for failure to meet such deadline, and that builder furnish a suitable completion bond in such amounts and with such sureties as the Commissioner determines to be appropriate to provide for the payment of such penalties in the event of such failure.

5. That both Housing Acts include in their commitment the cost of recreation, a community center or other community rooms or buildings, including necessary fixtures, furnishings, and equipment therefor, whether attached or unattached, and include necessary grounds maintenance equipment.

6. That under section 231 and section 202 provide that—

a loan under this section shall be in an amount equal to the total development cost, unless the applicant specifically requests a loan in a lesser amount.

7. That wherever the Housing for the Elderly Acts provide for the age of "62 years or over," each place it appears, strike out and insert in lieu thereof, "60 years of age or over."

8. That the Federal subsidy of $10 per person in public housing be extended to nonprofit corporations under the condition that subsidy will be used to decrease the individual's rental payments.

I have studied S. 2468, H.R. 9751, Housing and Community Act of 1964, now before the House Housing Subcommittee, and I endorse increased relocation payments to families and elderly individuals 62 years and older, if the age is reduced to 60 years.

I endorse section 102, 221 (d) (3), assistance to elderly homeowners in urban renewal areas.

I endorse section 401 (2) which spells out "elderly" and single persons eligible for benefit under housing for low-income families.

In regard to section 402 19 (a), subsidy for certain occupants of public housing units. May I again point out we have no public housing in California. We suggest this subsidy be extended to low-rent nonprofit project insured by FHA.

I endorse section 805, which clearly spells out single persons as being eligible under section 221. In order to give prospective sponsors of quality, low-rent housing for the elderly a broader approach to accomplishing their desires, this section is absolutely necessary.

We are opposed to any activity or extension of CFA in housing for the elderly. Our bitter experience contends the transfer of housing for the elderly out of CFA operations to FHA is absolutely necessary to the well-being of the elderly of this Nation who so desperately need the cheapest and best modern, fireproof housing available. They will never get it from the men who now control that agency.

Gentlemen, in this statement I have tried to squeeze my 7 years of intensive activity in seeking to create the kind of housing I believe you Members of Congress desire to see made available for the great majority of the elderly who so need it.

Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much, Mr. McLain, for your

statement.

Mr. McLAIN. Thank you, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Our next witness is Rt. Rev. Msgr. Raymond J. Gallagher, secretary of the National Conference of Catholic Charities.

It is a pleasure to welcome you here this morning again.

STATEMENT OF RT. REV. MSGR. RAYMOND J. GALLAGHER, SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC CHARITIES

Monsignor GALLAGHER. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Muskie, my name is Msgr. Raymond J. Gallagher. I am the secretary of the National Conference of Catholic Charities located at 1346 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. In that capacity, I follow in the footsteps of Msgr. John O'Grady who has appeared before you on many occasions to express his point of view with regard to the need for adequate housing for all citizens of this Nation.

Although I follow Monsignor O'Grady in the official capacity as secretary of the National Conference of Catholic Charities, I certainly could not succeed in replacing him in this particular matter of housing and urban renewal. I need not recall for you his great contribution to this field and the long years he spent in championing it, considerably ahead of his day in this matter. He was not only a real philosopher in the principles involved in this field but also an expert technician in the matter of housing, its financing, and the role of Government in supplying it. I sincerely hope that his reputation will, in a manner of speaking, add weight to the remarks which I make relative to this proposed Housing and Community Development Act of 1964.

I do qualify as a pupil of Monsignor O'Grady, having observed his complete dedication to the housing needs of his fellow citizens. I have learned a great deal from him that has enabled me to crystallize some of my own convictions relative to this field. An an individual citizen as well as in the role of secretary of the national conference, I am grateful to you gentlemen for the opportunity of expressing my concerns about the situation which faces our Nation in the matter of adequate housing.

I believe that this discussion is transpiring in the right place, namely, before the instrumentality of our Government which is seeking to define its responsibility. The breadth of housing needs is such that it requires a broad base of action by the Federal Government. I come to this conclusion after considerable thought since I believe sincerely in the obligation we all have to preserve the initiative and responsibility of the more fundamental level of Government as it seeks to meet its duty.

