May 4, 1977
Page 13554
Mr. CHILES, Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield.
Mr. CHILES. Will that be her discretion to make or would that be up to Congress to decide whether the urban action program would be eliminated if the funding were not there? I did not realize the Secretary had that discretion to make that kind of decision. It is kind of amazing to me that she had such discretion.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Of course, that would depend on the form which the legislation takes. That legislation is being acted on now, as I say, by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. It has not reached the floor. It has not passed the House of Representatives. But in its present form she would have discretion. It may be modified.
Mr. CHILES. As of now, then, when she writes letters to all the communities, which she has been doing, saying that their program might be affected, that is not correct, is it, because that legislation has not passed and she does not have that discretion right now even?
Mr. PROXMIRE. No. However, I think she has a right and duty to inform Congress on how she would act if the legislation were passed.
Mr. CHILES. If she were given that authority
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor. Let me finish my statement.
She indicated how she would act if the bill should pass and if the initiative taken by the Budget Committee on the proposal by the Senator from Florida should become the law.
Mr. CHILES. I did not hear that caveat in any of the statements that the Senator from Wisconsin made, nor have I heard that caveat in any of the replies that I have gotten from all of my cities that have been alarmed by the statements of the Secretary. I do not believe she made that caveat to anyone, and I think she failed to let anyone know that if she has that discretion, if Congress then passes the urban action program over the fact that there was no budgetary mark in there for that money, then she might have some authority. But she has generally just kind of put out the word that all these communities are going to be cut when, in fact, that is not correct.
Mr. PROXMIRE. That may very well be correct. The Senator from Florida is one Senator. He has a vote, he has a lot of influence, and he may prevail. However, it may well be that we will decide to pass that legislation in the form that was recommended by the Administration, giving her this kind of discretion. If we do this — and that is a possibility; it is not a certainty; it is a possibility — and if that is the case, as the Senator from Florida, I think, would acknowledge, she may very well decide to proceed with the urban development action grants and cut down on the community development block grants. There may be changes on the floor, and there may not be. The Senator from Florida does not know and neither does the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. CHILES. No. I agree if all that happens she might well do that, but the concern of the Senator from Florida is that she has not said to anyone that "if all of these things happen I might cut you or you might lose some funds."
It is said, "You will lose some funds."And in the statement of the Senator from Wisconsin that he was making to the floor, saying what the Secretary was going to do and citing the letter from the Secretary, the Senator from Wisconsin also said she was stating that funds were going to be cut on the other programs when, in fact, that is not true today because we do not know what Congress is going to do.
Mr. PROXMIRE. As I say, that may or may not be the case. We do not know whether it may be the case, but it may be.
Moreover, in the letter to me of last week, she wrote:
Our community development program cannot properly be viewed as a countercyclical tool for which public works or CETA funds may be regarded as an adequate substitute. On the contrary, the community development program is an ongoing effort addressed at a basic human need — the need for viable urban communities — which may be supplemented, but not replaced by the other programs.
Mr. President, the administration's housing and community development programs are essential elements of a new domestic policy. The arguments that may have been made for cutting them do not stand the test of reason, nor do they represent the view of the majority of our citizens. They do not represent the views of the House Banking Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, the House Budget Committee, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, or the Office of Management and Budget.
Late last fall, toward the end of the campaign, President Carter in speaking in Milwaukee, said the No. 1 domestic problem for our country is our cities.
Mr. President, if we are going to act on our cities, the way to act is not to reduce the one fund, community development, which is designed to provide a specific new approach that will enable our cities to begin to recover. I think all of us recognize that we should do what we can to permit our cities to do so.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes for the purpose of making an observation or two. Then I will yield to my good friend from Florida, who is the moving figure in the Budget Committee who produced these changes in numbers. He will, of course, make the case as he made it in the Budget Committee.
