8. That the Federal subsidy of $10 per person in public housing be extended to nonprofit corporations under the condition the subsidy will be used to decrease the individual's rental payments.

I have studied H.R. 9751, Housing and Community Act of 1964, now before the House Housing Subcommittee, and I endorse increased relocation payments to families and elderly individuals 62 years and older, if the age is reduced to 60 years.

I endorse section 102–221(d) (3), assistance to elderly homeowners in urban renewal areas.

I endorse section 401 (2), which spells out "elderly" and single persons eligible for benefit under housing for low-income families.

In regard to section 402-10 (a), a subsidy for certain occupants of public housing units: May I again point out we have no public housing in California. We suggest this subsidy be extended to low-rent nonprofit projects insured by FHA.

I endorse section 805, which clearly spells out single persons as being eligible under section 221. In order to give prospective sponsors of quality, low-rent housing for the elderly a broader approach to accomplishing their desires-this section is absolutely necessary.

We are opposed to any activity or extension of CFA in housing for the elderly. Our bitter experience contends the transfer of housing for the elderly out of CFA operations to FHA is absolutely necessary to the well-being of the elderly of this Nation who so desperately need the cheapest and best modern, fireproof housing available. They will never get it from the men who now control that agency.

Gentlemen, in this statement I have tried to squeeze my 7 years of intensive activity in seeking to create the kind of housing I believe you Members of Congress desire to see made available for the great majority of the elderly who so need it. Thank you.

Mr. RAINS. Thank you, Mr. McLain. You know, Mr. McLain, I know from your own experience that you have had that you make a lot of good suggestions here. You make one or two suggestions that I have to look at as a lawyer to read them, that may fly in the face of legal realities. But, all told, you make a lot of good suggestions and I am unhappy about the fact that we have the situation, and we have heard from the California delegation, who have assisted the staff of this committee, and who did ask that we do something about it.

So far as I am personally concerned, as chairman of the subcommittee, I want to bring this to the attention of the men in charge. We will see if we can get some corrections in the regulations which have caused a lot of this trouble and which can cause a lot of other people trouble.

I admire you for sticking by your guns in trying to get housing for the elderly people. And I want you to know that this subcommittee agrees with what you have said at the bottom of one of your pages of your statement: that what we actually want to help you to do is to have housing for the elderly.

Mr. MCLAIN. Thank you. You see, Mr. Chairman, I believe that most of the people who come before you, particularly those who are in the field of owner-sponsors, they want something.

Mr. RAINS. That perhaps is the way that it is supposed to be.

Mr. McLAIN. The thought is that they perhaps, many of them, have gone through the same experience I have, and they are afraid of in

timidation that if they come before this committee and tell the truth of what has happened to them regarding the FHA and the CFA

Mr. RAINS. We appreciate somebody who comes here and lays it on the line. This subcommittee needs to know what the real facts are down at the grassroots, and for that reason we are going to look into this specifically.

Mr. McLAIN. I know that this committee was most kind when I explained it to them before in previous hearings how essential it was for us to be able to do this.

Mr. RAINS. I thought that we had fixed that, to be frank with you. You mentioned an amendment that we put in which was supposed to relieve the problem. And I am distressed to find out nothing has come out of it.

Mr. McLAIN. They refused to activate it. They just refused to activate it. In other words, as I mentioned here they were contemptuous to Congress. Congress passes laws, and they say, "Well, we are not going to activate it." And they promised, if you will remember, Mr. McDonough

Mr. RAINS. Yes.

Mr. McLAIN (continuing). Who definitely said that this would be very simple, because it had been completed under the FHA-that it was a simple transfer. Evidently, for reasons best known to themselves they changed.

Mr. RAINS. We will look into that phase of the problem and see if we can do-if we can induce them to move a little faster and farther. Mr. MCLAIN. Thank you very much.

Mr. RAINS. Are there any questions?

We are very glad to have had you here, Mr. McLain.

Mr. MCLAIN. Thank you very much.

Mr. RAINS. The subcommittee is in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was in recess, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, February 25, 1964.)

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

LEGISLATION

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1964

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING OF THE

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 1302, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Álbert Rains (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Rains, Barrett, Mrs. Sullivan, St Germain, Widnall, Fino, Mrs. Dwyer, and McDade.

Also present: Representatives Frank J. Horton, of New York, and Walter R. Riehlman, of New York.

Mr. RAINS. The committee will be in order.

The first witness will speak for the National Association of County Officials, and he will be introduced by our distinguished colleague and good friend, Congressman Riehlman, the Congressman from his district.

Walter, you may proceed.

Mr. RIEHLMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is a privilege for me to be here before this committee this morning. I am not going to testify, as you all know, but I have a distinguished young man and I will call him that because he really is. He is the first executive director ever to be elected in the county of Onondaga, a personal friend of mine who wants to testify before this committee in respect to the hearings that you are holding.

As I said, it is a privilege for me to introduce John Mulroy and I know that he is going to be in good hands, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAINS. If he is your constituent we will take good care of him. You can count on it. We are delighted to have you and we are delighted to have Mr. Mulroy testify in behalf of the National Association of County Officials.

I know that you have a lot of data at the end of your statement, Mr. Mulroy, and that may be printed in the record at the conclusion of your testimony.

Will you please introduce your colleagues who are with you for the record and you may proceed with your statement.

STATEMENT OF JOHN H. MULROY, COUNTY EXECUTIVE, ONONDAGA COUNTY, N.Y.; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT S. BECKER, COMMISSIONER OF PLANNING, ONONDAGA COUNTY, N.Y.; AND C. D. WARD, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS

Mr. MULROY. I am accompanied by Mr. Robert S. Becker, Commissioner of Planning of Onondaga County, and Mr. C. D. Ward, general counsel to the National Association of County Officials.

I am here to testify this morning as representative of NACO and as the elected county executive of Onondaga County, N.Y. I am testifying here today on behalf of the National Association of Counties, an organization representing county government throughout the Nation.

Federal housing legislation has contributed immeasurably in assisting counties to carry out their expanding governmental responsibilities. Consequently, we appreciate the opportunity of expressing our opinions on this pending legislation and would take advantage of this situation to reiterate our enthusiasm and support of your past actions in this field. Due to the time factor, we shall limit our comments to several specific items; however, we would request the privilege of filing a supplemental statement for the record.

TITLE III. URBAN RENEWAL

Increasingly, counties are being called to take the lead in the elimination of slums in blighted areas and relocate families displaced by the construction of new highways and of other public works. Under the Housing Act of 1954, Federal funds were authorized to assist counties and municipalities and other local units in bearing the tremendous cost of these vitally important programs. We endorse the action taken to put assistance to urban renewal on a continuing basis, adequate to meet the pressing need of our local communities. We also endorse the provisions of the Housing Act of 1961, which extends the benefits of section 112 to hospitals as well as to colleges and universities. We recommend that no cutoff date for local grant-in-aid funds be allowed. We endorse section 304 which would increase the urban renewal grant authority by $1.4 billion. However, we would question the advisability of section 307, which would increase, from 30 to 35 percent, the amount of funds to be used on areas other than predominantly residential.

We feel the wide support enjoyed by this program is based upon its emphasis in eliminating slums and their replacement with decent. housing. Section 401 of the bill does suggest a trend away from slum clearance by the acquisition and leasing of existing housing; however, too great a variance into the area of commercial redevelopment may act to dilute its support.

TITLE I

Relocation payment to persons and businesses is accepted by our association as desirable and necessary. Whether the new amounts proposed in section 101 are adequate is a question that will best be answered in the study presently being conducted by the House Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition.