May 4, 1977
Page 13561
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me at that point on my time? I know the Senator from Wisconsin has limited time.
The Senator has, of course, read the record of my votes in the Budget Committee?
Mr. BROOKE. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. My votes do reflect and did reflect the background I did acquire in the Banking and Currency Committee.
Since he has now faced me with my votes in committee, I have to explain why I have to support the Budget Committee resolution. The Senator has heard the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Finance suggest that the chairman of the Budget Committee uses the Budget Committee to serve his own priorities, and I would not want that notion to be held by the Senate.
I do believe in those two programs, but if the budget process is to work the chairman of the Budget Committee has to recognize that he has to yield some of his priorities from time to time in order to avoid the accusation that he brings a prejudiced view to the budget process.
So, after all the functions had been voted on, the budget totals the committee approved reflected a deficit of $63.2 billion, and, taking everything into account, it made sense that I should support it.
I hope that explanation serves adequately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. BROOKE. Just 1 minute to respond.
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes, I yield another minute.
Mr. BROOKE. The distinguished Senator from Maine has explained his position well. I am sure that many of us on our committees have had to go along with the final decisions of our committee. But I am glad that he made two points, that this amendment would have a minimal effect upon the deficit, and that he made the good fight in the Budget Committee. I hope that his position in the Budget Committee rather than his position on the floor will be adopted by the majority of the Members of the Senate.
I thank the distinguished Senator.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. HEINZ).
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I rise in support of both parts of the Proxmire-Brooke amendment. I support this amendment because I believe we must keep our commitment to help families find a decent home in a safe and healthy environment. The targets adopted by the Budget Committee will cause inevitable and intolerable delays in meeting this commitment — delays that defy the demands of compassion and the logic of economic necessity.
As my colleagues on the Budget Committee know, I am particularly distressed by the committee's severe restrictions on assisted housing programs. This budget cut comes at a time when studies show that ever increasing numbers of families will be unable to buy or rent their own homes. This new trend only exacerbates an already existing crisis among those families that are least able to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing.
It seems particularly unwise at this time to deprive low and moderate income families, the elderly, and the handicapped of such a basic resource as housing. In Pennsylvania, the waiting lists for public housing number in the thousands. For the first time in several years, new funds have been authorized and appropriated for the public housing program, and among those who need our help new hopes have been raised. The Budget Committee's action, if ratified by this body, will dash those hopes. The committee's targets would shift any emphasis away from construction of new housing and the public housing program, for all intents and purposes, will once again become inoperative.
The section 8 housing assistance program which was enacted by Congress in 1974, is just beginning to come into its own. Like any new program section 8 lacked local government, financial institution, and builder confidence. Most of these early problems have been overcome with time. Reservations are on the increase and local officials are anxiously awaiting the allocation of new units. If this new program is to continue to build confidence, it is important that a consistent and predictable level of assisted housing construction starts be made available.
We cannot continue to create high expectations for assisted housing among local government officials, builders, developers, and financers and then withdraw our commitment. We cannot create expectations among families of low and moderate income that their housing needs will be met and then change our goals. We must provide a basic level of housing assistance that can be counted on with certainty — by families, by local government and by the private sector.
Another negative effect of the budget cut for assisted housing will be the continued high level of unemployment in the construction industry. The estimated national impact of the housing budget cut, if not redressed by this body, will be the loss of 75,000 housing units and over 150,000 jobs.
In my own State of Pennsylvania this will mean the loss of 4,000 units and nearly 8,000 jobs. This comes at a time when the unemployment of construction workers in Pennsylvania is over 15 percent.
In my view, both the social objective of providing decent housing for families of low and moderate income and the economic objectives of decreasing unemployment, will be met by reinstating the housing budget for fiscal year 1978 to the level authorized by the Banking Committee.
The cuts that the Budget Committee has made in the community development programs adds further insult to the injury that the housing cuts will inflict on the residents of towns and cities across our Nation. The cost of the committee's action on community development to my own State of Pennsylvania will be $31 million and these funds are absolutely necessary if our urban areas are to be revitalized and our cities are to be reclaimed.
Cities and counties in Pennsylvania have utilized these funds to return deteriorated housing to sound condition; to restore older neighborhoods and bring them new vitality; to attract families of all income levels back to our declining urban areas.
