We endorse the provisions for assisting homeowners, with insufficient resources of their own, to undertake the rehabilitation of their homes rather than being forced to give them up.

All the aforementioned programs included in the President's bill are as applicable to the District as they are to any other urban area so therefore we urge their early enactment. More housing is one of our most pressing needs and is absolutely essential to the well-being of all our citizens. Passage of President Johnson's Housing and Community Development Act of 1964 is vital to the District.

I recommend that we submit this statement to the Subcommittees on Housing of the Senate and House Banking and Currency Committees which are just concluding hearings on the President's bill and ask that it be incorporated into the record.

STATEMENT OF LEON SHULL, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC

ACTION

The central issue that faces the Housing Subcommittee of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee is to present to the Congress legislation that will assure that all the people of this Nation are adequately housed. We need 2 million new housing starts a year. And the overwhelming bulk of this housing must be for low- and middle-income families.

Twelve and a half million people are living in substandard and deteriorating housing. Their plight can be alleviated only by (1) greatly increased housing aids to low-income families; and (2) greater stimulation of the private housing market. Well-coordinated housing legislation is a major vehicle to decrease unemployment. A vast expansion of low- and middle-income housing and housing for the elderly will not only provide decent housing for many Americans but will provide those in the homebuilding industry and related fields increased employment opportunities. In turn, this will provide a major economic stimulant in the fight against poverty.

Federal housing policy should be vastly increased to provide for greater— 1. Urban renewal and redevelopment.

2. Low-rent housing.

3. Housing for the elderly.

4. Middle-income housing.

A sound housing policy that will reduce poverty and unemployment requires a qualitative improvement as well as quantitative expansion of existing programs in each of the above areas. Program improvement has a direct relationship to breaking the high rate of poverty that continues through family generations. Low-income housing and housing for the elderly should be made desirable. Those who live in such housing should have the pride of homeowners. Those relocated by urban renewal should not be relocated to a new slum.

In short, an administrative infrastructure is necessary to implement the national goal of a decent, safe, and sanitary house for all Americans.

The committee is considering S. 2468 in a context of seeming affluence, and this will only breed complacency. The cruel fact is that there are 36 million individuals that are members of families with incomes below $5,000. We still have 14 million families with incomes of less than $4.000. And of these 11 million families, more than half have incomes below $2,500.

Low incomes mean bad housing. It means housing for Americans that by civilized standards is neither decent nor safe, neither sanitary nor suitable. Eight million American families and individuals live in substandard housing. An additional 4.5 million live in seriously deteriorating housing. In an affluent society this is intolerable. That is why we are witnessing legalized rent strikes in many urban centers.

In this context, the harsh fact is that the administration's housing program before Congress will hardly meet our increasing needs for new housing. Measured against the enormity of the need for new housing and slum clearance for low- and middle-income families, the administration's program is grossly inadequate. The administration's legislation will hardly meet our needs much less remedy the accumulated problems of the last decades. Lest we be misunderstood, we recognize that the administration's proposals do contain improvements over the existing program. These improvements should be enacted into law. But they must be recognized as only peripheral to the urgent and immediate need for suitable and sanitary housing for over 12.5 million individuals and families.

The administration's housing program should be the first major battle in the unconditional war against poverty. Instead, in size and conception the housing proposals amount to surrender in advance in the fight for decent housing.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Senators Robert A. Taft and Robert F. Wagner, in the 1949 Housing Act, envisioned the building of 810,000 public housing units within a few years after that act's enactment. Their fight for 810,000 public housing units to house those people with incomes below the poverty level is still an unfulfilled dream.

Now 15 years after enactment of the 1949 Housing Act, rather than 810,000 new units, we have built only 525,000 new housing units. At optimum, under the administration's proposal, there will be only an additional 240,000 units within the next 4 years.

