Page images
PDF
EPUB

HEARINGS

BEFORE

SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINETY-SECOND CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1972

73-690 O

GEORGE H. MAHON, Texas, Chairman JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi

FRANK T. BOW, Ohio JOHN J. ROONEY, New York

CHARLES R. JONAS, North Carolina ROBERT L. F. SIKES, Florida

ELFORD A. CEDERBERG, Michigan OTTO E. PASSMAN, Louisiana

JOHN J. RHODES, Arizona JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee

WILLIAM E. MINSHALL, Ohio EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts ROBERT H. MICHEL, Illinois WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky

SILVIO O. CONTE, Massachusetts DANIEL J. FLOOD, Pennsylvania

GLENN R. DAVIS, Wisconsin TOM STEED, Oklahoma

HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois

GARNER E, SHRIVER, Kansas JOHN M. SLACK, West Virginia

JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania JOHN J. FLYNT, JR., Georgia

MARK ANDREWS, North Dakota NEAL SMITH, Iowa

LOUIS C. WYMAN, New Hampshire ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut

BURT L. TALCOTT, California JULIA BUTLER HANSEN, Washington DONALD W. RIEGLE, JR., Michigan JOSEPH P. ADDABBO, New York

WENDELL WYATT, Oregon JOHN J. McFALL, California

JACK EDWARDS, Alabama W. R. HULL, JR., Missouri

DEL CLAWSON, California EDWARD J. PATTEN, New Jersey

WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa CLARENCE D. LONG, Maryland

ROBERT C. MCEWEN, New York SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois

JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
BOB CASEY, Texas

J. KENNETH ROBINSON, Virginia
DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas
FRANK E. EVANS, Colorado
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
EDWARD R, ROYBAL, California
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine
NICK GALIFIANAKIS, North Carolina
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana
K. GUNN MCKAY, Utah
TOM BEVILL, Alabama

PAUL M. Wilson, Clerk and Staff Director

STAFF ASSISTANTS

WILLIAM GERALD BOLING
GEORGE E. EVANS
ROBERT B. FOSTER
JOHN M. GARRITY
HAROLD A. GRIFFIN
AUBREY A. GUNNELS
JAY B. HOWE
THOMAS J. KINGFIELD
ROBERT L. KNISELY
KEITH F. MAINLAND
MILTON B. MEREDITH

AMERICO S. MICONI
DEMPSEY B. MIZELLE
ENID MORRISON
ROBERT M. MOYER
PETER J. MURPHY, Jr.
HENRY A. NEIL, Jr.
ROBERT C. NICHOLAS III
BYRON S. NIELSON
JOHN G. PLASHAL
Samuel R. PRESTON
DONALD E. RICHBOURG

EARL C. SILSBY
G. HOMER SKARIN
CHARLES W. SNODGRASS
HUNTER L. SPILLAN
PAUL E. THOMSON
GEORGE A. URIAN
DEREK J. VANDER SCHAAF
EUGENE B. WILHELM
J. DAVID WILLSON
THAYER A. Wood

SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS
C. R, ANDERSON, Director
LEROY R. KIRKPATRICK, First Assistant
WILLID C. LAW, Second Assistant

NOTE.—This Surveys and Investigations supervisory staff is supplemented by selected personnel borrowed on a reimbursable basis for varying lengths of time from various agencies to staff up specific studies and investigations. This current average annual fulltime personnel equivalent is approximately 42.

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT GERARD J. CHOUINARD GEMMA M. HICKEY

FRANCIS W. SADY
JANET LOU DAMERON

VIRGINIA MAY KEYSER MARY ALICE SAUER
BEATRICE T. Dew
FRANCES MAY

DALE M. SHULAW
PAUL V. FARMER

LAWRENCE C. MILLER AUSTIN G. SMITH DANIEL V. GUN SHOWS MARILYN R. QUINNEY RANDOLPH THOMAS

[blocks in formation]

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUD-SPACE-SCIENCE-VETERANS

EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massachusetts, Chairman JOE L. EVINS, Tennessee

CHARLES R. JONAS, North Carolina GEORGE E. SHIPLEY, Illinois BURT L. TALCOTT, California ROBERT N. GIAIMO, Connecticut JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas

DEL CLAWSON, California J. EDWARD ROUSH, Indiana G. Homer Skarin, Hunter L. Spillan, and Paul Thomson, Staff Assistants

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1972.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

WITNESSES HON. GEORGE ROMNEY, SECRETARY SAMUEL C. JACKSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR COMMUNITY

PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CLIFFORD W. GRAVES, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING

AND MANAGEMENT GRANTS
JACK WOOLLEY, ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY FOR CONGRES-

SIONAL RELATIONS
NATHANIEL J. EISEMAN, DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET OFFICER

COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING GRANTS

Mr. BOLAND. The committee will come to order.

