planning our communities, the association in 1961 expanded its focus to include planning as well as housing. The bill pending before your subcommittee is of vital import in both fields. Public housing.-The association has long been concerned with the desperate need for additional units of low-income housing in the District of Columbia. The National Capital Housing Authority, the local agency responsible for public housing in the Nation's Capital, presently has a waiting list of almost 6,000 families (see Applications and Occupancy Report of February 29, 1964). Over 4,000 of these families will require three or more bedrooms. Many of the larger families have been on the waiting list for a number of years. Four hundred of the families now waiting for public housing were displaced by Government action. S. 2468 authorizes 60,000 units of low income public housing each year. In the view of the association, this figure is inadequate. Its inadequacy is indicated by the fact that in the District of Columbia alone, the present waiting list would require one-tenth of all new housing to be authorized. We urge the committee to amend the bill to authorize a minimum construction of 100,000 units each year for the next 4 years, with authority to carry over unused units to subsequent years. The association wishes to express its strong support for the provisions of section 404 which authorizes local public housing authorities to lease existing housing for low-income families and of section 408 which provides an additional authorization of $5 million for low-income housing demonstration funds. In the District of Columbia, under the latter demonstration program, 50 units of existing housing have been acquired and rehabilitated for use of families too large to be accommodated in existing public housing. This demonstration rent subsidy program, in our judgment, has made a very important contribution and points the way for much larger efforts in this city and throughout the Nation. The provisions of S. 2468 will help make this possible. The association has long urged the need of legislation to enable all persons displaced by public action to receive relocation assistance. Consistent with this position, we support the proposals in sections 406 and 407 of the bill under which persons, families, and businesses displaced on public housing sites would receive needed relocation assistance similar to that now received by those displaced by urban renewal. Further, we recommend that the subcommittee amend the bill to authorize appropriation of $2 million to be made available to local housing authorities for the conduct of surveys in depth of local public housing needs. We recommend that a 2-year time limit be set for a report to Congress on the survey results. It is, in our view, of urgent importance in planning and preparing for future public housing needs, to have available a complete picture of the present adequacy of the total public housing supply. Lastly, we suggest the need of a provision which would authorize the Public Housing Administration to make annual contributions to local public housing agencies to help reimburse those agencies for losses which may have been incurred in housing families unable to meet the rental requirements. Extreme economic deprivation present in urban areas means that even the rental levels of public housing are beyond the means of some needy families. Urban renewal.-The association believes that urban renewal activities authorized under Federal legislation have played, and must in the future play, a vital role in maintaining the health of our cities. The ever-increasing population of our Nation's urban centers makes greater demands on the existing supply of housing and commercial structures and, in turn, demands the continuing attention of urban renewal programs. We respectfully urge the committee to adopt and report with strong favorable recommendations the urban renewal provisions of S. 2468. In particular, the association would like to join in the recommendations presented in the testimony of Mr. Ira S. Robbins for the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials with respect to the adequacy of the provisions of section 304 for an increase of $1.4 billion to the capital grant authorization. In our judgment this increase is too small to cover the pressing needs of urban renewal. Further, we commend the provisions in section 101 for much needed increased relocation assistance and in section 102 for rehabilitation assistance to homeowners in urban renewal areas. In our view, the provisions of the latter section which are restricted to elderly homeowners should be amended to include all homeowners so as to insure that the use of rehabilitation as a tool of urban renewal, a most promising avenue now developing, will not result in the displacement of present homeowners. The association commends the subcommittee on the excellent hearings which it has conducted and urges the early favorable report of S. 2468. Respectfully yours, Senator ROBERTSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: REUBEN CLARK, President. WOODBRIDGE, VA., March 16, 1964. We would appreciate any help that you could give toward the passage of the Mortgage Market Facilities Act of 1963 (H.R. 9751 and S. 2468). This legislation would be very advantageous to our growing area. G. P. MANDERFIELD, President, Bank of Prince William. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF INSURED SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS, Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In connection with your hearings on the Housing Act of 1964, I would like to suggest an amendment to enable Federal home loan bank member institutions to pledge 30-year conventional loans as collateral for Federal home loan bank advances. Section 10 (b) (1) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act now reads as follows: "(b) No home mortgage shall be accepted as collateral security for an advance by a Federal home loan bank if, at the time such advance is made (1) the home mortgage loan secured by it has more than 25 years to run to maturity, unless such home mortgage is insured under the National Housing Act, as amended, or insured or guaranteed under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, * * As you can see, the present law prevents the banks from accepting mortgages of more than 25 years maturity unless they are insured or guaranteed. Inasmuch as insured savings associations are now increasingly making conventional loans for more than 25 years' duration, the act should be amended to permit bank members to pledge 30-year conventional loans as collateral for Federal home loan bank advances. