every single aspect of the problem or that neighborhood is no good. If we just simply do over the individual homes and leave the 1939 public housing rotting on the other side of the street, the homes are going to rot the next year. We need to be able to give you the tools so that your plan could have all that you need, that we need to be able to make sections 8,312, and all other programs work. The only problem I guess I get into is I have never seen a city that didn't think it had the greatest program going, and how do you judge that? Mr. ABRAMS. Excuse me. One of the things that I am constantly asking HUD is where do we, where does Newburgh stand. In other words. I am trying to find out where we stand as far as performance, trying to get benchmarks as to how we are doing in relationship to other cities, at least, if not in the mid-Hudson Valley, at least in New York State. And in most instances, I am not able to do that. I have to get it either from people in the community development business, when I run into them or make an concerted effort to find out from these people how many units of section 8 existing housing have they done so far, and then compare where Newburgh is, so I know whether we are doing the job or not. In many areas, we are operating in a vacuum. Mr. MCKINNEY. This is one of the things that bothers me, and I am sure it bothers the chairman. We don't have any real judgment here either. We can listen to the Secretary of HUD, who can tell us how many units of this and how many units of that, and so on and so forth. But we don't have a register of "bang for the buck," I guess that is what it is called. In other words, should not the city, be it a Newburgh, or be it a Bridgeport, that is producing the most housing for the least amount of money, shouldn't that be one of the criteria. that be one of the criteria that you reward as competence? Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. I could not argue with that. I would agree with that. And I think, as we discussed in our short period of time here this morning, some of the areas, rewarding for competency certainly has to be what the whole thing is all about. And I think that those areas we discussed are some of the areas that could be taken into consideration in trying to determine whether competency has been displayed. Mr. MCKINNEY. Well, that is a problem. And the staff member saying, "How do I handle the problem of cost in getting the bang for the buck?" Because I would assume that in a register of public expense, building expense, you have to consider are you in an Albany price market or a New York City price market? Our problem is, I am in a New York City price market. Mr. MCKINNEY. It always fascinates me that the Government pays temporary postal employees for the Christmas rush $3.50 if he is on the east side of the Connecticut boundary. If he's over on the west side of the Connecticut boundary, otherwise known as New York and Westchester, he gets $4.50. Then, they refuse to recognize that our costs in, say, Stamford, are higher probably than they are in New York. In fact, our real estate costs are much higher per square foot. I wish I could give you the answer, gentlemen. I don't know. I tend to feel, Mr. Chairman, that competence, is spending tax payers' dollars to house the poor and moderate-income people in a town like Newburgh which has done a job, should be acknowledged. But I don't know how you do it. Mr. TAYLOR. Well, I think we discussed the areas and ways it can be done. Whether it can be put together in the form of a Federal act or not, I am not that well versed. Mr. MCKINNEY. I never fear the Federal act. I just wonder what happens once it gets downtown and they start writing telephone books of regulations. Mr. TAYLOR. But we feel within the original concept and idea of community development and its programs, that we can prove we have done the job, and we also think that, well, we stand ready to let anybody come in and examine to determine whether or not we have. And I think people will agree with us that with the limited funds we have received, we have done a heck of a good job. And I would think from your point of view, that it is easier to measure in communities like Newburgh rather than New York City. Mr. MCKINNEY. Well, try to measure Washington. Enough said, before I get in trouble. Mr. FAUNTROY. On that note, we will recess the hearing until 2 p.m. I want to thank Mr. Taylor and Mr. Abrams again for a very fine testimony. Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you very much. Mr. ABRAMS. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to be reconvened at 2 p.m., this same day.] AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. MOORHEAD [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development will please come to order. This afternoon we are very pleased and honored to start the proceedings with our very able and distinguished colleague from Virginia, the Honorable Joseph L. Fisher. And I understand, Mr. Fisher, you will be accompanied by Mrs. Ellen Bozman of the Arlington County Board. Do you want to appear together, Mr. Fisher? Mr. FISHER. Yes. Mr. MOORHEAD. Well, then, you both come forward, please. The subcommittee knows of your very fine record in public service before you came to the Congress, and of course we are grateful for the great contribution you have made since you've been here. We welcome you. You may proceed, Mr. Fisher. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH L. FISHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Mr. FISHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee on amendments to the Housing and Community Development Act. I will talk only for 2 or 3 minutes, and then I know Mrs. Bozman, who is a member of the Arlington County Board and its former chairman, has a statement to make. And together we would be glad to try to answer any questions. The 1974 Housing and Community Development Act was an important change of course in the approach to Federal housing and related programs. It created a block grant system for Federal assistance, and major issues in designing a block grant program are the composition of the purposes for which the funds and the identification of the purposes for which the funds are to be spent. I understand that one of the reasons for these hearings is to examine the present formula for allocating the housing funds. The 1974 act established categories of governmental units which are eligible for automatic entitlement grants to finance local housing and development programs. One category is the urban country. The act states that an urban county is any county within a standard metropolitan statistical area which has a population of 200,000 or more and which is authorized by State law to undertake development activities in any of its unincorporated areas. As I understand it, the committee's intention in creating the urban county category was to recognize the role that suburban counties play in physical and social development in metropolitan areas. It was also meant to identify counties with the willingness and capacity to undertake community renewal and moderate-income housing activities. Arlington County, Va., which is in my district, would be considered by most observers to be an urban county. Arlington is more like a city than a county. It is a city/county, if you will, the only one of its kind in the State. For purposes of the housing and community development program, it is a suburban county. Arlington County and neighboring Alexandria, a city, both of which would appear to be