COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama, Chairman WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin ADLAI E. STEVENSON III, Illinois JOHN G. TOWER, Texas WALLACE F. BENNETT, Utah EDWARD W. BROOKE, Massachusetts WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware BILL BROCK, Tennessee ROBERT TAFT, JR., Ohio DUDLEY L. O'NEAL, Jr., Staff Director and General Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS WILLIAM PROXMIRE, Wisconsin JOHN G. TOWER, Texas WALLACE F. BENNETT, Utah EDWARD W. BROOKE, Massachusetts WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR., Delaware CARL A. S. COAN, Staff Director (II) George Romney, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Develop- TUESDAY, AUGUST 3 Joseph L. Alioto, mayor, San Francisco, Calif.; accompanied by John H. Tolan, Jr., deputy for development; Eneas J. Kane, executive director, Housing Authority, City of San Francisco: and David F. Garrison, legislative counsel, National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors.. 32, 44 73 Robert W. Maffin, executive director, National Association of Housing and ADDITIONAL DATA SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD Page 103 Robert W. Maffin, executive director, prepared statement_ Comparison of proposed income limits based on median incomes with sec- 718 Detailed cross reference table showing present provisions of the U.S. Detailed cross reference table showing provisions of National Housing Act adopted, changed, or omitted from proposed revised National Housing Profile of homeowners under section 235(i) mortgage subsidy program__. Volume of insurance activity under various provisions of the National 713 COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman, chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Senators Sparkman, McIntyre, Stevenson, Tower, Packwood, and Roth. The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order, please. This is going to be a very busy day for us. The Senate goes in session at 11 o'clock. I would like to get started. Today we begin our hearings on major housing and urban development legislation pending before the Subcommittee on Housing and Urban Affairs. These include the administration's bills, S. 1618, the proposed Community Development Act of 1971, and S. 2049, the proposed Housing Consolidation Act of 1971; also my bill, S. 2333, the proposed Community Development Assistance Act of 1971, and many others. We hope to have all of them in mind as we have these hearings. (The bills, section-by-section analyses, and reports are reprinted starting at page 141.) These are bills of great significance involving the rewriting of practically every major housing and urban development law on the statute books. The consolidation bill is a rewrite of last years' administration's consolidation proposal, which was postponed by the Congress for the lack of time to give it proper consideration. I hope that we can move promptly on this bill in view of the fact that a full year has passed and several of the objections voiced last year have been removed in this year's draft. There are several difficult issues involving income ceilings and eligibility for Federal assistance under the program, but I believe that these can be resolved without too much difficulty. The most serious matter before us involves community development. The two bills before us, S. 1618 and S. 2333, are alternative proposals which would replace existing categorical grant urban development programs, principally urban renewal. The administration's bill S. 1618 would carry out the President's special revenue-sharing plan for community development under which the large cities of the Nation would be granted a specific Federal grant for community development based on a formula. My bill, S. 2333, is essentially a block grant proposal under which communities would receive Federal assistance based on past performance, need, and quality of the plan for use of the funds by the community. At first glance, these two bills might appear to be far apart, but the fact is their goals are identical; that is, to simplify and make more efficient the Federal grant and assistance programs to the Nation's cities, and I believe that we will be able to work out a satisfactory bill to meet this objective. There are many significant features of the two bills which we must consider. To help members of the subcommittee understand the principal differences, a brief comparison has been prepared by the subcommittee staff, and without objection, I shall have this comparison placed in the record of the hearings at this point. (The information follows:) S. 1618 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1971 To establish a Revenue Sharing Program in order to aid localities in carrying out community development activities Major changes proposed 1. Consolidates 4 HUD categorical programs (urban renewal, model cities. water-sewer and rehabilitation loans.) 2. Establishes a community 'share' in Federal appropriations for Community Development with no local contribution required. 3. Provides for an open-end authorization. The Administration's Budget requests $2.1 billion for 1972. 4. Provides local governments with assurance of a fixed share of annual Federal appropriations for Community Development, subject only to post-audit of records. 5. Broadens local authority in using Federal funds by expanding the list of eligible Community Development activities, and limiting Federal review to ques tions of eligibility. Significant provisions 1. Authorizes automatic disbursement of community development appropriations to general local purpose governments. 2. Requires local governments to file a statement of community development objectives and projected use of funds to (a) permit public examination and appraisal, (b) enhance accountability, and (c) facilitate coordination of activities. 3. Provides for a post-audit by the Secretary of HUD to assure that funds have been used in accordance with bill's provisions. 4. Authorizes Secretary of HUD to allocate 80 percent of the funds appropriated to metropolitan areas for distribution to local governments on the basis of population, poverty, overcrowding and housing deficiency criteria. distribute any remaining funds to communities of less than 50,000 population, to "hold harmless" metropolitan communities with revenue shares not sufficient to maintain existing program share, or for other purposes. request appropriations for community development activities in localities outside metropolitan areas. 5. Provides for orderly transition by authorizing liquidation of commitments under the Urban Renewal Program. The Administration has pledged to honor all program commitments and "hold harmless" all communities presently carrying out community development activities. |