But let me make this point, which I think underlies one of Senator CHILES' concerns. It is the point that housing assistance programs by their nature build in a large and growing base of uncontrollable outlays in future years. Current policy projections, Mr. President, indicate that outlays for assisted housing payments will grow from about $2.5 billion or six-tenths percent of total outlays in fiscal year 1977 to over $7.5 billion or 1.3 percent of total outlays in fiscal year 1982.
This growth would continue for decades. Looking at housing outlays only 1 year at a time, we limit Congress' long term ability to control Government activity. There is a large number of projects now in HUD's pipeline on which its staff can work while Congress can develop goals that the Nation is willing to live with in the long run.
Additions to current policy would make the goal of a balanced budget in 1982 even more difficult to achieve.
That is the underlying concern to which Senator CHILES addressed himself in offering his amendment. It is a concern that all members of the Budget Committee share as they consider the problem of bringing uncontrollable outlays in the budget under some kind of control. That is an argument that is not addressed only to housing programs. It is addressed to a whole range of programs. But the impact of the housing program is significant and is reflected in the figures I have read into the RECORD. I think that Senators should understand them as the basic motivation of Senator CHILES' initiative.
At this point, I am happy to yield to him to make his case.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, the community development program is a program that I strongly support and I think most of the members on the Budget Committee support. I think the figure that came out of the Budget Committee certainly showed that because the fiscal year 1977 level for the community development program was $3.2 billion, the Budget Committee mark was $3.5 billion for the program. The President's request was $4 billion. It is interesting to see that now in the amendment as proposed by the Senator from Wisconsin, as I understand, he is not asking for any outlay funds but simply budget authority because we now find there is sufficient money in the pipeline, and there is sufficient money available in the mark that no budget authority is going to be necessary. At the time the budget came to us $200 million in actually budget outlay was requested and now we see that that figure is not necessary.
We also are finding that there are tremendous spending shortfalls in many of the Government programs, so we well could argue that most of the things that we are talking about, that even the Banking Committee is talking about within their mark, would be able to be done because of the shortfalls that are happening.
But I think what we were looking at in the Budget Committee was simply to say at what rate do we want this program to grow, how fast do we want this and other programs to grow, looking forward to what was going to be the spending mark down the line, and also realizing that in the last several years a tremendous emphasis has been placed upon countercyclical funds for revenue sharing, public jobs, public assistance, accelerated public works, water and sewer project moneys, and revenue sharing. All of those things have been stacked on and are giving communities additional funding. Much of that money that they are able to use is in a discretionary way as they see fit.
To continue to build this program, to increase the building of this program at the rate that we are doing, has just got to give us some problems down the road, when we are then trying to deal with inflation, when we are then trying to deal with how we would try to balance the budget.
It would be better to allow this program to grow, which we did in our markup, from $3.2 billion to $3.5 billion, but not to try to invest it to the extent that had been requested, so that we would find we would have future problems down through the years, and allow ourselves to see what kind of shortfall we would run into in some of these spending programs, with the idea of being able to tell where we were going to end up; and, as we follow some kind of phase down, as the impact of the countercyclical revenue sharing funds began to build up, at that time we could slow the growth of the community action programs.
That seems to be justified under the new figures we are getting, which would indicate that, with no outlay being needed; there is probably no necessity for increasing the budget authority here, and that we would still be able to do most of the programs.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a moment? It has been suggested that we try to get the yeas and nays on this amendment while we have Senators on the floor.
Mr. CHILES. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the first amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Now, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to order the yeas and nays on the second amendment I shall offer to increase the housing subsidies under the countercyclical program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator from Florida, and apologize for the interruption of his train of thought.
Mr. CHILES. Mr. President, the only other point that I would make would be that which I made when I was entering into the colloquy with my distinguished friend from Wisconsin, when we were talking about what I consider to be some misleading statements now being made, telling local communities there will be a reduction in their grants if the budget is only increased $300 million to the $3.5 billion level, instead of to the $4.5 billion level as requested by the President.
