the concerns. So we concluded that we would be much more likely to get a land use policy under the environmental banner today that we would under the urban banner, because the urban banner had sex appeal politically 7 or 8 years ago, but it hasn't got the sex appeal today politically. The environmental banner is the big banner today, and as long as I had sign-off authority with respect to land use programs, as they relate to community development, I said, what the heck is the point of quibbling over who is going to be the lead agency here. So, I said, Rogers, you have got the banner today, let's see if we can get this under the environmental banner, and you be the lead agency, so we can run up the environmental flag.

Now, that is what happened.

Mr. ASHLEY. I prefer that explanation to that which has been suggested that is that I am not as sexy as Senator Jackson. Wouldn't you say that the

Secretary ROMNEY. I found that that is a quality that people have varying opinions about.

Mr. ASHLEY. I am happy to hear that.

Wouldn't you say that the 701 program is probably the most immediate, most available vehicle for beginning to implement a land use program?

Secretary ROMNEY. Yes; because you have already got it in process, it has been making some progress. But it will be a part of whatever comes out here, because the Secretary of Interior and I have recognized and agreed that our two departments have got to act almost on a joint venture basis. Because there is such a close interrelationship, and we shouldn't set up duplicate organizations in carrying this out. And to the extent that we have an organization that can be effectively used, it ought to be used, and to the extent they have this it ought to be used. So I don't see how Rogers Morton could have a better understanding in this connection than we have.

Mr. ASHLEY. And you are relatively well-satisfied with the efforts and the intention in our draft legislation to beef up 701 to facilitate

Secretary ROMNEY. Yes; I think I have pretty well indicated that. Mr. ASHLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to presume on the Governor's time any further.

I do want to say, Governor, that you have been extraordinarily helpful to all of us.

Secretary ROMNEY. Thank you.

Mr. ASHLEY. And we look forward to working with you closely on the whole range of legislation before us.

Secretary ROMNEY. You ought to do that, because we think that this is a situation where we ought to confer and work out specific proposals here that can accomplish our joint purposes.

Mr. BARRETT. Governor, I just want to add to what Mr. Ashley said, that you are really an exemplary today. But I am of the opinion that in the case of Dave Maxwell, that Philadelphia love has rubbed off on you. You are surrounded by three of the finest panelists that we have ever had.

Secretary ROMNEY. I agree.

Mr. BARRETT. All time has expired.

I am grateful to you for coming here. And I think we have cleaned up a lot of necessary facts that we are a little bit doubtful about.

Secretary ROMNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the consideration.

Mr. BARRETT. We will now give you a recess period until such time as we find it necessary or desirable to bring you back.

Secretary ROMNEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate that very much.

Mr. BARRETT. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock, Thursday, August 5, 1971.

(Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, August 5, 1971).

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
LEGISLATION-1971

THURSDAY, AUGUST 5, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING OF THE

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call at 10:15 a.m. in room 2128 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William A. Barrett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Barrett, Sullivan, Ashley, Moorhead, Gonzalez, Reuss, Minish, Widnall, and Heckler.

Mr. BARRETT. The meeting will come to order.

This morning we have a very special set of witnesses before us to outline and discuss the recommendations of the three housing subcommittee panels.

First, we are privileged to have with us our good friend, the former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Robert C. Weaver. Dr. Weaver, it is a pleasure to have you with us and we look forward to hearing your views on our subcommittee bill.

Second, we have with us six distinguished gentlemen who will discuss in detail the subcommittee bill. They are as follows:

Prof. George Sternlieb of Rutgers University on housing abandon

ment.

Former FHA Commissioner Philip Brownstein on counseling and management.

Donald Kummerfield, director, Center for Political Research, on housing block grants to State and metropolitan housing agencies. Prof. Morton J. Schussheim on community development block grants.

Prof. Warren Smith on an urban development bank.

P. E. H. Brady, of Toronto, Canada, former deputy managing director of the Province of Ontario Housing Corp., on State and metropolitan development agencies and housing block grants.

Professors Sternlieb and Schussheim and Mr. Kummerfeld all took part in the subcommittee's panel activities and wrote outstanding papers for the panels.

Mr. Brownstein, as our members know, has taken a great part in the formation of our housing programs and his experience as the FHA Commissioner makes him an excellent spokesman for the counseling and management provisions of the subcommittee bill.

Professor Smith was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers and participated on the task force which proposed the urban development bank legislation.

Mr. Brady is an outstanding specialist in housing in Toronto, Canada, who can give us the benefit of his long experience in the provision of housing for low- and moderate-income families.

I would like to ask Dr. Weaver to testify first, and then we will call our six panel witnesses to the table. Each will give a brief prepared statement, and then our members will have an opportunity to question them as a group.

Dr. Weaver, we again welcome you and would you proceed in your own fashion, please?

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT C. WEAVER, FORMER SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Dr. WEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, it is a pleasure to come back again and testify before you. And to me it is a distinct personal privilege to do so. I am here largely because I was deeply impressed by the quality of the papers submitted to the panels, the report and the resulting proposed legislation. It seems to me that the relevance of the report and the resulting proposed legislation, H.R. 9688, deserve a great deal of attention and careful consideration.

The basic thrust of facilitating areawide balanced housing programs and tieing in eligibility for community development block grants with such housing programs is to be commended, and I wholeheartedly support it.

The recognition of the importance of upgrading the management of low- and moderate-income housing developments, and the need to arrest abandonment of structures which are sound are also of great significance. The proposals to deal with these issues, while worthy of detailed analysis, seem to me to have decided merit.

And I must note with real satisfaction the proposal for neighborhood preservation assistance. It is soundly conceived, and represents an indispensable element in effecting the full utilization of the existing housing supply.

As the housing market changes new approaches are called for. Thus I endorse and support the housing allowance program experimentally initiated last year. I would also strongly urge enactment of provisions for its expansion as proposed in H.R. 9688. We need to experiment widely to observe the potential inflationary impact of such approaches under the varying conditions in the markets, and to determine which, if any, of the proposals are effective, and among those that may be effective which ones are most effective.

The concept of community development bloc grants is, in my opinion, sound. And the recommendation of a higher percentage for the grant, and a local cash contribution, is equally valid. I submit that the experience of urban renewal, with noncash grant-in-aid credits, is eloquent documentation of the case for local cash con

tributions.

From my observation of the Urban Development Corp. in New York State, I am convinced that such State agencies are, and can be, most effective in urban development. I therefore support the proposal to provide assistance for the initial administration and operation of such agencies, and to guarantee their obligations issued for capital funds.