While we do not consider these will be self-contained, they will have a great deal more toward self-containment than the Levittowns have.

Senator SPARKMAN. What would the developer of a community like that under section 10 get that the developers of Reston did not get? Dr. WEAVER. They would get several things. In the first place, they would get financial assistance in the way of insured loans to aid in purchasing the land and-most important-to assist them in putting in the basic public facilities, water and sewer, which is the most costly, and the basic roads, and also some assistance in putting in other facilities which are not quite so basic but which are important to establish the fact that you have got a community so as to make it attractive to people.

Senator SPARKMAN. Now, you say he would get loans. Of course, your part would be to insure the loans. Is that right?

Dr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Well, does he come in with his plans fully developed before he makes his application?

Dr. WEAVER. Phil, do you want to answer?

Mr. BROWNSTEIN. What he would do, Mr. Chairman, would be to come in preliminarily before he undertook the vast expense involved in something of this kind to determine feasibility, to determine market; the things that would be inherent in a successful venture of this

nature.

And then, after the initial feasibility is granted, he would come in with his complete plans.

Dr. WEAVER. I might add, Senator, from the experience we have had, the interesting thing about this is that I do not think there is a single one of these proposals that is now being considered that will not pretty much have a complete plan.

Now, like any other plan, it is subject to change before they get started. This is almost inherent in this type of approach, because otherwise it does not hold together. You have to have a concept, a total concept.

Now, sometimes you change it because human beings change, and sometimes you modify it because you may have made a mistake. But you have to have that in order to have a rationale for it.

Senator SPARKMAN. What would be the security for those loans? Mr. BROWNSTEIN. There would be a mortgage on the entire tract. Senator SPARKMAN. How do you take care of your FHA insurance on individual units then?

Mr. BROWNSTEIN. As the individual units are sold off, there would be a release provision in the mortgage and also probably a provision for amortization payment to begin at that point.

Senator SPARKMAN. It would be one mass mortgage?

Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. And that would cover all the facilities?

Mr. BROWNSTEIN. It would cover the entire tract. And then when the houses are completed there would be a release provision under which the units could be released and individual mortgages to the homeowner would come into being and would be insured by FHA. Senator SPARKMAN. Who would make that loan?

Mr. BROWNSTEIN. Private lenders. Of course, there is a provision in the bill for special assistance by FNMA on the new community.

Senator SPARK MAN. I want to ask something about the public housing. I believe you said half of it had been devoted to the elderly. Is that right?

Dr. WEAVER. Half of that that was authorized in 1961.

Senator SPARKMAN. Under the 1961 act.

Dr. WEAVER. And 24 percent of all that is now in occupancy is now occupied by elderly.

Senator SPARK MAN. Twenty-four percent?

Dr. WEAVER. Going all the way back to the beginning, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Is that producing any difficulty as to families with children?

Dr. WEAVER. I beg your pardon?

Senator SPARKMAN. Does it produce any difficulty in meeting the needs of families with young children? In other words, are the elderly pushing out needy families? Or do they maintain a pretty good balance?

Mrs. MCGUIRE. I think it is a matter of catching up with the elderly need actually.

Senator SPARKMAN. I thought that probably would be the answer. Mrs. MCGUIRE. And since the elderly occupy generally very small units and we are building very small units. efficiency apartments, for instance, among others today for the elderly, this does not affect the families. It does not have the effect of pushing out families.

Senator SPARKMAN. It has not had an adverse effect on families! Mrs. MCGUIRE. That is right.

Senator SPARKMAN. In the proposal to change the precentage of unban renewal, how much of the new urban renewal money would be allocated to nonresidential purposes under the proposed 35 percent?

Mr. SLAYTON. Thirty-five percent, of course, of whatever was authorized if the bill were passed as it is: 35 percent, of course, of that would be available for nonresidential development.

Senator SPARKMAN. Does the 35 percent apply back to the 1959 act?

Mr. SLAYTON. Yes, this amends the act as it was amended in 1961 when the percentage was increased from 20 to 30 percent. So that it applies to the contract authority available in 1959. So it applies an additional 5 percent to the contract authority that was available in 1959.

Senator SPARKMAN. You know we have had considerable difficulty with this program from the beginning. It started off with 10 percent, did it not? Was it not 10 percent originally?

Mr. SLAYTON. Ten percent in 1954.

Senator SPARKMAN. Then it went up to 15 percent, then to 20, then from 20 to 30, and now 30 to 35. Are we going to stop there?

Dr. WEAVER. Well, you know, there is constant pressure. But my own feeling on this is that this program has to be primarily a housing program. so I think we have about reached the point of stopping as far as I am concerned.

Senator SPARKMAN. Doctor, I am glad to hear you say that, because it started out certainly in connection with housing.

I am sorry Senator Douglas is not here at the time. I think he very strongly protested against our increasing it. We finally got it up under the Bowery amendment or whatever it was to clean up slums downtown. It edged over into industrial areas. And finally it went to the universities and hospitals.

I do not know. It just seems to me we ought to let this be the limit. Dr. WEAVER. I agree with you, sir, 100 percent. On 35 percent I might say. I agree with you 100 percent on the 35 percent. Senator SPARKMAN. One hundred percent on 35 percent? Dr. WEAVER. That is right.

Mr. SLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, one thing.

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes?

Mr. SLAYTON. These nonresidential areas, so-called, are predominantly nonresidential, and in each of these areas there is also a good deal of slum housing that is cleared. And in the new area, even though it is predominantly nonresidential, you will find usually a considerable amount of housing. So it is not completely nonresidential. Senator SPARK MAN. We still adhere to the original concept of predominantly residential? Is that right?

