er implied that that was not a good way to do it. The two things which you mentioned I think could be cleared up if you could read with ine the proposed amendment. You said (1) you thought that 2 years was not enough to develop such a program. And secondly, that you thought that the approach ought to be through new systems rather than just through individual technology. Now, if you will read the amendment with me, I think you will agree that we have in mind precisely what you do the amendment will direct the Department to prepare a program for research and development and demonstration of new systems of coordinating urban transport. And then it says the program should "aim at a breakthrough within 5 years of its approval by the Congress," and it "concerns itself with the technical, financial, economic, governmental, and social aspects of the problem. In this connection, experts from such universities as Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and such aerospace companies as North American Aviation, have recently testified that a program of this sort has an excellent chance of bringing about the required breakthrough. The proposed program would 'provide national leadership to efforts of States, localities, private industry, universities, and foundations." " Now, I call your attention to the fact that we are talking about 5 years rather than 2, and that we are talking about not just isolated technology, but whole new systems, for communities of different sizes. Doesn't this convert you into an enthusiastic adherent of the AshleyMoorhead-Reuss amendment?

Secretary WEAVER. Let me say that it removes some of my hesitancy. I think there are two problems involved here. The first one is, of course, to reconcile this amendment to what we already have under the mass transit law. And the second goes back to the fact that we will soon have a message up to the Hill on a Department of Transportation. I think it would be premature for me to make any comment on anything to do with mass transportation until the position of the administration on the whole subject has been set forth.

Mr. REUSS. As of today, you are in mass transport. And the question is, are you content in going along buying communities a new bus here and a new subway car or subway station there? Or don't you think, as representatives of the aerospace industry do, as representatives of our great universities like Massachusetts Institute of Technology do, that what is really needed in our problem of urban transport is an approach like that of the Manhattan project on atomic energy, like that of the Boston and Washington high-speed railway, like that of the space program to put a man on the moon, whereby the Federal Government acts as a coordinating influence on the whole society, with all its public and private aspects?

Secretary WEAVER. I think our differences come down to this, that I feel that there has been a great deal of overemphasis on what I call the hardware approach, on the notion that you are going to get some technological breakthrough, and get people riding on air and have them riding in a new type of thing-monorail, for example, is often mentioned or have them riding in a tube underneath the ground, pneumatic tube, and so forth. I think that while this is a part of the picture, the economics of it, the consumer habit part of it, and all of these other factors are equally important. I would hate to see-and I

don't see that your bill necessarily does this-but I would hate to see this emphasis made.

Mr. REUSS. May I call attention to the fact that the technological, of course, was merely one of five aspects which are listed as technological, financial, economic, governmental and social? Does not a reading of that reduce the swelling a bit as far as your Department is concerned?

Secretary WEAVER. A bit.

Mr. REUSS. Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Dr. Weaver. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Present: Representatives Barrett (presiding), Mrs. Sullivan, Ashley, Moorhead, Stephens, St Germain, Gonzalez, Reuss, Widnall, Fino, and Mrs. Dwyer.

Mr. BARRETT. The committee will come to order.

This morning we operated on a 5-minute rule. We hope to give the members an opportunity to ask questions for a longer period this afternoon. And therefore we are going to operate under the 10-minute

rule.

Mr. Secretary, as I understand, the funds for actual planning under the metropolitan planning program, they will come from the existing section 701 program. Under that law most areas get only a two-thirds grant, while the depressed areas can get up to three-fourths. This bill would authorize higher ratio grants under another program as an inducement to planning. But frankly I am surprised to see that there is no increase in the planning grant ratio. Wouldn't you consider it logical to increase the ratio of planning grants to the same 80-percent ratio as you propose for the demonstration cities

STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. WEAVER, SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT-Resumed

Secretary WEAVER. Mr. Chairman, we have had, as you know, a period of some years of experience with the 701 planning grant. To date we have not found that the present ratio has created any difficulty to the participating local units of government, nor has it been a deterrent to this type of planning. We didn't increase it because we didn't think it was necessary, and we didn't want to have a higher ratio than was necessary, since this would probably represent an undue Federal participation.