I think to make that statement, HUD has to be assuming a $500 million reduction in the entitlement formula. I do not see Congress making that reduction in the entitlement formula, and I do not see the Appropriations Committee making that reduction in the entitlement formula. But granting what my distinguished friend has said, that we could do that, I would even accept the statements that have been made to the local communities if it was said, "If Congress made this reduction in the formula, you could be cut."
But that is not the way the information has been coming down. The information has been coming down that if the Senate does not increase this figure to the $4 billion mark, they are going to have a decrease in their programs.
I think that is the wrong way to lobby anything. I think it is the wrong kind of message to send, and, as I said, there have been some complaints on the House side about the way the lobbying is being done. I think our communities are entitled to get the right information, and I am concerned when the information goes out in that way.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 34 minutes remaining.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think the problem that it confronts us with perhaps underscores why it is dangerous for the Budget Committee to reach into a particular program.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. SARBANES. I understand they are not doing it technically, but the rationale refers to a cut in the program.
I yield to the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will use my time to respond.
It is difficult even for members of the Budget Committee to understand that when we set functional totals, we are not "line iteming" the programs within those totals. Obviously, we have to discuss programs. There is no way of just plucking a figure from on high and achieving a number that makes any sense to anyone without discussing the programs that underlie that total.
With respect to this item, it was treated in no different way than other items were. They are illustrative of a Senator's reason for proposing a lower number. But one Senator's reasoning is not binding. It is not binding on the authorizing committee, the Appropriations Committee, or the Senate. It is simply the reason why he thought we could get by with a certain amount of money in the function.
I think it is important to preserve that distinction so that, may I say to the Senator, when we finish with the resolution on the Senate floor, the legislative history on the Senate floor is not used on a line item basis.
In other words, if the functional totals that we are addressing here are not changed as a result of this debate that we are having, that lack of change does not preclude Senators from pursuing the objective that the Senator is pursuing today in connection with the legislation that will come out of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee and out of the Appropriations Committee. Whether or not there are funds available in the function to implement that legislation as outlays are anticipated will depend upon whether other priorities have been put on those funds by the authorizing committees in the course of their activities.
So even though the functional numbers were reduced in response to Senator CHILES' argument, that does not mean that we have line itemed these programs. What we have done is to reduce the probability that funds will be available in these functions when some legislation comes down the pike from the Banking Committee. I think it is important to preserve that distinction.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I think that is a very important distinction that the Senator is making. I know he has always been very careful to do so.
The fact is, though, that the rationale being set forth by the proponents of this adjustment in the functional level is a rationale that refers to a particular program we are now concerned with authorizing. I want him to address the fact that that rationale fails to appreciate some very important considerations which the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee is now facing in the markup of this legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator that I think in that context what he is saying is quite appropriate from my point of view, as long as he understands we really did not line item this matter, and it is not our intention to do so, because to do so, I think, would infringe on the jurisdiction of the appropriate committees. I have no quarrel—
Mr. SARBANES. The chairman, of course, has always been very sensitive to that distinction. But the rationale that is being advanced in support of the functional adjustment is a rationale that does run in a specific way to the problem we are dealing with, and that is what I wanted to address myself to.
We are now trying to devise a community development program that makes sense for cities and other jurisdictions all across the country. To devise that program, we need the authorization which has been requested by the administration, and which the logic of the previous speaker's argument would seek to cut by $500 million.
The fact is that if we project that figure forward in subsequent years, the authorization that is carried into the next 2 years is only an increase of 3.5 percent a year. So the argument that says we are building this kind of growth into the program on the assumption of increasing the $3.5 billion figure to $4 billion, and then projecting that sort of growth, is not what is at issue here. We need this figure now in order to devise a formula that makes sense.
The Department has come to us and is now seeking a twin formula, a formula that will be available, that would channel additional moneys into those jurisdictions that are in desperate need of it — this is really the urban program — at the same time that it does not detract from the situation of current jurisdictions that are depending upon previous arrangements.
