130 units will take care of 60 to 75 individuals.

This allows $18,000 for service buildings such as recreation on 30-unit basis or $90,000 on 150-unit basis.

150 units will take care of 300 to 375 individuals. This allows $18,000 for service buildings such as recreation on 30-unit basis or $90,000 on 150-unit basis.

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to recess here in a moment, subject to the call of the chairman. I again want to say that anyone who wishes to may file any supplemental statements or any other statements. We will hold the record open for a couple of weeks. We hope to have the bill ready for the floor no later than May 1, and we hope to start writing it up no earlier than April 10. Sometime around April 10.

As I said a moment ago, the staff will now proceed to take every suggestion that has been made and itemize it and study it, and present it to every member of this committee.

Then we will get busy on the real, tough part of this whole business, and that is writing up the legislation.

So, we will recess this hearing indefinitely, until the call of the chairman.

The Senate Banking and Currency Committee will have a meeting at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, the full committee, to receive a report from Mr. Cravens of RFC on what progress he is making in respect to liquidating RFC. We will also have the head of the commission that is disposing of the synthetic rubber plants, and he will answer any questions that any members of the committee might care to ask him.

With that, we will recess.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at the call of the chairman.)

HOUSING ACT OF 1954

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1954

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p. m., in room 301, Senate Office Building, Senator Barry Goldwater, presiding.

Present: Senators Capehart and Goldwater.

Also present: Senator Thomas H. Kuchel of California.

Senator GOLDWATER. The committee will please come to order. Our rst witness will be Mr. John P. Robin, executive director, Urban Reevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, Pa., representing the United States Conference of Mayors.

Mr. Robin, if you would like to give your testimony we will be very appy to start the meeting, now.

Your testimony will be made a part of the record as you have written t, and you may proceed in any way that you care to.

TATEMENT OF JOHN P. ROBIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH, PA., UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

Mr. ROBIN. Senator, I am John P. Robin. I am executive director f the Urban Redevelopment Authority at Pittsburgh, Pa. My testihony is presented on behalf of the United States Conference of layors, which represents almost all of the cities of this country of more than 50,000 population.

I would like to file for the record without reading it, resolution and tatement previously issued by the conference of mayors on our subject. Senator GOLDWATER. They will be received.

(The information referred to follows:)

ESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE 1953 ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, SEPTEMBER 22, 1953

SLUM CLEARANCE AND URBAN REDEVELOPMENT

Whereas since enactment of the Housing Act of 1949, over 6 square miles of ums and blight have been marked out for clearance and redevelopment; and Whereas some of this work is already underway involving 92 projects in 64 ties throughout the country; and

Whereas many other slum clearance and redevelopment projects have likewise ready been selected by cities for inclusion in the Federal program; and Whereas this program is fundamental to the necessary rebuilding and reconruction of slum and blighted areas in many of our cities; and

Whereas this is the only program of its character in which private investment ays a most important and integral part: Therefore, be it

Resolved, That the 1953 annual conference of the United States Conference of ayors petition the President and the Congress to carry forward, on an expanded sis, this most important phase of the overall national housing program.

44750-54-pt. 1- -66

RELOCATION PUBLIC HOUSING

At the Conference on Governmental Functions and Fiscal Resources, called by the President on March 31, 1953, last, the United States Conference of Mayors formally recommended that relocation public housing be authorized in order that the needs in those cities where slums are being cleared out could be met. It was pointed out that such housing was a critical necessity if the slum clearance program were to go forward effectively.

In the light of current needs the President's recommendation for 35,000 units for each of the next 4 years is estimated by the conference to be a minimum requirement.

Mr. ROBIN. I have served the conference since 1949 as its technical adviser and consultant on slum clearance and urban redevelopment problems. The points to be presented deal primarily with technical matters and the references I shall make will be on H. R. 7839 as it passed the House.

With the permission of the committee, I should like to file with the committee a copy of the resolution enacted by the United States Conference of Mayors at its 1953 annual conference last September, and also a statement having to do with relocation public housing as presented to the White House Conference on Governmental Functions and Fiscal Resources called by the President last March.