I would say that if there is any evidence that an increase is needed we certainly will reflect that in our legislative proposal. But to date this hasn't occurred. We haven't had difficulty here.

I think the difference between these two programs is that the demonstration cities program involves activities which the cities would like to do but just do not have the financial resources to carry out. This is well documented by their own condition and by the condition that is reflected in the amount of taxes that they can collect, and their expenditures.

toWe haven't run into a similar situation in the 701 program, and I don't believe we will. But we will certainly be cognizant of this ogical issue. And if it does arise, we will make recommendations to correct ece whatever deficiencies may be there.

DMr. BARRETT. Thank you, sir.

I see that the metropolitan planning proposal speaks of metropolitan areas as defined by the Bureau of the Census, but gives you power to change that definition. In my own area of Philadelphia, the metropolitan area is defined as including three counties across the river in Stathe State of New Jersey. Would you expect that we would have to get the cooperation of the authorities in another State before Pennsylvania Overcommunities could qualify for additional grants contemplated by your metropolitan planning proposal? Is it true that you could divide the area and consider them separately?

Secretary WEAVER. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we have had some experience with that in our planning and our programing for mass transportation, and in some degree open spaces also. I do not beidlieve that it would be possible to get a metropolitan approach in certain activities which would involve the area in which Philadelphia is the center without, for example, involving Camden, which is so closely allied to Philadelphia both physically and otherwise. I would doubt as a general rule that it would be possible to get a metropolitan areawide approach for Philadelphia which would not include certain parts of Jersey.

ге

We run into the same problem, for example, though of a more comisplex nature, when in New York City. There you have not only New Jersey but also Connecticut. I think the whole concept of a metropolitanwide approach falls down if you don't involve with those other two States.

In Congresswoman Sullivan's area of St. Louis you have not only the State of Missouri but the State of Illinois as well which is also involved.

I think our problem here is to get the type of interstate compacts that we have been doing. We would feel that we should assist the loScalities in getting those agreements and encouraging them in every way possible to make this occur.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Widnall.

Mr. WIDNALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Weaver, the rent certificate program, which was section 103 of last year's bill, and which I first proposed in 1964, has gone into action, and I believe there have been some good reports on it. It seems to have stirred up considerable interest. Could you tell me how many rent. certificate applications have been approved to date, since you issued. the form for that purpose in late October?

Mr. BARRETT. Mrs. McGuire would have to answer that.

Mrs. MCGUIRE. I have no figures. We have had applications from 16 communities, formal applications for a total of 3,405 units, and many more inquiries.

Mr. WIDNALL. Of that number how many are waiting approval at this time?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. We have approved six, and the balance are awaiting approval, although some are in the central office and are clearing it now. We have executed annual contributions contracts on three. Only 3 with 75 units have actually been leased and occupied.

Mr. WIDNALL. How long a period does it take for you to approv those units? What are you finding your experience to be?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. It is much quicker than the normal public housing But we do have to be very careful about the supply of available unit and the economic situation in the community with respect to publi housing.

Mr. WIDNALL. The 3,405 figure represents all that are now pend ing?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. All for which we have actual applications. W have many cities which have indicated active interest and many citie which are preparing these leasing programs.

Mr. WIDNALL. Would any applications be pending that you do not have at the present time?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. No; I think we show only those from the regional offices that may be in the central office now.

Mr. WIDNALL. What do you estimate could be used this year? Mrs. MCGUIRE. We have budgeted only 3,000, but you can see w already have exceeded that. And I expect the popularity of the pro gram is such that it would be at least 6,000 before the end of this fisca year.