It is an incontrovertible fact that public housing is one of the weapons in the fight against poverty. It supplies decent housing for families whose average income is $2,460 per year, an income well below a modest but adequate standard of living. Since 1949 we have built less public housing on a yearly basis than Senator Taft believed necessary. The public housing program should be enlarged to include authorization for 200,000 new public housing units in the next 2 years. Only by building 200,000 new public housing units, coupled with the administration leased housing program, will the 1949 goal of 810,000 public housing units be met within the next 2 years.

RESIDENTIAL URBAN RENEWAL

Another major provision of the 1949 Housing Act was the use of urban renewal funds for residential renewal. Since that time the use of funds for nonresidential urban renewal has taken increased percentages of urban renewal funds. In the 1961 Housing Act, the funds for nonresidential urban renewal were increased to 30 percent. The administration now calls for an additional increase to 35 percent. This proposal further subverts the fundamental purpose of the 1949 Housing Act.

Although the authority to undertake a limited amount of nonresidential renewal is extremely valuable to cities in helping them eliminate blight and obsolescence in their commercial and industrial areas, the major purpose of urban renewal was and must remain to eliminate slums and to provide decent housing for all Americans.

The administration proposes authorizing funds for urban renewal at the current rate. An increase in nonresidential funds therefore is a cutback in residential urban renewal funds. The Congress should require the Housing and Home Finance Agency to concentrate the expenditure of its funds on residential urban renewal by reducing nonresidential urban renewal funds to 25 percent. This will have the desirable effect of increasing the money spent for residential urban renewal.

Furthermore, the total authorization for urban renewal should be increased to $2 billion for the next 2 years.

LAND DEVELOPMENT MORTGAGE INSURANCE AMENDMENTS

On the surface, providing FHA mortgage insurance for land development programs that will be utilized for new subdivisions and for entirely new communities appears to be a major innovation. The one lesson that urban renewal hs taught us is that the best method of permanently clearing slums is to build new housing. The new proposed title X of the 1961 Housing Act for community subdivision development and residential renewal will aid in the goal of a decent house for every American only if the provision assures that low and middle income persons and the elderly householders will be able to purchase and obtain housing in the large subdivisions and the new communities. But the present proposal is too imprecise in its requirement that the legislation be built for those with "varying incomes." The statute and the committee report should make crystal clear that "varying incomes" covers a range from the lowest to that income level eligible for FHA mortgage.

ADA urges this subcommittee to write specific criteria into the bill that will require a significant portion of the land to be reserved for those in greatest need of housing: (a) persons with incomes below $5,000 per year; (b) families who are eligible for middle income housing; and (c) housing for the elderly.

PUBLIC HOUSING AMENDMENTS

Public housing funds should include authorizations to enable an improvement in the quality of public housing management. This requires use of skillful and responsible professional guidance to aid families in their adjustment to new situations and to provide mechanisms that will relieve the stigma that is often attached to those living in public housing.

We sell the tenants of public housing short by not providing the resources to encourage them to take pride in their place of residence. Funds for the formation of tenant ocuncils should be authorized. We should utilize every opportunity to encourage tenants to assume responsibilities as property owners.

Most important is congressional enactment of the oft-made suggestion that tenants so desiring should be enabled to purchase their public house or apartment.

URBAN RENEWAL AMENDMENTS

Although urban renewal has enabled many cities to redevelop, it has often brought with it-too often-severe dislocations for those families and individuals that have had to be relocated. Cities are often given new life under urban renewal. Developers have prospered tremendously from urban renewal in the last 15 years. But relocated families and individuals bear the economic and psychological brunt of relocation. ADA supports the following provisions to be added to the Housing and Community Development Act:

1. The Urban Renewal Administration should require physical verification of the availability of decent, safe, and sanitary housing prior to the start of condemnation proceedings. Too often communities fail to verify that suitable housing will be available at the time that relocation takes place. Those citizens desiring relocation assistance often do not receive the necessary help required to assure that they are relocated in a house other than a slum house. This is unconscionable.

2. Persons should not be relocated to areas which are already planned for condemnation within 5 years. Part of the culture and psychology of poverty is that a citizen is often relocated to a dwelling that will be torn down shortly after he gets settled in it. This guarantees moving families and individuals from one slum to another. Where a community has already planned to tear down an area it is both unfair and expensive to relocate persons into this area.

