And Now, Housing

With antipoverty, medicare and civil rights getting most of the public attention, the Johnson Administration's housing bill seemed almost lost in the basket of Great Society legislation. Yet it is one of the biggest programs of all, and last week the Senate, by a vote of 54 to 30, approved it and sent it to a Senate-House conference committee to iron out a few differences. Every prospect was that the President would be able to sign it into law this week.

As projected over a four-year period, the $7.5 billion program will include funds for homeowners in urban-renewal areas to refurbish their property, benefits for elderly and handicapped persons in public-housing projects, mortgage relief for those who become unemployed by reason of the shutdown of a federal installation, modification of interest rates for the housing of persons over 62, college housing, rural housing, grants for sewer-and water-processing facilities in rapidly growing neighborhoods, as well as other public works, and extension of certain programs under the Urban renewal, Federal Housing and Public Housing Administrations.

Of all the bill's facets, the only one contested with any real heat was the provision that the Federal Government will subsidize lower-income families who move into private, nonprofit developments. The Government will pay the difference between 25% of the family's income and the rent bill--it would chip in $15 a month, for instance, if the rent was $115 and the income $400. A "lower-income family" is not precisely defined; the bill provides that only those who are eligible for public-housing aid in their own city will be eligible under the new program. But such local eligibility rules vary.

The rent-subsidy section came under some scathing criticism; Virginia's Harry Byrd, even before the debate began, denounced the plan as "renti-care." A Republican-backed amendment that would have killed the provision was defeated by a 47 to 40 Senate vote. But that count sounded closer than it actually was: Democratic leaders had at least another half-dozen votes in hand, if needed.

After the amendment lost, Senate passage of the bill had clear sailing.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.