Mr. WIDNALL. As I understand it from the new proposals, on page 21 of Dr. Weaver's testimony it says:

The leasing provision is particularly helpful in providing housing for larg displaced families, many of which have been on the waiting list for publi housing for many years. Local housing authorities cannot assure what wil happen to these families when the short-term leases end. Authority to ente into leases with longer terms would prevent further insecurity, and in som cases the actual hardship of any additional displacement for these families Now, the proposal as I understand it would make possible 40-year leases in a rent certificate program.

Secretary WEAVER. No; we are not asking for that. We realize that the genius of this proposal is that it is a relatively short-term arrangement. But we feel that 3 years is too short a term, particularly for these people who have been displaced and for whom we have moral responsibility to give some assurance that they would be ade quately housed over a reasonable period. We were thinking in term of a 10-year period rather than a 20- or 30- or 40-year period.

Mr. WINALL. Of course, this is spelled out in the open-end authori zation as presently set up in the bill.

Secretary WEAVER. Well, we would be perfectly willing to nail i down to a reasonable period, say, a period of 10 years.

Mr. WIDNALL. Don't you think it would be better to get some rea sonable experience out of this before we launch a program?

One of the things I had in mind in offering this program was tha we would have an opportunity to experiment with it to see wha the results were without freezing into a permanent mold. It differ from rent supplements in that you have a 40-year freeze in on ren supplements. Once you have signed your contracts for rent supple ments you have no ability to change during the 40-year period. thought that the rent certificate idea was something very worthwhil in the overall program. You could use available units which woul put people into decent, safe, and sanitary housing much faster than the rent supplement program. Don't you think that it is wise to test

い

+

app

hous

ble

o pr

something along this line, before we talk about increasing the lease lengths any further?

Secretary WEAVER. We would like to do a little bit of both, Congressman. We would like to have the 3 years, as you originally proposed, as the general regulation for the program. But in those insances where we have families which are displaced, and where the matter of security is tremendously important, where they have had to pay the cost for improvements that help the whole city and may not help them, we feel that some degree of longer tenure for them would be desirable. We are asking for this extension for this category only. It would not affect the total program, only those units where those displaced by public action are involved.

Mrs. MCGUIRE. May I add, Dr. Weaver, that this proposal, part of this has come from actual experience with housing authorities who have long waiting lists for large families and who are also faced ar with the relocation of families by public action. It is also based on the reactions of many authorities who don't want to be faced with a the landlord finishing the lease in a 3-year period with relation to large displaced families.

Mr. WIDNALL. I appreciate the fact that you are really just started on this program, that it is being tested. I hope it proves itself in

action.

Mr. Secretary, as first proposed by the President last year, I discovered in your statement before the committee during hearings held in 1965 that the rent supplement program was for people above the eligibility level in their respective communities; is that not right? Secretary WEAVER. You mean the eligibility level for public hous

ing?

Mr. WIDNALL. That is right.

Secretary WEAVER. Yes.

Mr. WIDNALL. And the Congress said, reduce this eligibility level for those who would have a rent supplement to the public housing level. Since that time you have issued revised administrative requirements with regard to rent supplements. As I understand the eligibility income requirements correctly, they are now the same as those of public housing with the exception of New York City, where rent supplement payments can only be made for tenants if their income is higher than that of public housing; is that not correct?

Secretary WEAVER. Well, yes and no. Let me say that we have not issued any regulations. We have set forth the rules of the game, which will be the basis for the regulations when they are issued. We will not issue regulations until after the program is funded.

We have proposed that the maximum income at time of admission for the rent supplement program cannot exceed those for public housing. In the case of New York City, because of the relatively high cost in that city, we have a cutoff point at a three-bedroom unit, whereas public housing goes up to a five- or six-bedroom unit. That is why the cutoff point for public housing is higher in New York City than would he true for rent supplements. We have not modified the public housing limits. But we have made a realistic adjustment to the cost factor which is involved in New York City.

Mr. WODNALL. The public housing eligibility requirement for a family of five in New York City stands now at a maximum of $7,476, to