Many communities in Pennsylvania have used these funds to improve neighborhood facilities such as parks and open space, recreation facilities for our youth, and social service centers for the elderly and the handicapped.
In addition, many communities have used community development funds to leverage private moneys for reinvestment in older urban areas. New industrial parks — with substantial employment opportunities — have been created. Older commercial and retail centers, once the hub of activity but now suffering from severe economic disinvestment, have been given new economic life. The Budget Committee's $500 million reduction in the community development program will undermine much of the impetus at the local level to continue and expand these activities. If the budget cut is allowed to stand it will place in jeopardy the undertaking of many of the new activities which have been initiated and are ready for implementation by local governments. If we, indeed, have a commitment to revitalize our neighborhoods, restore health to our urban areas, and breathe new life into our cities, then I believe that it is imperative that the funds cut from the community development program be restored.
Mr. President, I said earlier that the Budget Committee's cuts in housing and community development defy the logic of economic necessity as well as the demands of human compassion.
In closing, I emphasize that point. I support this amendment not only as a member of the Banking Committee, and not only as an individual who believes that we must strive to meet our most basic human needs, but also a member ofthe Budget Committee who, along with the distinguished chairman, and the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, believes that a sound economy is the last,best hope for achieving a balanced budget.
I am firmly convinced that the investment we propose to make in our cities and that we propose to make in our neighborhoods through assisted housing really will do a great deal to stimulate our economy and by the 5 year economic growth cut our revenue losses, improve our tax revenues, and get us out from under the burden that we have been experiencing in the form, among others, of huge Federal deficits.
I have noted earlier that housing construction is one of our most depressed industries, and that our new construction programs are one of the most direct means of getting men and women back to work. This in turn will help stimulate our economy, stimulate new economic growth, cut our revenue losses and help us get out from under the burden that all sorts of welfare payments put on the Federal budget.
By the same token, we can never hope to solve our basic economic problems unless we pay attention to restoring the health of our cities. Community development is an investment in the future, it is an investment in the economic health of nation, and it is an investment that I believe will pay great dividends in creating an economic environment in which a balanced budget can more practically be attained.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. President, this colloquy, I believe, has pointed out very well one of the great dilemmas that the Budget Committee faces. All of us wish to solve the problems that this country faces in every possible area, and certainly housing is one of those.
I wish to point out that if the Budget Committee had followed the recommendations of the various Senate authorizing committees this year we would have approved a budget authority of $540.9 billion, the outlay level would have been $474.4 billion, and the revenues would have been $395.8 billion, which would have left us with a deficit of $78.6 billion.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing these figures be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[Table omitted]
Mr. BELLMON. So the problem we had is finding ways to somehow hold spending down to a level that is somewhat at least consistent with our objective of controlling inflation and getting our Federal spending under control.
I doubt that any Member of the Senate, certainly not the Senator from Wisconsin, would like to see us have a $78 billion deficit. This would plainly be inflationary, and it would be of great harm to the very programs we are trying to help. So the Budget Committee had to consider all the various requests from the authorizing committees, and all of them are meritorious. We would like to agree to everything that was requested from the Budget Committee, but we simply did not have the money.
I believe this dilemma is best pointed out by what happened to the distinguished chairman. He, as pointed out here, is a strong supporter of housing programs and has defended them consistently here in the Chamber and in our budget discussions, but this year, after having opposed the Chiles amendment and after we had completed the first run at developing a budget resolution, the Senator from Maine, our chairman, then on his own brought in a motion that would have reduced function 600.
And I wish to call the attention of the Senator from Massachusetts to this fact, that on page 116 of our report the Senator from Maine on his own initiative offered a motion to reduce function 600 by $0.2 billion in authority and $0.3 billion in outlays. So he realized, after we took a look at the whole picture, that we had more money in function 600 than we would support based on the other needs.
That is our problem. We see these priorities throughout the Government, and we have to try to decide where the money can best be used.
I think the fact we did not put all the money we want in housing does not mean we do not support it. We just feel there are other places that have equally high priorities and we have to take care of those as well as housing.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma made that point. I know his strong feelings about the need for housing in this country.