At the same time, we are working within the committee to develop a better program to deal with the non-urban areas, with the rural areas, and small town areas. In fact, this morning we considered an amendment for that purpose which would place them on a better footing with more surety as to what their situation would be. In effect, we seek this figure in order to give us sufficient room to develop a formula that is sensible, that we can adhere to, so we can say to all jurisdictions across the country, "This is a sensible formula. This makes sense."
If we cut it back, if we pull the $500 million out of that figure, it is no longer possible for us to move to the development of that kind of sensible formula.
Given that background, it seems to me it ought to be our overwhelming objective to try to move to such a formula. If, in subsequent years, we were simply seeking more money I could understand a warning sign being raised. But what this figure is designed to do, and what the cut of the $500 million impacts upon, is to literally cripple our ability in the current markup in which we are engaged to devise a formula with respect to these community development grants, which is a rational, sensible formula which places the emphasis on the kinds of considerations that ought to guide the channeling of that money.
We have an opportunity, we believe, to move to a formula which has been greeted generally by the members of the committee in a very warm way, as representing a very constructive, progressive step in the consideration of this program and in the participation by jurisdictions all across the country. It is going to help badly impacted urban areas. It is going to provide a greater surety for non-urban areas, for the rural areas, if we can have the leeway we need in order to move to the formula.
If this reduction stays, we have really been so circumscribed in what we can do that we will not be able to develop that formula, and will continue to have a system for entitlement grants that is subject to the criticism that it does not really address itself to the most urgent problems, which is insufficiently attentive to the problems of non-urban areas, and which is a program subject to tremendous criticism.
We need this figure in order to rationalize this formula. The rationalization of that formula is a very important objective for this Congress to achieve.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. PROXMIRE. How much time does the Senator wish?
Mr. BROOKE. Six minutes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. But before I do, I want to commend the Senator from Maryland for the very persuasive and compelling argument he has made. Actually, this $3.5 billion budget ceiling for community development will not even allow the program to keep up with inflation. It would really be a cutback in the community development program.
As the Senator from Maryland has said, there is no question that when we are trying to adjust the formula for distributing community development funds to assist our older cities, $3.5 billion is just not a realistic figure.
The purpose of this amendment is to restore the administration's budget request for community development in this first concurrent budget resolution for fiscal 1978.
Regarding the community development block grant program, the Budget Committee's action would cut back $500 million in assistance to local communities. This action ignores the recommendations of both the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the Appropriations Committee, which recommended a $4 billion ceiling for the community development program.
Mr. President, I cannot understand the rationale for this funding reduction. I do not agree that the public works program—
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROOKE. Yes.
Mr. BELLMON. I would like to try to set the record straight. The Senator mentions the funding reduction. Let me try to recite for him what happened. The Carter budget for fiscal year 1978 which came to us in April, included in this function $9.3 billion in budget authority and $9.9 billion in outlays. Then there was a technical adjustment relating to Indian claims which added $0.1 billion in budget authority and $0.1 billion in outlays, giving a total of $9.4 billion in budget authority and $10 billion in outlays. If we take out the local public works money which was moved to fiscal year 1977, this would reduce the aid by $2 billion and outlays would be increased by $.5 billion, putting it up to $10.5. So the Carter budget, as adjusted the way I have just described, is $7.4 billion in budget authority for fiscal 1978 and $10.5 billion in outlays. The Senate budget figures are above that. Our figure is $7.6 billion in BA and $10.7 billion in outlays. So we are $200 million above the Carter level in both BA and outlays in fiscal 1978. Whoever says we are below simply does not understand the facts.
Mr. BROOKE. I understand what the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma is saying, but he is talking about the entire function, not about the community development program.
Mr. BELLMON. That is the point. The Budget Committee does not tell the Banking Committee where to spend the money. We say:
Here is more money than the President wanted. Spend it where you want to. It is not up to us to tell you where to spend it. It is up to you to determine where the priorities are.
Mr. BROOKE. First of all, I do not agree that the public works program or revenue sharing are used for essentially the same purpose as community development.