I recognize the necessity which prevails for higher echelons of Government to perform services with and in behalf of lower levels, but would be quick to agree that Government should do for its citizenry only those things which they cannot do for themselves. From the standpoint of the statistical aspect of the problem, I feel we are not yielding any of these principles of self-determination when we endorse a Federal program to provide adequate housing units. I do therefore endorse and recommend legislation which sets forth, in the light of these principles, proposals to provide in adequate numbers housing units for the unhoused.

In suggesting implementation of this responsibility, I would point out that this duty corresponds to the right we claim for all of our citizens to decent, sturdy, and sanitary housing, recognizing no limitations as may arise from race, national origin, or present economic disadvantage. No one has manufactured the statistics of need.

All

of us have seen firsthand the factual data which supports current legislative proposals. If public housing is the alternate to a situation where families with 10 children must live in a single room-and I believe it is the alternate-then I will endorse the efforts of this committee to determine upon legislative measures to fulfill this responsibility.

By reason of my association with the work of the National Conference of Catholic Charities, I am naturally impressed with the effect which inadequate housing has upon the social and familial strengths of life. In this area, I consider myself competent to reflect a knowledge of serious weaknesses which prevail in our social fabric by reason of the many programs of direct service to the poor which are administered by our 375 offices throughout the country. Truthfully, the manner in which the absence of adequate housing contributes to the preservation of poverty and perpetuates subminimal levels of life needs no delineation for you. You are well acquainted with the direct end result of intolerable social conditions which prevail in many of our communities by reason of forced living conditions which contribute to immorality, delinquency, and personal disorganization.

Much of our work is done with individuals and families possessing a marginal income. It is one of the disgraces of our day that our kind of society seems to foster the housing profiteer, the parasite, who exploits both houses and individuals for the sake of a quick dollar and who sheds any sense of responsibility for the resulting social conditions which his practice breeds, namely, indifference, lack of initiative, irresponsibility, defeatism.

This would be severe enough if its toll was limited to the individuals involved. This type of problem, however, affects families chiefly and thereby minimizes the chances which the children will have of escaping from this kind of fate in the days of their adulthood. It takes a tremendous toll from the parents of these children who must be completely frustrated at their inability to maintain a reasonable semblance of strong, meaningful family life. Their ability to raise their children to be responsible citizens in the future is negated completely. These uncontrolled and unmotivated children are deprived of the kind of character-building experience which they need to prepare themselves for the future. Because these sad statistics are not always clearly related to housing deficiencies, it would seem worthwhile for us to mention that fact here.

The cost to future generations in the form of spiraling budgets, for the control, reform, and rehabilitation of people, is beyond our ability to compute. The cost of total support for the residue of personal casualties which result from this type of housing deficiency constitutes a sum of money we are already calling fantastic. I sincerely hope that differences of opinion or position will not interfere with the ability of this Congress to enact legislation that underscores this sense of responsibilty and which sets forth the sense of purpose and commitment which our Nation feels for the poor. There can be no question but that housing is a tool for maintaining the civic, social, and familial health of the core of our cities. It is equally clear that this no longer applies solely to the large metropolitan areas but is also a matter of concern for population centers of lesser numbers. There are several points contained with this proposal to which I would feel competent to address myself:

(a) Provision for an authorization of a large number of housing units than was previously the case.

(b) Special provisions concerning aging couples and individuals in need of adequate housing.

(c) Financial supplements for those in need of new housing by reason of displacement from their homes or businesses by urban renewal programs.

(d) Proposal to use existing housing through rental or leasing as a means of supplementing available housing units.

(a) Authorization of a larger number of units: The need for this is clearly outlined in several social phenomena dramatically posed before us. We are aware of the continued urbanization of our mobile population. Numbers of people leaving rural areas throughout the country, seeking their fortunes in the large industrial cities, constitute a problem with multiple aspects, not the least of which is that of housing. When we match the phenomena of increased numbers with the sad realities of growing obsolescence in existing housing, we understand rather clearly the fact that significantly larger numbers of housing units must be made available in order to make any headway in reducing the backlog of applications.

