tional relocation benefit in the form of rent assistance to or for families or individuals who are displaced from an urban renewal area, to assure that such family or individual is able to be relocated into a decent dwelling, as provided for under an approved plan for the feasible relocation of such families or individuals. The relocation benefit would be equivalent to the difference between the amount of annual income such family or individual can afford to pay for rent as determined by the administering agency or department and the annual amount of rent required to be paid for the dwelling to which relocated, provided that in no event shall such relocaiton benefit exceed $500 a year for such family or individual, in monthly installments, for a period of 5 years, unless within such 5-year period such individual or family voluntarily removes from such dwelling.

((a) Relocation benefits: Rent assistance. 1. (a) Notwithstanding any general special or local law or charter or administrative code provision to the contrary, the governing body of any municipality undertaking a program or programs of urban renewal is hereby authorized and empowered to adopt a resolution providing a relocation benefit in the form of rent assistance, to or for families or individuals who are displaced from an urban renewal area in order to assure that such families or individuals are able to be relocated into decent dwellings as provided in paragraph (e) of subdivision 4 of section 505 of this article.

(b) Any such resolution shall provide that such benefit allowed to or for such family or individual shall be equivalent to the difference between the amount of annual income such family or individual is able to pay for rent as determined by the administering agency or department and the annual rent such family is required to pay for such decent dwelling into which relocated: Provided, That in no event shall such benefit exceed five hundred dollars per year for a family or individual.

(c) Any such resolution shall provide that such benefit shall continue to be allowed to or for such family or individual on the basis provided in paragraph (b) of this section, in monthly installments, for a period five years, unless within such five-year period such individual or family voluntarly removes from such dwelling.

APPENDIX C

MEMORANDUM ON ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESS FOR DIRECT LOSS OF PROPERTY

A BILL To amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949, to increase the maximum amount of relocation payments to be made to a business concern displaced by an urban renewal project and to provide a method for ascertaining the amount of such payments.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress, That section 106 (f) of the Housing Act of 1949 is amended

(1) by inserting in the first sentence of paragraph (2) after the word "profit”, "except as hereinafter provided," and

(2) by striking out the last two sentences of paragraph (2) and inserting the following in lieu thereof: "All payments under this subsection shall be subject to such rules, regulations, and limitations as may be prescribed by the Administrator. Such payments shall not exceed: $200 in the case of an individual or family; $3,000 in the case of a business concern or a nonprofit organization, except where the total certified actual moving expenses are in excess of such amount, in which event it shall be the total actual certified moving expenses. In addition to actual moving expenses, payments shall be made to a business concern for direct loss of property which shall include a payment equal to the annual taxable income attributable solely to the operation of such business but in no event shall exceed $10,000 and shall be limited to a business concern which has been continuously located in the urban renewal area for a period of at least three years prior to such displacement. Annual net taxable income of a business concern shall be established by averaging the annual not taxable income of such concern for a period of three years immediately prior to such displacement. The rules and regulations prescribed by the Administrator may include provisions authorizing payment to individuals and families of fixed amounts (not to exceed $200 in any case) in lieu of their respective reasonable and necessary moving expenses and actual direct losses of property."

APPENDIX D

MEMORANDUM ON ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO DISPLACED TENANTS

A BILL To amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949 to authorize additional payments for the benefit of and to aid in the relocation of tenants displaced from urban renewal areas

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph (1) of section 106 (f) of the Housing Act of 1949 is amended by inserting "and other payments" after "relocation payments" wherever it appears in said paragraph.

SEC. 2. Section 106 (f) (2) of the Housing Act of 1949 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following three new sentences: "as used in this subsection, the term 'other payments' means payments made by a local public agency in accordance with a schedule established pursuant to local law, ordinance, or resolution for the benefit of and to aid in the relocation of tenants necessarily displaced from an urban renewal area by (i) the acquisition of real property by a local public agency or by any other public body, (ii) code enforcement activities undertaken in connection with an urban renewal project, or (iii) a program of voluntary rehabilitation of buildings or other improvements in accordance with an urban renewal plan. Such 'other payments' may include but need not be limited to payments made to such tenants to induce their voluntary removal, expenses of redecorating accommodations to which such tenants are relocated and payments to persons for the services of finding accommodations to which such tenants are to be relocated. Such payments shall be made subject to such rules or regulations as may be prescribed by the Administrator, and shall not exceed, in the case of an individual or family, five hundred dollars for voluntary removal, one hundred and twenty-five dollars for redecoration, or a finder's fee of three hundred dollars, or in no event shall the total amount of such payments in the case of an individual or family exceed five hundred dollars."