Mr. BELLMON. But they are all in the same function as far as the Budget Committee is concerned. If the Senator would like for us to get into the line item appropriation business, I suppose we can do that.
Mr. BROOKE. I would not ask the Senator to get into line items at all. I understand that the Budget Committee is trying to set a congressional budget ceiling.
Mr. BELLMON. That is correct. It is up to the committees to set the priorities for whatever they believe to be the highest.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROOKE. I yield.
Mr. SARBANES. It is my understanding that the authorizations for all of the programs encompassed within the function are not within the jurisdiction of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee; is that correct?
Mr. BELLMON. That is correct.
Mr. BROOKE. Community development is the only program under the Banking Committee's jurisdiction. The other programs are not under that committee's jurisdiction.
Mr. SARBANES. The distinction made earlier which I respect, made by the chairman, with respect to there not being line items, has a direct impact here when this is the only program within the function which is within our jurisdiction to handle. Therefore, we do not even have the option of adjusting some other program over which we have control in order to rationalize the formula which is of such critical importance.
Mr. BROOKE. The Senator from Maryland is exactly right. We do not have any jurisdiction over that at all. What has been done, in effect, is to cut the program which is under the jurisdiction of the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. In effect, this is getting into a line item.
Mr. BELLMON. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROOKE. I yield.
Mr. BELLMON. The Budget Committee does not make up the functions. Those are furnished to us and we follow them. Let me say on the point of the Banking Committee not having any leeway, I understand that the committee today has set priorities. Of the $3.5 billion available under this function for this purpose, the plan is to fund formula I and formula II cities under the block grant programs as a top priority; that if there is any money left over to fund the formula II cities in accordance with the Williams amendment. Then they would get down to funding urban development action programs if there is any money left after they have taken care of the second priority. So they have already made provision to exercise some priority use in these funds and on their own have decided if there is a shortage of funds they would hold the funds for urban development action grants until the last.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MCGOVERN) . The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. May I ask the Senator from Oklahoma if he would yield time? Much of that time was taken by him.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield 5 minutes.
Mr. PROXMIRE. That will be fine.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I have long fought to assure that the community development program serve the primary purposes for which it was intended, to principally benefit low and moderate income people and to eliminate slums and blight. I am hopeful that HUD Secretary Patricia Harris will monitor this program so that it will be targeted to the needs of our older distressed cities and not as just another form of "revenue sharing." I was most pleased that HUD has recommended a dual formula approach for the allocation of community development funding which will target the funds at our neediest cities.
The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. McINTYRE) and I offered an amendment this morning at the Banking Committee markup which will assist our smaller cities to receive their fair share of funding. That amendment was adopted by the committee. I am confident that our legislation this year will make the community development program a stronger program, better focused on the needs of our cities which urgently need assistance. I believe that this amendment is essential. if we are to help our cities and smaller communities carry out needed activities in rehabilitation and community development.
Mr. President, may I ask the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget (Mr. MUSKIE) how would this amendment change the actual numbers in the budget resolution?
Mr. MUSKIE. The amendment would increase the function 450 budget authority target for fiscal year 1978 by $500 million. Assuming the intent of the amendment is to accommodate funding of Community Development Bloc Grant Program at $4 billion rather than at $3.5 billion, it would have the effect of increasing fiscal year 1978 outlays by $30 million. That would not require a change in the outlay number in the pending budget resolution.
Mr. BROOKE. Only $30 million in outlays?
Mr. MUSKIE. Thirty million dollars in outlays in fiscal year 1978. That would grow to $190 million in fiscal year 1979.I do not have the figure for 1980. There would be further outyear expenditures.
The real concern that motivated Senator CHILES' amendment was the budget authority figure, because we are all concerned about the outyear commitments that we are making.
The actual change in the numbers in the pending budget resolution would only be with respect to budget authority, which is $500 million.
The Senator from Wisconsin is offering another amendment relating to housing assistance, and I may as well report the budgetary impact of the next amendment too, so this may be in context—
Mr. BROOKE. That was community development. The Senator is referring to the housing amendment now?