As I said earlier, I understand that the Budget Committee must establish a ceiling by function and not try to delve into line item programs. But, on the other hand, the result in this instance has been that housing and community development programs under that ceiling would be cut back so drastically at a time when we should be sending a signal to the country that we are really serious about meeting our housing needs.
Mr. BELLMON. Let me say to the Senator that that is the reason we did what we did and took the action we did. I understand the Carter administration has not thus far presented its housing program to Congress. It is going to be a part, probably, of the welfare reform bill to be coming in late.
We felt it might perhaps be in order to hold this program down to this level until we saw what the Carter administration wants to do.
Also, may I say that the level of funding we already provided for assisted housing is going to bring us from the present level to $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1977, and to more than $8 billion in fiscal year 1982. So we have provided for some very rapid escalation in these programs over the next 5 years.
Mr. BROOKE. I want to say, if the Senator will yield, that the Carter administration has sent up a budget request for section 8 and public housing for fiscal year 1978.
Mr. BELLMON. That is true. They sent the budget request, but also they had not laid out their housing strategy for the next period ahead of us.
We, at the present time, will be funding programs that have already been in place, many of which have not produced the results that the Banking Committee wants and certainly not those that the Senator from Oklahoma wants.
Mr. BROOKE. If the Senator will yield further, the Secretary of HUD has appeared before our committee, and we have held our hearings. We are presently marking up the fiscal year 1978 authorization bill for housing.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Affairs, in her letter, which I put in the RECORD, made it very clear that she firmly opposes this action by the Budget Committee and strongly supports the amendment. There is no question about that.
Furthermore, the reason for failure of our housing programs is because they were smothered without money. They were just choked off, and not permitted to proceed.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I agree that going from $2.5 billion to $8 billion in fiscal year 1982 is not exactly choking them off. It provides almost a quadrupling of programs over a 5 year period and that would seem to be adequate to provide a considerable expansion.
Mr. PROXMIRE. As I told the Senator, the Senate may have been wrong when we adopted a law in 1968 providing for 600,000 new publicly assisted housing starts. We did that. The cost of that, of course, is very great. This year the reason it cost so little—
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. PROXMIRE. May I say the reason?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The reason it is relatively modest now is that we only have 41,000 housing starts this year, not 600,000, not 200,000 — which would be pitifully small — but 41,000 this past year. This year we are expected to have maybe 80,000.
So it is true that the figure the Senator gives indicates a sharp increase, but it is an increase from a very small number.
We are dealing with. a whale of a lot of money because housing does not come cheaply. That is true. It is a large part of the budget — 1 percent. But it is something that we made a pledge to do, and I think that pledge was a proper and honorable pledge. The people should have safe, sanitary, and decent housing. We are trying to help keep that pledge.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I think the Senator from California will get into that part of it.
I simply wish to ask the Chair, if he will yield, to reply. Is the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee pleased with the way these programs have been operating so far? I remember very distinctly some comments made about it.
Mr. PROXMIRE. We are displeased with the program, particularly with the moratorium put on housing on January 15, 1973, with no new authorizations, so that the housing starts gradually diminished. That is what we are displeased about. For that reason, we have to now start filling that pipeline.
Mr. BELLMON. Does the Senator feel these programs need to be restructured and reviewed to see that they operate well?
Mr. PROXMIRE. We are constantly doing that, and it is true that there are some of these programs that have been badly administered. There have been some failures. But the main difficulty has been that we simply have not funded the program. We have not provided the resources for it and have not permitted the program to go ahead.
Mr. BELLMON. As I understand it, the pipeline still has 900,000 units. So we have not failed to provide the opportunity for the program to grow. There are 900,000 units.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I do not know where the Senator gets the 900,000 figure. The fact is our calculations indicate that, if we go ahead with the administration's recommendation, the pipeline will be kept fairly level at about the 160,000 level over the period 1979, 1980, and 1981.
Mr. BELLMON. We seem to have a wide variation.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It is cut down 100,000, if we go along with the budget resolution we have before us.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. President, I shall say in the time I have that it was my feeling that the Budget Committee is fully cognizant of the need for improved housing in the country, but we feel we have provided in the budget sums adequate to keep the housing program moving along at a rate as fast as can be adequately administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and until we get from the Carter administration as part of their welfare reform program what their new housing approaches will be, I feel this sum of money is adequate.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has again expired.