SEC. 3. Section 106(f) (3) of the National Housing Act of 1945 is amended by adding the following sentence at the end thereof: "Any contract with a local public agency which was executed under this title on or after January 1, 1963, may be amended to provide for other payments as defined in paragraph (2) of this subsection."

(The following information was later submitted for inclusion in the record :)

CITY OF NEW YORK,
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR,
New York, N.Y., March 5, 1964.

Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing,
Committee on Banking and Currency,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Mayor Wagner asked me to transmit the additional information requested by you and the members of the Subcommittee on Housing. Senator Javits asked for the following breakdown on the number of housing units completed in New York City from 1951-63:

Number of housing units completed in New York City, 1951-63

Both you and Senator Clark expressed interest in the indirect impact created by the 1 man-year of work in direct construction. The best estimate we have, generalizing from the "Input-Output Studies of the New York Metropolitan Area" by Barbara R. Berman, is for every $1 of construction employment in New York City, an additional $3.17 of local employment is generated.

We appreciate the opportunity afforded Mayor Wagner to appear before your subcommittee to outline the views of his administration on the omnibus housing

bill.

With warm personal regards,
Sincerely,

JULIUS C. C. EDELSTEIN.

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me say at this time, during the testimony of administration witnesses yesterday we had some discussion regarding relocation payments with particular reference to a study being carried on by a subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee. There was some question regarding when this study might be complete. A press release pertaining to activities of the subcommittee has now come to my attention, and without objection I should like to insert this in the record, together with other materials which may be received relating to this study.

(See p. 1141.)

(The press release referred to is as follows:)

PRESS RELEASE, WASHINGTON, D.C., FEBRUARY 17, 1964

Representative Clifford Davis of Tennessee, chairman of the Select Subcommittee on Real Property Acquisition of the Committee on Public Works, announced today that the subcommittee will hold public hearings in Boston, Mass., on February 27, and in Providence, R.I., on February 28.

These hearings, and others held in different areas of the country during the past year, are part of a comprehensive study undertaken by the subcommittee to determine whether owners and occupants of property affected by Federal and federally assisted programs receive fair and equal compensation, and other assistance, as needed, considering the value of their property, the losses and expenses they may incur in replacing their homes, or in reestablishing or liquidating their farms and businesses, and the interests of the general taxpayer.

The New England hearings will be concerned primarily with the effects of land acquisition activity in urban areas. In essence, the subcommittee wants to know whether present laws and agency practices actually cause serious financial hardships and losses to individuals, families, and business concerns; and if so, it is anxious to receive constructive suggestions for alleviating such difficulties.

Representatives of Federal, State, and local agencies concerned with programs of urban renewal, public housing, and highway construction, among others, have been invited to appear before the subcommittee. Nongovernment witnesses expected to be heard will include property owners and tenants affected by these programs, lawyers, appraisers, economists, sociologists, business management specialists, and others.

Chairman Davis has emphasized that the subcommittee is not inquiring into matters such as the desirability of particular programs, the location or design of specific projects, or the need for acquisition of particular properties. The subcommittee assignment is limited to those matters which bear directly on the fairness of compensation and other assistance to persons displaced or adversely affected by public improvement projects constructed by, or with, the aid of Federal funds.

Persons desiring to be heard, or wishing to submit statements, are invited to write to the subcommittee at room 415, George Washington Inn, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Other members of the subcommittee are: Representative Robert E. Jones, of Alabama; Representative Ed Edmondson, of Oklahoma; Representative Harold

1 "Projection of a Metropolis," technical supplement to the New York metropolitan region study by Barbara R. Berman, Benjamin Chivitz, and Edgar Hoover, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1961, pp. 50-53.

T. Johnson, of California; Representative T. A. Thompson, of Louisiana; Representative Howard W. Robison, of New York; Representative John C. Kunkel, of Pennsylvania; Representative James R. Grover, Jr., of New York; and Representative James H. Quillen, of Tennessee.

Senator SPARKMAN. Next we have the Honorable Henry Maier, mayor of the city of Milwaukee, representing the American Municipal Association. Come around, Mr. Maier.