As if this urban overcrowding was not serious enough by itself, there is the stark reality that more and more of our families are sinking to the poverty line by reason of decreased employment opportunities in the very industrial centers to which they come. The loss of job opportunities by reason of automation strikes particularly at the group which has the greatest need for governmental assistance in the matter of housing. For the most part, they are the unskilled and minimally educated, the family without resources close at hand, the family without savings or property rights. The extreme need in this group underscores what we have said already as to the great importance of continual Government interest in providing adequate housing.

The projected increase in population levels in this century has been pointed out to us in one context or another as a challenge, or even as a blessing. The other side of the picture is the stark reality that a substantial increase in available housing at a level this group can afford, is a challenge of no mean proportion. All these facts lend themselves very well as support to the provision of this proposal to provide a significantly larger number of housing units.

(b) Special needs of the elderly: It is very gratifying to see the provision which this proposal would make for elderly individuals or couples. From the point of view of our experience in soil service, it is regularly necessary to refute the idea that aging people belong in institutions for the elderly. Such a conclusion is neither valid nor practical.

It is easily understood that aging people would much rather stay in their familiar surroundings with their cherished possessions in preference to entering a home for the aging. It is not practical to consider that solution on an exclusive basis because it would not be possible for sponsoring groups to build or staff enough homes to offer such a service. When one considers the right of elderly people to quiet, tranquil security, in settings of their own preference, this proposal would seem to make a magnificent contribution.

I refer particularly to the favorable loan arrangements which may be extended to elderly people for the renovation and improvement of their property. Such advantage would make it possible for them to stay in their own neighborhoods among people who have come to be interested in and concerned about them. The naturalness of this arrangement is highly desirable and I am sure that endorsement would readily be given by anyone who is a student of the psychology of aging people.

(c) Supplemental benefits to displaced individuals and small businesses: The provision in this proposal dealing with the hardships often endured by owners of small businesses and occupants of rental housing, displaced by urban renewal, recommends its favorable consideration. The record reveals many instances where an individual simply cannot duplicate his facilities or his housing in another area at the rate he is currently paying. It would seem eminently fair that some consideration be given to this economic disadvantage so that no hardship be visited upon them by reason of yielding to a program of urban renewal.

I would endorse the provisions of this proposal in that they provide for justice to those who are undoubtedly existing on marginal incomes which cannot be expanded to meet the demands of more expensive premises to which they must move. These proposals would serve to protect the right of an individual to engage in his own small business, without penalty or handicap.

(d) Proposal to use existing housing: These provisions seem to deserve special endorsement. The maximum use of existing housing serves to preserve several values. If a public housing official is authorized to acquire through lease or rental a facility that is usable. or can readily be made usable, he preserves an existing asset in the neighborhood in which it is located. In so doing, he is able to bring to bear in existing housing a degree of responsibility which would seem to preserve it from the likelihood of rapid deterioration. Certainly, he keeps it out of the lands of the housing profiteer who might take such a single dwelling and convert it into a tenement. By so doing, he contributes to the stability of the neighborhood in which this house exists, thereby preventing the downward trend of deterioration.

More important than the physical structure are the families that might be jammed into such available house when it is in the hands of a profiteer. Families thus victimized constitute an expense we can ill afford, and if the control of this type housing assures this family adequacy and privacy, then it is a value to be desired.

Ideally, housing under such control would guarantee a regular pattern of repair and maintenance, thus assuring that the day-to-day appearance of the house will give an uplift not only to the neighborhood but to the families that dwell therein. Houses of the vintage that we envision here would be ideally suited to the needs of the larger family. Built in a day before small houses became the vogue, the threeor four-bedroom house in this category would be ideally suited to provide normal, respectable, and comfortable living for the larger family of the low-income worker.

As a conclusion, let me reaffirm my position as recommending a strong bill that will take care of increasing numbers of families which