Mr. BROOKE. Has the time of the Senator from Oklahoma expired?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I had promised time to the Senator from Florida (Mr. CHILES) , who is the target of all this debate. I wonder if we might yield to him at this point. Then if there is time left, I will be willing to share it with Senators BROOKE and PROXMIRE.
I yield the Senator from Florida such time as he may require; then, if we need more time, we can get some more off the bill. But the Senator from Florida has been very patient, awaiting an opportunity to speak.
Mr. CHILES. I thank the chairman.
Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the arguments. I think the Senator from Wisconsin is correct when he said that the thrusts of our arguments in the Budget Committee were two. One is what was going to happen to the deficit, and not just in this year but in the outyears, as we continue down this program, without trying to make some kind of determination of what kind of costs we were going to incur. If we are just at the current rate, if we authorized zero additional units, in fiscal year 1982 we would be spending $5.4 billion in the subsidized housing program, just if we continue at the current rate. That is not adding new figures, but at the current rate; we would be spending $5.4 billion at the current rate. As I understand, the desire of the President is to balance the budget in 1981. I have difficulty determining how we are going to reach a balanced budget figure, if we are going to continue to have outlays of this kind of magnitude that are going on and on.
One thing I think needs to be stressed here is that what we are dealing with in this program is just new housing under section 8. That is roughly about a fourth of the program. In listening to my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania talk about elderly housing, and some of the problems that might come from that, again, to show you some of the fears that have been set forth upon the Nation by virtue of this kind of cut, it deals only with new housing; it does not deal with housing for the elderly, but strictly on the new starts.
We felt, I think, the majority in the Budget Committee, that the present budget failed to take into account the large carryover of units it funds. The pipeline for section 8 private new construction is so backed up that a steady increase in construction can be achieved without any additional budget authority.
Looking at that, we see that in the funds received for 1976, the first quarter, there were 116,316 units. When we look at the number of units on which final agreement was reached and construction started, it was about 23 percent of that number. That left for a carryover in the pipeline as it went into 1977, 88,262 units.
Under that figure, we could add additional reservations provided in the 1977 budget of 80,000, and in the supplemental appropriation another 57,000 units. So now we find the total units to be processed in 1977 at 215,262 units.
If we double the rate that we processed in all of 1976, for the remainder of 1977, for the 6 months that will remain, if you double that — and no one even from HUD has come up with the idea that they will be able to process more than that — then they would process some 53,816 units. If you do that, you end up with a reserve going into 1978 of 161,466 units. To that we would add the figure of some 53,000 units. That would make us come up with a total of 211,846 units, which would be on hand for 1978.
That appears to be the figure on the basis of which HUD is saying it is not going to tell people they have enough in the pipeline. There is more in the pipeline, almost by double, than we had in 1976. It is the same amount we had in the pipeline in 1977. I do not think that is sending any signal to any builder or anyone else that we are not going forward with the program.
With that in the pipeline, if they again double their building in 1978 — and that appears to be the argument, from the figures the Senator from Wisconsin is using, that they could double that again — then we would appear to be able to have reached a final figure of 105,323 units. If they did that, the beginning carryover in 1979 would be 106,000 units. That is before you add anything to it. In 1979, we have a carryover that is the same as the carryover in 1976, larger than the carryover in 1977, virtually the same as the carryover in 1978, and to that figure, again, the Budget Committee is going to meet, the authorizing committees are going to meet, we are going to have the advantage of the Carter proposal on housing that will come forward — we will have all of that information, and we will have the experience to be able to see whether they actually reach that quadrupling of the figure, like they have been doing in this past year.
After doubling 1 year and then doubling another year, we are going to have all that information. We can go that route, which is the route the Budget Committee came up with, or we can go the route of adding these other 53,000 units.
What does that do? Nothing this year, but the out years will catch us sooner or later. I think all of us know what happens many times in Republican administrations and Democratic administrations: when you get into that Presidential year and start looking around as to how to heat up the economy, if you have some carryover there, that is when you start pulling it out, and that is when we start having scandals and problems, as we have seen in many administrations before.
What we are doing is saying, "Let us proceed on an orderly basis. We are giving you sufficient units to meet any needs under any of the criteria." The Senator from Wisconsin has said under the Budget Committee we would end up with a carryover of less than 100,000 units. That is not correct. We would be at 106,000 units under the figures the Budget Committee has projected, and to that, of course, we would then add the new authorization in 1978.