Mr. Maier, we are glad to have you with us, and you proceed in your own way. For the benefit of the record, I will ask you to identify the gentleman who is with you.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY MAIER, MAYOR OF MILWAUKEE, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY DONALD SLATER, STAFF MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION

Mr. MATER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is Mr. Donald Slater, staff member of the American Municipal Association. I am Henry Maier, the mayor of the city of Milwaukee, and vice president of the American Municipal Association.

I appear before you today on behalf of the city of Milwaukee, and on behalf of the 13,000 municipal governments which are voluntarily united in the American Municipal Association. I want to thank Senator Sparkman for the introduction of this bill. I should also like to thank Senator Clark, for his efforts on our behalf, and the committee in attendance.

Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late, and I am not so enamored of the sound of my own voice that I would like to detain this committee overlong. I have filed a statement here. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will just proceed to hit some of the high points of my testimony, and see if I can summarize.

Senator SPARKMAN. That will be very well. The statement will be printed, in its entirety, in the record.

Mr. MAIER. Since, Mr. Chairman, I issued a press statement for the AMA, I would like to validate that, if I may, on the record, and I will just summarize my other points.

Senator SPARKMAN. Very well.

Mr. MAIER. The main point of my testimony here is that the cities of America could serve as "shock troops" in President Johnson's "war on poverty," if we are given the proper tools; that American cities, in the next few decades, face a challenge that is unprecedented in the Nation's history.

Our cities already contain upward of 70 percent of the American people, and produce more than 85 percent of Federal revenues. It is not inconceivable that perhaps 9 of 10 Americans will live in urban surroundings by as soon as 1980.

Our cities are absorbing the ill fed, the ill housed, and the ill clothed of the country.

Not only that, but they have the additional problem of absorbing the unacculturated to the life of the city, and no city, working off a property tax base, has the resources to deal with this problem. The Federal Government must take increasing awareness of it.

Already there are in America a million more slum dwellers than farm dwellers, yet the Federal Government spends more on behalf of

farmers and rural Americans than on alleviating the misery of those forced to live in squalor in the slums which infest our cities.

It is certainly imperative that our Nation utilize every available resource in the scientific and technological battle for the mastery of space. But, can we afford to allow the first American on the moon to return to an afflicted urban civilization unable to support further exploration of space?

I do not ask merely for the protection of the cities, but for assistance in assuring the continued vitality, health, and even survival of the Nation itself.

For the survival of this Nation, and this form of government, is intimately tied to the welfare, the survival, the health, the development, and the economic growth of our urban centers, which provide homes and jobs for so large a segment of the American people.

This added strength is essential-with it, our cities can serve as the shock troops in President Johnson's pledged "unconditional war on poverty."

Unless our local governments are given the weapons to contain the spread of residential blight, and industrial and commercial deterioration threatening the huge reservoir of national wealth concentrated in the cities, poverty in America will indeed be a most difficult enemy to vanquish.

I would like to say that I think that the act helps implement this fashioning of the new tools for providing better financing to enable our local governments to carry on, the tools which were initially fashioned in a rather basic way in the 1961 bill. I do believe that this bill is a long step forward, and it is in general conformance with the position of the American Municipal Association.

The new approach is perhaps best illustrated by provisions recommended by the administration and designed to encourage planned development of subdivisions and whole new communities.

On this matter, however, since the association had not had an opportunity to fully analyze and formally act on the matter, I cannot support this aspect of the administration bill, S. 2468.

Senator CLARK. Mayor, let me interrupt you there. You say you cannot support it. Does that mean you oppose it?

Mr. MAIER. No; I said we have not fully analyzed it.

Senator CLARK. So you do not take any position on that part of S. 2468?

Mr. MAIER. We take no position.

Senator CLARK. I was glad to hear you say that, because, to my opinion, it is very important that we should do something about urban development. I would hate to see AMA take the position that, because everything in it does not help the core city, they are going to be against doing anything for the suburbs, which I think may need more done to them than the core city does.

Mr. MAIER. I would say that other portions of the bill certainly contribute in the establishment of the new national conception of the complete community development. The increased relocation payments to displaced small businesses are certainly a step forward, the efforts to continue contributing to the economic vitality of the city, the increased relocation payments to families, elderly individuals, displaced in urban renewal areas, will certainly further the program in this area.