We have been operating under the Housing Act of 1949 for nearly 5 years and under that act have begun to rid our cities of slum areas. Title I of that act provides Federal financial assistance to cities to help in this task and we have found that, basically, title I has been of great assistance in this endeavor. Cities throughout the United States have availed themselves of the opportunity provided under title I, and as a result we now see fine new structures and neighborhoods replacing dilapidated, disease-infested, slums. For many reasons, this program has been somewhat slow in getting started, but it is now at the point where it is well under way and where we can observe how effective it actually is.

It is important to note that the Housing Act of 1954 continues this program and that Administrator Cole has stated in his testimony that it is the intent of the proposed act to continue to aid cities in the clearance and redevelopment of slum areas. This is essential, for the complete clearance of our massive slum areas is the only really effective treatment for them. Rehabilitation and conservation are of value in many areas, but they are not suitable tools when dealing with extensive slum districs. It is essential that cities continue to clear out these slum areas and that projects consisting solely of slum clearance and redevelopment be continued as eligible projects under the Housing Act of 1954. We have had the assurance of the administrator that this will be the case.

Of course, we are glad to get that, because as we see it the programs are varied. One is not an alternate to the other. We need general slum clearance just as much as we need rehabilitation and preservation of other areas. It depends upon their individual suitability.

The Conference of Mayors supports the new aids to cities provided in the Housing Act for rehabilitation and conservation. The more vigorous enforcement of housing laws, the improvement of neighborhoods through the installation of municipal improvements, and the undertaking of programs to encourage the rehabilitation of homes are essential if a city is to undertake a comprehensive attack on its blighted areas. The financial position of our cities is such that they

are extremely limited in what they can accomplish. With the Federal financial assistance here provided, cities throughout the country should be able to undertake the additional programs designed to improve those areas that are not yet ready to be cleared and to conserve those areas that can be still salvaged while they continue to clear out and redevelop the basic slum areas.

We find, however, a major deficiency in the Housing Act as it is now drawn. The act makes no specific provision for relocation public housing and without such housing the urban renewal program would be drastically impeded and in many cases made impossible. The act requires that cities relocate those displaced because of redevelopment and rehabilitation, and that these families be placed in decent, safe, and sanitary homes at rents the families can afford. A city cannot meet this requirement for low income families unless relocation housing is provided. Section 221 will provide some housing for families just above the public housing income level, but will not meet the needs of lower income families. If cities cannot meet the relocation requirement, they cannot carry out their urban renewal projects. At the end of 1953, there were some 154 redevelopment projects definitely firmed up. These 154 projects will displace some 71,000 families of which nearly 40,000 will be eligible for relocation public housing.

For instance, in our own project in Pittsburgh, we will have to displace 8,000 people who breakdown into about 2,000 families. There are about 1,200 of those families which are Negro and of those, 1,000 or more are eligible for public housing. Of the 800 white families, approximately two-thirds are eligible for public housing.

Basically, therefore, with such areas as that, and such massive numbers of people to deal with, a reservoir of public housing under our control and predictably under our control seems to be essential for carrying out a long-term program.

Under the new program, additional families will be displaced by enforcement of occupancy provisions, rehabilitation of structures, and other such activity in addition to the additional redevelopment projects that will be undertaken. On the one hand, the program is expanded, resulting in the increase in the number of displaced families, and on the other hand no provision is made for housing the lowincome families among them. We feel that as a minimum the Housing Act of 1954 should contain the housing program recommended by President Eisenhower, namely, 140,000 units over a 4-year period. We recommend strongly that this be included in the bill."

And, that should be on a 4-year basis. These programs, both in Washington and elsewhere, take some years to work out. I would say it takes 3 or 4 years for a redevelopment project to be studied and developed. It is a great handicap not to know that you are going to have a certain number of public housing units to march along these same years with you. Therefore, we feel very strongly that a determination that the 140,000 units will be provided over a 4-year period should be set down.

I should now like to raise some questions on several technical items in the proposed act. On page 18 of the bill, lines 3 to 5, there is a provision regarding mortgage insurance under section 220 that reads:

Provided, That, with respect to such delineated aren--an urban renewal area— in the opinion of the Commissioner (1) there exist necessary authority and financial capacity to assure the completion of such plan