Mr. MUSKIE. On housing, function 600, the increase in budget authority would be substantial, $6.2 billion. That reflects the outlays we may expect over as many as 40 years, as the Senator knows.
This additional budget authority would increase fiscal year 1978 outlays by an estimated $10 million and in fiscal year 1979 by $30 million. As the Senator knows, however, this budget authority will produce outlays stretched out over a long period of time.
So the total for both amendments is $6.7 billion in budget authority and $40 million in outlays for fiscal 1978.
Mr. BROOKE. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget for those numbers.
Mr. PROXMIRE. If the Senator will yield, I am informed by the staff that the amendment does not call for the $30 million in outlays and the $10 million in outlays, for a total of $40 million, that that has been too small. I have been told it would not have that effect.
Mr. MUSKIE. Well, the amendment does not specify any outlay impact, but we have to try to estimate, as we have for 3 years, the probable outlay effect of policy changes like this. That is our best estimate of what the outlay effect would be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator, because I occupied some of his time with my answers. I think we may have time.
Outlays, of course, are always estimates. They may or may not take place. One of our responsibilities, because the deficit is tied to it, is to make our best guess. We round off, on the Senate side, at one tenth of a billion on outlays. The House rounds off at whatever figure it comes up with. It could be $1 million.
So the outlay numbers we are talking about would not really significantly change the outlay totals of the budget resolution. Nevertheless, in response to the Senator, I have to give him my best guess as to how much might be paid out in fiscal 1978 as a result of one change he is suggesting.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. BROOKE. I appreciate the Senator's yielding. I shall not need that time. I assure the Senator from Oklahoma that we have not yet authorized the community development program in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. We had a markup session this morning, but did not complete our deliberations on community development. I would like to have the record reflect that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, may I ask a question? I understand that there will be a vote at 4:15 on both of these matters, back to back, though separated. We vote first on one and then the other. I suggest, if it is acceptable, that we now move to consideration of the other amendment and discuss that; then we can vote — unless there is further discussion of this community development question.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma will yield himself whatever time he may like.
Mr. BELLMON. I want to call the attention of the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin to page 61 of the report on the First Concurrent Resolution. I read the second paragraph:
The Committee's recommendation is intended to accommodate (1) support for locally designed and implemented programs of economic and community development, (2) an adjustment for inflation of support to programs assisting lower income people, and (3) a realistic level of funding for disaster relief.
I believe the committee has made provision for matters of concern that have been expressed here by the Senate.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, all I can say to the Senator from Oklahoma is that, in my judgment and the judgment of those who are supporting the amendment, the reduction over the years of $500 million in the community development program would have a seriously adverse effect on a number of cities throughout the country.
I realize that the Budget Committee disagrees with that. They feel they have made a reasonable adjustment. But I think that we have not done the job we should do in our cities. I think it is overwhelmingly clear that we have to do better.
Unfortunately, one element of that is to require at least some more money, some more funds. We support the amendment taking that position. I say that position is very widely supported by the Banking Committee, the Committee on Appropriations, all the appropriate committees in the House, as well as the—
Mr. BELLMON. The Senator is talking about a reduction. We in the Budget Committee cannot see that it is a reduction.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator is right.
Mr. BELLMON. It is current policy.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I talk about a reduction in the administration's request. I talk about a reduction in what the Appropriations Committee and what the Banking Committee recommended. I talk about a reduction below what the House Budget, Banking and Appropriations Committees recommended.
The Senator is correct. It is a modest increase over last year, probably mostly accounted for by inflation.
Mr. BELLMON. But the fact is that in this function, the Budget Committee figure is $7.6 billion per annum, which is $200 million over the Carter request. We have $10.7 billion in outlays, which is $200 million over the Carter request.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Wisconsin are talking about different figures. As chairman of the Banking Committee, I am concerned, of course, with our jurisdiction. Our jurisdiction, as far as this resolution is concerned, is concerned with two parts: No. 1, community development, which was reduced below what we felt was necessary and what the administration felt was necessary, and what they asked for, by $500 million.