Mr. SLAYTON. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. We are talking about exceptions to it.
Mr. SLAYTON. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. On this Federal-State training, for what purpose would the grants be made?

Dr. WEAVER. Primarily I think-certainly at the beginning these grants would be used more for in-training of people who are already in the field who need to have their skills sharpened. At the beginning. But as time went on, we would also probably increasingly attract more people into this area, people who were committed to going into these fields, with a good chance of going into public service.

But right now the immediate problem, the most pressing one, and one that can be handled quickest is the in-training of those already in the field. But it would not be restricted to them, of course.

Senator SPARKMAN. By the way, you propose removal of a population limit, I believe, with reference to public facility loans. I believe the present law is 50,000, is it not, except in area redevelopment areas, and that is 150,000.

Dr. WEAVER. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARK MAN. You would lift that ceiling altogether?

Dr. WEAVER. Oh, no; not altogether. Only in connection with these new programs. This would not be

Senator SPARKMAN. Oh. This is limited to title 10?

Dr. WEAVER. Public facility loans made for the advance acquisition of land to be used in connection with the construction of a public work, and public facility loans made for projects with growth capacity— that is, projects built to a scale which anticipates future growthcould also be made without regard to the population limitation. Senator SPARK MAN. I failed to get that distinction.

Dr. WEAVER. We are not proposing to take off the ceiling.
Senator SPARKMAN. Well, I was wondering.

Senator TOWER. Would you yield to me a moment?

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, indeed.

Senator TOWER. What type of skills do you comprehend developing under the Federal-State training program?

Dr. WEAVER. Well, they would fall, Senator, into really two categories. The professionals in the field, for example, traffic engineers, people who are adept at devising and enforcing housing and building codes, planners of various types, people who are working on redevelopment and on renewal, and so forth. And then the people below that level who handle the technical jobs which are not quite of that high category but who probably carry out building inspections and that type of thing.

Senator TOWER. It would not comprehend, say, policemen and firemen and that sort of thing?

Dr. WEAVER. No, sir. We would get into jurisdictional disputes if we did.

Senator SPARKMAN. Now, you have a proposal to increase the relocation payments. What has been the total cost of relocation of people during the time the program has been going on?

Dr. WEAVER. Under urban renewal the total cost of relocation? Do you have that, Bill?

Mr. SLAYTON. I have a table.

Senator SPARKMAN. You can insert it in the record.

Dr. WEAVER. Suppose we insert it.

Mr. SLAYTON. For families I have to add up a couple of figures. For families it has been a little over $6 million. And for individuals it has been about $1.5 million. And for businesses it has been about $30 million.

Senator SPARKMAN. How much?

Mr. SLAYTON. $30 million for businesses.
Senator SPARKMAN. $30 million?

Mr. SLAYTON. $30 million; yes.

Senator SPARKMAN. How much would it cost under this projected program?

Mr. SLAYTON. Under the new relocation payments?

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes.

Mr. SLAYTON. We figure that the impact for the first 2 yearsthat is, out of this authorization-would be about $140 million. This amount would cover the actual payments to displaced families and businesses over a period of years.

Senator SPARKMAN. $140 million?

Mr. SLAYTON. This, of course, picks up the backlog of those projects that are now in execution. This will start from the date this bill was introduced. So those families and businesses being relocated after the bill was introduced would receive the payment. So we have to go back and also fund those that are to be relocated on projects already in execution as well as those that will go into execution during the next 2 years.

But the annual cost is considerably less. The annual cost would run about, we figure, $20 to $25 million.

Dr. WEAVER. I think these figures, if you want to compare them, would have to be worked over to give you some notion of the volume, because the volume, because of the way this is financed, is much greater under the new proposals, because the new proposals would pick up those projects already in execution and those in the future which have not even gone into execution.

Senator SPARKMAN. I see that. I wish we had someway we could get a comparison.

Dr. WEAVER. We can work that out for you, I think, and insert it in the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

Comparative annual costs of relocation payment provisions
[Expenditure estimates for fiscal years 1965 and 1966 in millions of dollars]

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me ask you this question: Are you familiar, both of you, with the bill that I introduced in the 87th Congress, S. 71, to establish a commission for the purpose of studying methods of obtaining property by the Government, condemnation and purchase and so forth, and trying to bring some kind of uniformity into it?

Following the introduction of that bill, I had some correspondence with my own Congressman who is on the Public Works Commmittee of the House of Representatives, and that committee set up a subcommittee to carry out this study, following very closely the lines that I had recommended in my bill.

Frankly, I do not know what the progress is to date. They have made a preliminary report I understand but not a final report.

Do you think it might be well to hold this off until we do have some report from that committee?

Dr. WEAVER. Well, Mr. Chairman, my feeling is that this is such a real problem involving human suffering

Senator SPARK MAN. I know. As you know, we have had to wrestle with it every time the housing bill has come up. We have had this moving problem. And again I certainly would not want us to do injustice to any person, and yet I wonder where the stopping point is.

We started out, you know, in a very miserly way, and we saw the injustice of it, and we lifted it. We have lifted it and lifted it. And I do not know where we are going to stop.

Dr. WEAVER. Well, sir, let me say that the thinking that went behind this was the fact that in these developments the people who have the greatest costs-I am thinking now not necessarily of monetary costs but of the greatest costs in human adjustment and sometimes monetary costs are the people whom we are trying to deal with here. Very often they have to move even if they do not want to. And what really is behind this is the instance where a man now is paying, say, $18 a week for rent and it is not in a standard house. We relo