1.6 billion authorized level. Many mayors are deeply concerned over the commitments they have already made to the people in their communities. They fear the disillusionment and despair which will arise, if the Federal Government is unable to keep its commitment this year. One mayor of an Ohio city explained that officials of the Department of Housing and Urban Development had urged his city to undertake an NDP program, which it did and for which the city has already spent $340,000 for planning. However, Federal funds, which had been promised to the city by no later than May of this year, still have not been made available. The mayor goes on to say:

The lack of funding of this program has created dissent, frustration and ammunition to the militants -- but more so, frustration for those that had hope.

Mayors from other cities tell similar stories about the grave problems they will face if the Federal Government is unable to contribute its share of funds for neighborhood development projects, which have raised high hopes and which offer better opportunities for community involvement in renewal and development.

Other cities -- like Portland, Maine, and New Haven, Conn., to name just two -- with existing urban renewal projects express similar fears, as do cities like Omaha, Nebr., which is in the process of creating an urban renewal authority for the first time.

Mr. President, I fully realize the budgetary pressures facing us and the members of the Appropriations Committee who have worked on this bill. And I should like to express my appreciation to Senator PASTORE, the chairman, and the other members of the Subcommittee on Independent Offices, for their action in increasing urban renewal funds to the full request of $1 billion. But I cannot emphasize too strongly my conviction that the Senate must act to meet its commitment to help rebuild the Nation's cities by increasing this amount to the full authorized level of nearly $1.6 billion. This would be more consistent with current project needs, and it would reemphasize the Senate's commitment to upgrading the quality of urban life.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ELLENDER in the chair). The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. PASTORE. I have time remaining. I will yield additional time to the Senator if he needs it.

Mr. MUSKIE. I will take 1 more minute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized for 1 additional minute.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD letters and telegrams I have received from city officials in my own State on this point.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

PORTLAND, MAINE, November 7,1969.

Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.:

We urge your support of the full $1.6 billion authorization of renewal funds.

JOHN E. MENARIO, Portland City Manager.

ORONO, MAINE, October 20, 1969.

Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR: Today October 21, at 10 a.m. a coalition of the National Association of Housing and Renewal Officials, the National League of Cities, and the National Conference of Mayors is waiting upon the Congress in an effort to have the Senate restore 1.587 billion dollars to the HUD budget for urban renewal in FY 1970 for the Congress to be consistent with its own goals (See P.L. 171 81st Congress, Section 2. Also P.L. 90-448) it must restore these funds.

In fact, it must go the second mile, it must insure FHA commitment for dwelling construction loans, grants, and insurance in renewal areas.

I urge you to attend this meeting and restore these funds. Letter will follow.

MARSHALL GIBSON, Executive Director,

Orono Urban Renewal Authority.

PORTLAND RENEWAL AUTHORITY,

Portland, Maine,

November 3, 1969.

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

Old Senate Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR ED: As you know, Portland is most grateful for the assistance you have given in helping us to finance our Downtown Renewal Project. This coupled with our Model Cities activity should give Portland it very fine and balanced program.

We are, however, quite concerned that urban renewal appropriations may not be adequate to finance our NDP, which is the renewal component of our Model Cities Program. The Administration has requested only $1 billion for fiscal year 1970. We feel that the demands on renewal are so great that the $1.6 billion authorized is essential. Even more money will be needed in future years. Please give your full support to maximum funding for the fiscal year 1970. We also believe that the House Bill for fiscal year 1971, calling for $2 billion is more realistic than the $1.3 billion which the Senate Bill authorizes.

Thank you for your continued interest and support in these matters.

Sincerely,

HOWARD U. HELLER, Executive Director.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I say again that this is a case we could spend the afternoon making -- the need for renewing our cities and the need for giving full support to efforts that have already begun in so many cities across the country, under the prod of the Federal Government and under the stimulus of the incentives which we have built into legislation over the past few years. The additional appropriation we are requesting this afternoon will not begin to fully fund the promises we have already made.

Mr. HART. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I should like to commend the Appropriations Committee for providing an additional $20 million for section 235, for homeownership, which I think is one of the best investments we will be making. The committee is also to be commended for the faith it has shown in the National Home Ownership Foundation by providing initial funds of $250,000, so that it can start to program where this housing should go.

I should also like to indicate my support for the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan, because I do feel that this is the way to emphasize improved housing.

The neighborhood development program was authorized in the 1968 act as an alternative approach to urban renewal.

NDP is an essential tool to the development of livable communities and the construction of housing for middle- and low-income persons. It is the vehicle for enabling neighborhood and community groups to finance professional assistance, to prepare applications, conduct planning, and effectively develop programs for submittal to HUD -- either individually or through the model cities network -- for funding of 235 programs, especially rehabilitation; 236 programs, rent supplement; acceptable urban renewal grants; housing for the elderly and the handicapped; model cities projects; public housing, etc.

Approximately 287 cities throughout the country have NDP applications awaiting approval. Only some 35 on so have been funded. HUD issued a freeze on such applications and it is unable to give an estimate as to how many cities have withheld filing an application because they know funds are not available. But, it is known that the program is enthusiastically supported in local communities and it is a most effective tool in involving individuals in local community affairs.

This is particularly so since there is some indication that model cities may be tending in some places at least to foreclose effective citizen participation. NDP in addition is the first essential step on the road to building new housing and to rehabilitating existing housing. It is not, as some persons may suggest, a vehicle for draining funds from housing construction. If this is doubted, ask the people in the local communities who have required or who want NDP funds.

In the pending appropriations bill, no money is to be earmarked for NDP as such. Instead funds for NDP are incorporated in the overall urban renewal appropriation. The Congress has earlier authorized $1,587,500,000 for urban renewal. The House has appropriated $850 million. The Senate now plans to increase this sum to $1 billion. The Hart amendment intends raising this appropriation to the authorization level; namely, $1,587,500,000. I agree with and shall support this amendment. I do so principally because I believe adequate funds must be provided for neighborhood development programs, and I urge that HUD allocate $400 million for neighborhood development programs out of the sum of appropriations contained in the Hart amendment and the Senate bill.

Far more than $400 million is required to fund the applications pending before HUD. Clearly two or three times that sum could be expended, it is estimated, on applications that would be submitted by other cities if funds were available. I recognize, however, that fiscal moderation is required. The figure of $400 million is not pulled out of the air, however. This is the sum that was contained in the House Banking and Currency Committee bill. The committee did hold hearings on the needs of NDP and came to the conclusion that such sum was a reasonable amount to be made available.

There are those who may charge that we do not have the money to support the increased appropriation proposed in the Hart amendment.

Housing and urban development, in my opinion, is one of the six essential domestic priorities that we are duty bound to support -- not starve -- in our appropriations efforts. The other five are pollution, education, health, jobs, and crime control. I have argued before and I reiterate that there are many sources from which we can conserve funds in order to finance our major priority needs. Our heavy expenditure to support 600,000 troops and dependents in NATO amounting to $15 billion a year is just one possibility.

I urge that the Hart amendment be adopted to demonstrate our commitment to the needs of our urban communities and their residents.