This morning we will take up the supplementary request of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Community Planning and Management with respect to Comprehensive Planning Grants. As your justification indicates, this is a request for a supplemental appropriation of $40,645,000. This supplementary request, combined with the $59,355,000 that was appropriated in the bill for 1972 would equal the $100 million which was requested in your original 1972 budget.

PROGRAM SIMPLIFICATION You will recall that in last year's hearings on this particular item, the committee was concerned about simplifying the program procedures. You indicate in your justification that you are simplifying the procedures.

I recall an agency that participates in this program came in last year with a stack of forms that was incomprehensible, it must have been a foot or two high. This committee did express a concern but you, Mr. Secretary, have also been expressing this concern, not only in this program but in all the programs that HUD has been engaged in. We are delighted that you have moved ahead in this area and have cut back the processing time from 18 weeks to about 12 weeks.

We are delighted to have you and your staff with us this morning. We will be glad to hear you.

GENERAL STATEMENT

Secretary ROM NEY. Mr. Chairman, I just have a very brief statement that I might make.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee:

When the Congress acted on our 1972 appropriation request of $100 million for the Comprehensive Planning Grant program last year, we lacked sufficient statutory authority for the full amount requested. Given this situation, the full free balance of the available authorization—amounting to $59,355,000—was appropriated at that time. The Congress subsequently enacted additional authorizing legislation for $50 million in Senate Joint Resolution 176 just before the end of the first session last December.

I certainly appreciate the prompt scheduling of this hearing on our request for a supplemental appropriation of $40.6 million which is proposed to enable us to carry out the full $100 million program proposed in the 1972 budget. We have described in our justification several steps we have taken to simplify the administration of the 701 Comprehensive Planning program.

LETTER FROM COUNCIL OF STATE PLANNING AGENCIES

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the time to read here a letter that we just received from the president of the Council of State Planning Agencies. He also happens to be the Director, Office of Planning and Program Coordination, in the State of Massachusetts.

Mr. BOLAND. I have a copy of the letter and would be delighted to have you read it. I notice the third paragraph indicates that they are pleased with what has happened.

Secretary ROMNEY. Yes. Without reading the whole letter, we might submit it for the record.

Mr. BOLAND. Why don't you read it for the record!
Secretary ROMNEY. All right.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,

Boston, Mass., February 9, 1972. DEAR SECRETARY ROMNEY: In connection with your prospective meeting with Representative Edward Boland's Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, concerning the administration's fiscal year 1972 supplemental budget request for $41 million for the HUD 701 program, I wish to express the strong support of the Council of State Planning Agencies (CSPA) for this appropriation.

You will recall that last spring, CSPA spokesman expressed to the Congress deep concern over the time consuming application procedure for the HUD 701 program, and urgently requested the streamlining of such procedures. The Massachusetts 701 application, which ran to over 650 pages, is a significant exhibit.

I am very pleased to report that as a result of speedy and vigorous action of HƯD last summer, carried on in cooperation with the various types of agencies receiving HUD 701 support, the revised guidelines on 701 applications enabled part of the current Massachusetts application (comparable to last year's giant) to be contained in 37 pages—approximately 95 percent reduction of last year's.

Consequently, the Council of State Planning Agencies vigorously endorses the fiscal year 1972 supplemental budget request for $41 million which is urgently needed to support State, regional, and largecity planning at a time when increasingly heavy demands are being placed on all these agencies by various Federal initiatives, and the President's and your welcome policy change of decentralization. Without the supplemental budget items, all these agencies will have substantial cutbacks on the Federal funds available in fiscal year 1971. Sincerely,

ROBERT H. MARDEN, President, Council of State Planning Agencies.

PURPOSE OF SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST

Now, I would like to emphasize that, as the title suggests, we are dealing with a comprehensive planning program, one that provides a framework for individual management and development decisions. In recognition of this, we have already discontinued other planning programs principally community renewal planning under the urban renewal program—to bring our planning activities together in a single coherent program.

A fundamental consideration is the necessity to increase the planning and management capacity of States, areawide agencies, and local governments

. These funds are requested to assist all levels of Government in building their capacity to make well-informed policy decisions, to develop intelligent long-range priorities, to allocate their Federal, State, and local resources wisely and effectively, and to coordinate complex areawide, State, and interstate community development activities.

We are making this supplemental appropriation request now in order to provide an added impetus with our comprehensive planning grants program. The supplemental funds will provide added assistance to currently participating units of government, especially to States. About $12.3 million out of the supplemental goes to the States. And I want to emphasize my conviction that the States are vital participants in the process of rural and urban growth, as are the other units of government. Very importantly, the requested funds will allow many cities (particularly cities over 50,000 in population), counties, and nonmetropolitan areawide agencies to participate in

« PreviousContinue »