The second is housing assistance. That was reduced over the years by some $6 billion. That is what concerns us. This is within our jurisdiction.
The Senator is correct, however, I am sure, that we have applied it across the board to many other areas that are our responsibility and not, perhaps, directly helpful to the cities and the cities' problems.
Mr. BELLMON. It is my understanding that the Committee on Banking, in its March 15 letter to the committee, did not endorse that proposal for changing this program. Am I mistaken in that?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Well, of course, we had not had a chance to get together and act on it at that point. We reserved the right to take it up.
Mr. BELLMON. The March 15 letter is what the Budget Committee has to go on.
Mr. PROXMIRE. That is correct.
Mr. BROOKE. Will the Senator yield 2 minutes?
Mr. PROXMIRE. Yes.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I asked the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee a question concerning how this amendment would change the actual numbers in the budget resolution. The distinguished chairman responded both for this community development amendment and for the next amendment on housing. He gave us the figures, and I will not repeat those figures here.
But the point I was trying to make is that this amendment would have a minimal effect upon the budget deficit.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, on the outlay side. That is right.
The two amendments taken together would add $40 million. I suspect that is taking into account the deficit, that it would not be visible as an addition to the deficit in fiscal 1978.
Now, down the road, the visibility would grow because of the impact down the road on the budget authority increases of this magnitude.
Mr. BROOKE. The Senator from Wisconsin raised some question about the outlay, but the figures that were given me by the manager of this bill indicate that there would be a minimal effect.
Mr. MUSKIE. On the deficit number.
Mr. BROOKE. On the deficit.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield 3 minutes?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, while it is important for the Congress to restrain the level of expenditures for the next fiscal year, it must not quash executive and legislative initiatives to revitalize the Nation's fast deteriorating communities. I am impressed by the administration's early commitment to meet congressional directives and goals as set forth in the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974.
Already the new administration has pledged itself to pursuing an aggressive program in housing and community development, focusing particular attention on the needs of low and moderate income citizens. For community development activities, both the authorizing and the appropriating committees with relevant legislative jurisdiction support the administration's request for budget authority of $4 billion for fiscal year 1978. These projects will be cost effective. The additional funds will enable local governments to plan, design, construct, and rehabilitate housing and public facilities. It will stimulate more concentrated efforts to rid cities of slum and blight.
Since its enactment in 1974, the title I block grant program of the Housing and Community Development Act has assisted over 3,000 local governments with grants totaling $8.4 billion. City, county, and State officials across the country are still pleading for stronger aid from the Federal level. This year the Congress will be studying major proposals which will spearhead significant improvements in the housing and community development program, making it more responsive to current and long range demands. If we are to steer this positive and concentrated effort through as few roadblocks as possible, both the administration and the Congress will require the assurance of $4 billion in fiscal year 1978 budget authority for the community development program.
Mr. President, our Nation's cities, towns, and smaller urban communities continue to face serious social, economic, and environmental problems. There is now a national desire to remedy these ills. The community development block grant program, housing rehabilitation, elderly housing, low income housing assistance, community planning grants, and many other Federal aid programs provide the essential doses of medication. These programs can only be effectively carried out if they are built on a strong budgetary foundation. The administration has pledged itself to the pursuit of immediate housing and community development. The Office of Management and Budget has approved this spending request. Assessing the legislative needs in these areas, both the Senate authorizing and appropriating committees concerned with housing and community development programs concur that the administration's budget request is reasonable and realistic. These are dollars which will be effectively and efficiently spent to upgrade substandard housing, revive deteriorating cities, and support investments in parks, recreation areas, and numerous other community developments. I, therefore, urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, there is an ambiguity with respect to the time agreement. I discussed it with the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin. If I may, by unanimous consent, I will clarify the ambiguity.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time agreement of 11/2 hours on the Proxmire amendment be modified to include both Proxmire amendments which we have been discussing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.