very much the same in general charatceristics and function in this metropolitan area, are treated differently under this act. Arlington has many of the characteristics, actually, which are common with the older cities in the Boston-Washington urban corridor which make it in some ways more like them than like the usual stereotype of a sprawling suburban county. It is as densely settled as many cities. Within its 25 square miles live 157,000. Its housing stock is growing older, and its population is declining. Despite these urban characteristics, Arlington does not meet the urban county definition of the Housing and Community Development Act because it does not meet the 200,000 population standard. I have introduced a bill, H.R. 2683, to make it possible for a densely settled county like Arlington to be designated an urban county. My bill will make either population of 200,000 or population density of at least 5,000 people per square mile the measure for determining entitlement, in addition to the other criteria already in the act. I do not think that the committee originally intended to prevent a county such as Arlington from being considered an urban county and therefore eligible for automatic entitlement grants. My bill would correct this difficulty. I should add that no county in the United States other than Arlington has a population under 200,000 and a density of at least 5,000 per square mile. Thus, this bill will recognize a unique situation without creating a new category of entitlement communities. I hope the committee will view H.R. 2683 favorably and in some way include it in legislation which it supports. And if it is agreeable, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give way to Mrs. Bozman. Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Congressman Fisher. Mrs. Bozman? Mrs. Bozman. Thank you. I have a prepared statement which has been given to your staff, and if you will, I will simply brief it because Mr. Fisher has already pointed out some of the points, and you have many other things to do. Mr. MOORHEAD. Without objection, the entire statement will be made a part of the record, Mrs. Bozman. Mrs. BOZMAN. Thank you. STATEMENT OF ELLEN BOZMAN, MEMBER, ARLINGTON COUNTY BOARD, ARLINGTON, VA. I am Ellen Bozman, a member of the Arlington, Va., County Board, here in support of H.R. 2683, Congressman Fisher's bill. As he has already explained to you, his bill would add a population density factor to the definition of an urban county currently utilized in the act. As he has explained, we are in essence urban. We were originally part of the Federal city of Washington. Our demographics and housing stock are typical of the older community. Our 1973 population, for example, was down 7 percent from our 1970 population; 19 percent of our housing stock predates 1940; 49 percent of our housing predates 1950. We have 10,000 people living below the poverty line; 5 percent of our units are substandard or overcrowded. And our population of minority and non-English-speaking residents is increasing significantly. Our density is in excess of 6,000 persons per square mile. This is comparable with the densities, for instance, of Albany, N.Y.; Cincinnati, Ohio; and St. Paul, Minn. Thus, Arlington's profile is more typical of an older urban center than a new suburb. Our current status is a result, of course, of the definition problem, and Mr. Fisher's bill would, in our opinion, correct that definition problem in a very good way. There is an alternative way to correct the definition, which would be to insert the word county where the words municipalities, towns, and townships are used. But our first choice is the population density. As he explained, we are a county by choice. Our voters have chosen to be a county, and we believe this should not preclude us from the same level of Federal funding as similarly situated jurisdictions which happen to be called cities. Arlington as a unit of general local government possesses powers and performs functions comparable to those associated with municipalities. As Mr. Fisher has said, we have no incorporated places. We do not have the 200,000 people. We do have the powers of urban counties, and we can and do undertake housing and community development assistance programs. So as you have gathered by this point, Arlington County feels caught up in a definitional morass. We call ourselves a county, but because we don't have 200,000 people, we can't qualify as an entitlement county. We meet all the legal descriptions of a city, but because we don't call ourselves a city or a municipality or a town, we are not eligible for funding as such. Community development dollars are of crucial importance to insure the continuation of viable communities, to assure the vialibility of communities such as Arlington as economically mixed, healthy communities. We have already in Arlington committed significant amounts of local taxpayer dollars to community development-type activities over the past 13 years. Our small size and our history of resultoriented programs, we believe, would insure that any additional community development money would have immediate physical impact, not only in Arlington, but in the northern Virginia area. We have been very frustrated by our inability to be responsive to the requests for community development activities which our citizens have brought to us. Very briefly, I would like to outline three programs Arlington has undertaken with local tax money in the 13 years which we believe are significant community development activities. The first of these programs is our neighborhood conservation program. We believe this was the first program of its type in the United States. It has been cited by HUD as a model program. It was begun in 1964, and since that time more than $4 million of local tax money has been spent on neighborhood-identified projects. These projects are developed by neighborhood residents. They are designed to preserve and enhance their neighborhoods. We will leave with you booklets describing this program and the individual program outline by each of the 10 neighborhoods which have completed their neighborhood conservation programs, not completely funded as yet. We have seven other projects in the mill which have not been funded at all. We are proud of the program. We feel it has enhanced Arlington. We are proud of our citizens who worked on it. It really foreshadows the community development concept of coupling the physical upgrading of the infrastructure, be it playgrounds, the parks, or whatever, with the housing improvements. Unfortunately, we have been able to provide the dollars only for the public improvements, although the neighborhoods have, in a remarkable sense, done some private upgrading. We think the results are remarkable, and we will be delighted, if any of you would care to come visit some of our neighborhood conservation projects. Our second major program is a locally funded, locally initiated, housing expense relief program. This program was begun in 1972. We now distribute in excess of half a million dollars to 1.100 households. These households, all of whom had incomes below $9,000 receive a check monthly, the size of which is based on the rent they pay for their unit. It is really an early form of housing allowance. It is administered by the county staff with minimal staff and minimal administrative redtape. We believe the program has been very successful. A companion program, also introduced in 1972, was a program of tax relief. In the last year 650 households are being-again, with in |