I think it is sound fiscal policy to say we are going to do it this way. The Senator from Wisconsin continues to say the authorizing committee should have more funds than were provided, than did the Appropriations Committee. I would just like to tell him that if the Budget Committee went on that criterion, of providing all the funds asked for by the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee, there would be no reason for having a Budget Committee. If we went on that basis, we would be budgeting a deficit, not of $62 billion, which we are now projecting, but a deficit of, I think, $78 billion, if we accepted the wish lists of all of these committees.
I do not think the Senator from Wisconsin has ever been one who wanted to have high deficits, or wanted to run the risk of inflation. So the Budget Committee has always had to take those wish lists as they came from the authorizing committees and the appropriating committees and try to pare those down to what we think would be within reason at a time in which we are running in a recession and in which we are afraid that inflation might start again, and looking toward a time when we can balance the budget.
So at all times we are not going to be able to take those particular figures everyone would like, if they are on the authorizing committee or the appropriating committee, and make those figures become a fact.
It is going to be an easy thing to see what the units are actually built out. I think we have left considerable room to meet a quadrupling of the building that would be in no way a signal that we are diminishing our commitment to housing, and would give us an opportunity to see what kind of new directions we wish to run, without clogging that pipeline further with a backlog that will come back to haunt us in 1981 and 1982 and as we go farther out.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DECONCINI). The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Alabama.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that I be listed as a cosponsor of the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Proxmire amendment. Closely alined to the thrust in the development of viable urban neighborhoods is our renewed commitment to provide decent housing and suitable living environments, particularly for low and moderate income families. New contract authority is requested for section 8 and public housing programs for fiscal year 1978. A request in budget authority of $32.8 billion is necessary to spur a stock of 400,000 housing units for low income citizens. This would provide 344,000 new, rehabilitated, and existing units under the section 8 program, and 56,000 units for the public housing program. The $32.8 billion budget authority request would support a section 8 program encompassing an estimated 149,000 newly constructed units, 23,000 substantially rehabilitated units, and 172,000 existing units.
Mr. President, it is an undeniable fact that our Nation is in grave need of housing. Furthermore, the housing industry today is in dire need of economic stimulation. As we are all well aware, unemployment in the construction industry is over 15 percent as compared to a national overall unemployment average of 7.5 percent. In my State of Hawaii, the unemployment rate in the construction industry has been as high as 40 percent and it still stands at a distressing 32 percent. Renewed activity in housing construction and rehabilitation would create jobs, revive the national economy, and produce much needed shelter.
For the past few years, our Nation has experienced a serious setback in providing housing, especially for low and moderate income individuals, and families. Since early 1973, construction of low income housing has been almost at a standstill, largely due to administrative impoundment of housing program funds. Likewise, in 1975 construction of unassisted housing reached an extreme low, and in 1976 production continued to be more than a million units below the 2.6 million annual goal deemed necessary by Congress back in 1968. The administration's announced commitment to housing has spurred a slow comeback which should be encouraged by Congress. Adoption of the Proxmire housing amendment will serve this purpose.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I am in sympathy with the views expressed by the Senator from Florida, and I certainly recognize the tremendous job the Budget Committee has.
I am not so interested in the number of units of housing as I am in the number of jobs involved. If the idea of the Senator from Florida prevails, according to the tables there would be 160,000 jobs lost.
Just a few days ago we debated the jobs bill. I do not remember what the figure was, but I think it was in the billions. We did not hesitate to provide for that. Yet if we adopt this idea we would lose 160,000 jobs.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have printed in the RECORD at this point some remarks thatI made on this matter on April 27, 1977, with the tables which are included.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
HOUSING PROGRAMS
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I would like to urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 207 to the proposed budget resolution in order to restore housing and community development funds requested by the administration.
I was disappointed that the Budget Committee chose to cut back over $6 billion in housing assistance and $500 million in community development aid to local governments.
The community development program is now just 3 years old. Local governments throughout the country have declared the program a success. To cut back the funding requested by the President after thorough review by his Office of Management and Budget and after recommendations by both the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committtee on Appropriations just does not make sense to me. I understand that on the House side all of the involved committees — the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, the Committee on Appropriations, and the Committee on the Budget — have approved the President's request.