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. WILLIAM J. KERWIN, Assistant Executive Director. THE FIRST NATIONAL EXCHANGE BANK OF VIRGINIA, Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Washington, D.C. Marion, Va., March 17, 1964. DEAR SENATOR ROBERTSON: We are interested in the passage of bills Nos. S. 810 by Senator Sparkman and H.R. 9769 by Congressman Rains designed to facilitate the flow of mortgage funds from areas of capital surplus to areas of capital scarcity and to make such mortgages a more attractive investment for all potential investors and lenders. If you can see your way clear to support these bills and notify the above mentioned gentlemen of your intentions, it will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, W. A. WOLFE, Senior Vice President. FIRST STATE BANK, Danville, Va., March 17, 1964. Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. ROBERTSON: I would like to solicit your support for the Mortgage Market Facilities Act of 1963 that is currently being considered by Congress. It was my privilege to write a thesis on mortgage guarantee insurance as one of the requirements for graduation from the Stonier Graduate School of Banking at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, in 1962. The study covered activities in the insured mortgage field from its inception down to the present time. I feel that the Mortgage Market Facilities Act is a piece of very sound legislation. The greatest features of this bill will be the simplification of the process whereby mortgage funds may be transferred from capital surplus areas to capital scarcity areas and give more mobility to mortgage funds. It will also enable the small community commercial banks to take a more active part in mortgage financing, as it would provide them with a means of easily converting mortgages into cash when the situation demands it. I do hope that you can see your way clear to lend your support to the Mortgage Market Facilities Act of 1963. Yours very truly, Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, L. WILSON YORK, U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, Banking and Currency Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: I would very much appreciate your including in the hearing record on S. 2468 the enclosed letter I have received from the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Oreg. I also trust that the board's views on the availability of planning funds will be taken into consideration in the committee's deliberations on this bill. Sincerely yours, WAYNE Morse. (The following letter was sent to both Senators Morse and Neuberger:) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, COURTHOUSE, Hillsboro, Oreg., March 18, 1964. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: It has come to our board's attention that hearings have been completed on S. 2468, the Housing and Community Development Act. We would like you to know Washington County's feelings about a portion of the legislation which affects us. The bill includes population limitations on Federal assistance for comprehensive planning and excludes counties over 50,000. We believe this limitation is completely unrealistic and should be removed. Washington County, as you know, is a part of the Portland metropolitan complex. The eastern border of the county, adjacent to the city and to Multnomah County, is quite densely populated. The 1960 census placed the population total at 92,327, while the metropolitan area portion that same year was 53,504 or 58 percent of the total. It would be of interest to you, I'm sure, that the 1963 population as estimated by the State board of census is 104,608. We would call to your attention the fact that the metropolitan area's western boundary has been arbitrarily set at 219th Avenue, some 41⁄2 miles east of Hills boro. You should be aware, however, the area which is actually urbanized doesn't begin to extend that far west. This arbitrary boundary includes, we understand, all of the area which could, within a reasonable time, be contained in the social and economic perimeter of Portland. They bear no actual relationship to the real urban area. The Metropolitan Planning Commission is financed jointly by Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah Counties and the city of Portland. It functions primarily as a research commission, gathering data for use by the planning bodies of all four jurisdictions. It does not do actual land use planning. Its main responsibility is that of an area wide perspective of the entire metropolitan complex, including Clark County, Wash. Not the day-to-day planning job. Surely it is obvious that Washington County still has a very definite need to do planning for the future. Because we are ineligible for 701 grants, since we are over the allowable 50.000 population, we cannot do the kind of job which needs to be done in light of our rapid population growth and its attendant problems. If a metropolitan mess is to be avoided, we must do comprehensive planning now. We can't afford to wait. Our position is further complicated by the fact that our finances are inadequate to permit us to proceed without help. A levy of $1,062,000 is scarcely sufficient for all the services required by 104,000 people. If we are to be able to plan for the future, we should be able to obtain Federal assistance. At present the only device which we may use is one which really does not solve the problem. By mutual agreement the cities and the county have been working together on a 701 grant issued to the cities and usable for city-county