3. Those relocated should not be relocated to the census tracts where the median income is in the lowest quintile of the city's population. Low incomes mean slum housing, and relocatees should not be placed there.

CODE ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS

The major problem with urban renewal relocation is not that the criterion for decent, safe, and sanitary housing needs to be further expanded. But communities must establish the administrative machinery for extensive housing code enforcement.

ADA urges that prior to granting Federal aid for urban renewal, URA should certify that communities have an on-going positive program of enforcing their housing code requirements. Not all housing in slum areas requires to be torn down. In those areas where it is quite feasible to rehabilitate housing we should not tear down the dwellings. One method of doing this is to have an efficient and speedy administrative program to meet the requirement of the community's housing code. Most communities currently have housing codes which set appropriate standards for decent, safe, and sanitary housing. But many communities lack the effective administrative machinery to enforce their housing codes.

Communities should be encouraged to develop such administrative machinery. In the workable program for community improvement, enacted in 1954, a community must have adequate planning, relocation, community organization, and a housing code to be certified for eligibility for Federal financial assistance. Planning, relocation, and community organization are local responsibilities which are eligible for some form of Federal aid in conjunction with urban renewal. Now planning is being further aided under community renewal programs.

ADA believes the importance of code enforcement merits Federal assistance. We do not suggest that the Federal Government pay for routine code enforcement. We call for assistance to help local governments develop administrative machinery to enforce housing and related codes that will help rehabilitate housing and diminish slums. But communities should be prohibited from weakening their housing codes in order to comply with them.

BELOW MARKET INTEREST RATES

ADA considers the Administration's proposal to provide below market interest rates for elderly who are rehabilitating housing as a desirable improvement. We see no reason why below market interest rate should not be given to all those who must relocate and to others who wish, or are compelled by housing codes, to rehabilitate housing. Such financing would enable relocatees to purchase new housing-thus increasing demand-and would encourage others to engage in home improvements. An extended below market interest rate program may well prove to be an excellent tool in encouraging more private housing developments.

PROPOSED ADMINISTRATION IMPROVEMENTS IN HOUSING LEGISLATION

Finally, ADA wishes to support the major proposed Administration improvements in the Housing and Community Development Act. Although these improvements are only peripheral to the basic need for a massive housing program for new housing for low- and middle-income persons and the elderly, these proposals are good and should be enacted.

1. Increasing relocation payments to displaced persons and business.

2. Rehabilitation assistance to elderly homeowners in urban renewal areas below market interest rates.

3. Applying urban renewal funds in a more flexible manner to more than one project and to general neighborhood renewal plans.

4. Acquisition and lease of existing housing for low-income persons as a supplement to public housing.

5. Increased authorization for demonstration programs in public housing and urban renewal.

6. Easing financing of home improvement loans for homes outside of urban renewal areas.

7. Protection to FHA-insured home purchasers against construction defects in mortgaged homes.

STATEMENT OF THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, U.S.A.

The United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., in its general assembly actions of 1954, 1956, 1961, and 1963, has expressed concern about the complex and critical problems of metropolitan society, with particular reference to the following problems and needs:

1. The urban blight, decay, and social disintegration manifest both in crowded slums, and planless, sprawling suburbs;

2. The need for bold and imaginative local, regional, and Federal programs to reshape our cities, clear slums, and rehabilitate substandard homes, and to provide decent, safe living for all families in racially integrated neighborhoods;

3. The need for economic and social research and new systematic procedures for collecting data about metropolitan living and our urban economy: 4. The need for coordination among the many agencies and programs of the Federal Government that are related to urban communities:

5. The need for church members to accept responsibility for participating in fair housing committees, zoning and school boards, planning and public utility commissions, and to arouse citizen interest in coordinated planning, urban renewal, and adequate housing for persons of all races and ages, especially nonwhite familiies and the elderly.