I am particularly disturbed by the cutback in housing assistance proposed by the Committee on the Budget. As one who has worked for many years to improve the Nation's housing, I have high hopes that the new administration will produce results. They are needed because, as you know, the past administration effectively shut down the Federal housing programs in 1973, and they are only now beginning to be implemented again. I cannot understand why when the new administration wants to carry out the housing goals set by the Congress, the Committee on the Budget would deny them the tools. This is the time to give the President the authority he has requested — not to deny him what he needs.
HUD has provided me with a State-by-State estimate of the reductions in housing units that will occur should the budget cuts be maintained. A corresponding estimate of the reduction in potential employment also has been prepared. I ask unanimous consent that a table presenting this information be printed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows :
[Table omitted]
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I believe this information will be of use to all of the Members in considering the action taken by the Committee on the Budget, and the amendment to restore the funds requested by the administration in its budget for fiscal year 1978.
I believe that when colleagues consider the adverse effects that cutbacks in housing and community development assistance will have, they will vote to support the administration's budget proposals by supporting the amendment No. 207 to the First Budget Resolution for fiscal year 1978.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. First, I commend the Senator from Florida. I believe he has performed a very useful service, win or lose. I believe this is an issue which should have been debated, which should have been discussed. It has been too little understood. He has done a fine job discussing the position we have taken on this housing subject.
Having said that, let me add that the difficulty with his statement is that he takes a very, very small amount, 41,000 housing starts last year, and maybe 80,000 this year, and says we should be satisfied if it is doubled or quadrupled. However, even 80,000 is still a relatively modest amount compared to what we should have; compared to what we promised; compared to what we delivered in 1970, 1971, and 1972; and compared to what we should do. Furthermore, we need the housing. It is an economic good we need very much.
As the Senator pointed out, it means jobs, productive jobs. They are not jobs of the make work variety, but jobs of the constructive kind.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Housing produces jobs provided by private industry instead of a plan such as we voted on to manufacture jobs.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Will the Senator yield for an inquiry of the Chair?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
UP AMENDMENT NO. 190
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, as I understand it, this is an unusual kind of a situation. We have two amendments back to back. One amendment I have already called up is pending, and I would like to send to the desk another amendment which. I have not yet made available.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE), for himself and others, proposes an imprinted amendment No. 190:
On page 4, line 2, strike out "$173,700,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof "$179,900; 000,000".
Mr. PROXMIRE. These are the two amendments we have discussed. I believe we have an order on both amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. How much time have I remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 seconds.
Mr. MUSKIE. I will give myself a minute and a half on the resolution. That will make it 2 minutes.
Mr. President, I make this point: If the Budget Committee is to do its job on budgetary restraint, it is not going to be able to do it by simply eliminating obviously frivolous programs. There is no way of doing it that way. In order to hold down spending, we are going to haveto reduce spending for obviously meritorious programs.
I believe the recommendations of the various authorizing committees which we have rejected were all meritorious, including this one.
There is a $15 billion difference in the totals recommended by the Budget Committee and the totals recommended by the authorizing committees. Of that $15 billion, no part of it, in my judgment, was frivolous. All of it was solidly basedon the evaluations of the authorizing committees, tested by their expertise and knowledge. Nevertheless, if we are to avoid a deficit of $78 million, we had to cut meritorious programs. The $63 billion deficit we came up with is the product of those kinds of cuts.
I could find it easy to support the $15 billion that was cut. I supported these programs in committee. But once we have gone through the functions in the Budget Committee, we look at the product of what we have done. If that product represents unacceptably high spending then we have the job of going through our numbers once again to try to squeeze out some more cuts.
After we went through our first round we had approved outlays that resulted in a deficit of $65 billion. We all considered that too high. I then recommended a list of eight cuts totaling some $2.5 billion more. The committee approved $1.9 billion of those cuts. That is how we arrived at our totals.
So we did not arrive at those totals by eliminating frivolous spending. We had to eliminate funding for programs for which there is considerable support and justifiable support on their merits.
Of course, if the Senate decides to change those numbers, that is the Senate's prerogative under the Budget Act. That is the point at which we find ourselves.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.