cooperative efforts. The total population of all the cities in Washington County in 1960 was 22,819, only 24.7 percent of the county's total. Obviously the biggest planning problem lies outside the municipalities. We have found that our county planning department is so busy with zone changes and building permits that there is little time for actual planning to be done. If we were eligible to receive Federal 701 grants for planning, we would be able to expand our staff sufficiently to get the job done which needs doing. I would also call to your attention the fact that the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations endorsed the removal of this population restriction. It is the counties over 50,000 who really need the Federal assistance, especially when they lie partly within a metropolitan area. The planning must be done before the metropolitan surge swallows them. Then it is too late. I have asked a representative of both the National Association of Counties (NACO) and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations to contact your office so that additional information may be available to you if you need it. Very truly yours, Mrs. BARBARA A. WILCOX, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, Hon. MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, U.S. Senate. Room 431; Old Senate Office Building, DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: Mrs. Barbara A. Wilcox, chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, and member of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, has asked us to contact your office with respect to problems created under the current 701 urban planning assistance program, administered by the U.S. Housing and Home Finance Agency, whereby certain urbanized and rapidly growing counties are now excluded from coverage under this program. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, which was established by Congress in 1959 as a permanent bipartisan body to give continuing study to improved relationships among local, State, and national levels of government, recommended on January 24, 1964, “that the eligibility requirements for Federal urban planning assistance under section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 be broadened to include all municipalities and counties over 50,000 population which are undergoing rapid urbanization." We have been advised that Senator Muskie, of Maine, also a member of our Commission, has submitted an amendment to the proposed Housing and Community Development Act of 1964 (S. 2468) to the Banking and Currency Committee to carry out that recommendation. A copy of that amendment is attached. The law establishing the Federal Government's 701 program of financial grants to assist urban planning declares the Government's strong intention of encouraging comprehensive planning for urban development. It authorizes grants to States for direct planning and assistance to municipalities and counties under 50,000 population, to metropolitan, regional, and State planning agencies, to municipalities and counties in catastrophe and economically depressed areas, and to official Government planning agencies in federally impacted areas. Nevertheless, the urban planning assistance program presently excludes Federal planning assistance to counties and cities with populations of 50,000 or greater if such counties and cities are not classified as metropolitan areas in and of themselves. Communities over 50,000 which are not experiencing rapid urbanization are likely to be eligible for adequate planning funds under the community renewal program or the area redevelopment amendment to the urban planning assistance program. Thus, the rapidly urbanizing communities above 50,000 are currently the only major segments of urban America without Federal planning assistance. Many counties and cities with populations over 50,000 are not only in the path of rapid urbanization, but are becoming increasingly important providers of services in metropolitan areas. Many such cities provide urban services beyond their own boundaries, and in many parts of the country, the county assumes an important role as a unit of government which, while not necessarily encompassing an entire metropolitan area, nevertheless is closer to providing the benefits of area wide performance than are municipalities. Making the best of these situations, it would appear desirable to encourage comprehensive planning in cities and counties with populations of 50,000 and over. Thus, the urban planning assistance program needs to be extended to help these localities keep ahead of development pressures. We would urge your support of this amendment which we believe would further the overall objectives of the urban planning assistance program. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM G. COLMAN, Executive Director. The text of the third proposed amendment is as follows: "SEC. 310. (e) Section 701 (a) of the Housing Act of 1954 is amended by"(1) inserting ‘and (7)' immediately after '(3)' in clause (c) of paragraph (1); “(2) adding a new paragraph (7) after paragraph (6), as follows: "(7) cities, other municipalities, and counties having populations of 50,000 or greater, according to the latest decennial census, and which are experiencing rapid urbanization.'" COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH, Hon. MAURINE NEUBERGER, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. NEUBERGER: We respectfully request that the Housing and Community Development Act, H.R. 9751 and S. 2468, be amended to remove the provision of the present law that prohibits counties of more than 50,000 population from receiving planning assistance grants under the Federal Housing Act (701 program). Eight counties in Oregon are precluded from receiving direct 701 grants under the present law-Clackamas, Washington, Coos, Douglas, Jackson, Linn, Marion, and Multnomah. While these counties have all participated in Federal planning grants as part of regional or metropolitan planning agencies, the planning programs of these special agencies do not replace the need for each county to develop long |