In 1961 the 173d general assembly "supported the establishment of a Department of Urban Affairs and Housing in the executive branch of the Federal Government,” and “encouraged able young men and women to seek training and preparation for careers in such fields are planning, community development, housing, social welfare, and politics."

This assembly also reaffirmed the action of the 1956 general assembly calling upon ministers and elders to enlist in "covenants of open occupancy" and to welcome new neighbors without respect to race, religion, or national origin." Our general assembly has repeatedly affirmed that a major cause of segregation in our churches is the continued prevalence of residential segregation, and in 1961 alerted the churches to the problem of mob violence, attacks on persons, the destruction of property purchased by Negroes in white neighborhoods, and condemned any deliberate failure of legally constituted authorities to safeguard all persons against mob violence and called upon presbyteries and churches to

speak and act against such breakdown of law and order, and commended and encouraged use of nonviolent means to bring about equality for all.

In 1963 the 175th general assembly directed the Office of Church and Society to review, analyze, and disseminate information about planning and urban renewal activities in contrasting metropolitan areas, and report to a subsequent general assembly analysis of—

(a) Methods for preventing and arresting blight;

(b) The human factors involved in the use and occupancy of the land; (c) The policies for use of land cleared of slums;

(d) The involvement and participation of church groups and local residents in determining local goals, plans for urban renewal, and actions required for their successful implementation;

(e) The availability of decent, safe, and standard housing in nonsegregated areas for all persons, including those displaced by urban renewal and other public works;

(f) The effect of urban renewal activities on the economic growth and vigor of the community, including small business establishments displaced by renewal; and

(g) The factors involved in developing a sense of community in redeveloped

areas.

Field studies have been completed in several metropolitan areas and the findings are being tabulated and analyzed by the Institute of Ethics and Society in San Francisco Theological Seminary. The study thus far has given agencies of the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., a chance for a long, hard look at community renewal policies and practices and more important, at their social, economic, and political consequences. Of especial significance to our churches are the involvement of the people affected by urban renewal in determining and influencing the plans for their community, the relocation, rehousing, and rehabilitation of families displaced by renewal, particularly the chronically poor nonwhite families, and the integration of local plans and renewal projects into larger, comprehensive, coordinated regional redevelopment, and the enactment and enforcement of State and Federal fair housing statutes.

For the record we state that the general assembly meeting annually is the highest judicatory of the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. It is a representative body composed of an equal number of ministers and laymen (approximately 950 commissioners) elected by the 194 presbyteries. Its standing committee on church and society brings recommendations about many current issues and problems to the assembly for debate and action. Thus the church attempts to bring its corporate influence upon public policies and the climate of opinion in the churches and in society as a whole.

MARGARET E. KUHN, Office of Church and Society.

MARCH 6, 1964.

1

STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES SAVINGS AND LOAN LEAGUE RE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1964

The United States Savings and Loan League' appreciates the opportunity to present this statement with respect to housing legislation pending before the housing subcommittee.

The league is proud of the fact that in 1963 the savings and loan business played the most important role in the Nation's housing economy it has ever experienced. The portion of home financing done by our institutions reached an all time high of 45 percent. The total volume of lending by savings and loans also reached record heights of $25 billion. The magnitude of this is evidenced by the fact that savings and loans, by themselves, advanced more home mortgage funds in 1963 than all the lenders in the country loaned as recently as 1954. Even more startling is the fact that the amount advanced by savings and loans last year was more than all of the home mortgage debt in existence as recently as

1 The United States Savings and Loan League is a nationwide trade organization with over 5,000 members, including federally chartered, State chartered, insured and uninsured associations. Its principal officers are Eugene Mortlock, president, of New York City; John W. Stadtler, vice president, of Washington, D.C.; Norman Strunk, executive vice president, of Chicago, Ill.; C. R. Mitchell, legislative chairman, of Kansas City, Mo.; and Stephen Slipher, legislative director, of Washington, D.C. The league's Washington office is at 812 Pennsylvania Building, Washington, D.C. Telephone: ME 8-6334.