POLICY RESOLUTION ON URBAN AMERICA ADOPTED BY THE SIXTH CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, AFL-CIO The major domestic issues facing America are increasingly urban problems. The population is growing by about 22 million or more per year. And each year, hundreds of thousands of people move off the farms and out of the rural areas, seeking homes and jobs in the cities. From a largely rural country of fewer than 36 million people less than 100 years ago, America is now a nation of 1942 million. In the past 20 years since the end of World War II, the population grew by 55 million. Approximately 70 percent of all Americans now live in 212 metropolitan areas that occupy less than 10 percent of the surface of the country. By 1985, only 20 years from now, the population is expected to reach 250 million, and about 80 percent will live in metropolitan areas. The rapid growth of our increasingly urban population has been developing great pressures on available facilities. The cities have exploded into unplanned metropolitan areas with water shortages, air and water pollution, and inadequate mass transit, as well as shortages of schools, health-care facilities, recreational areas, and cultural facilities. The central cities have increasingly become slum ghettos and decaying areas with concentrated populations of the poor, the elderly and minority groups. At the same time, the spread of sprawling suburbs and highways is gobbling up millions of acres, with little, if any, planning for metropolitan areawide needs. Close to 15 million dwelling units-most of them in urban areas are still substandard. With an annual residential construction rate of only 11⁄2 million units a year-including the annual construction of merely some 30,000 low-cost public housing units-it is clear that the Nation's housing needs are not being met. Moreover, the continuing rapid growth of our urban population in the next 20 years will require millions of new housing units supplemented by improved and expanded community facilities and public services. These urban problems are much too immense and too complex for local governments to handle on their own. Moreover, the explosion of our metropolitan areas and many of the accompanying urban problems have crossed the boundary lines of cities, counties, and States. Only a massive national effort can meet these urgent and growing needs to rebuild our metropolitan areas with adequate housing, community facilities, and public services for a rapidly growing population. Such effort requires decisive Federal Government leadership, coordination, direct grants and low-interest loans, with the cooperation of State and local governments and private enter-prise. To accomplish such a huge task, metropolitan area planning is essential and the creation of local development mechanisms that are capable of effectively utilizing Federal assistance on a continuing and soundly financed basis: Therefore, be it Resolved, The AFL-CIO urges the Federal Government to undertake a massive effort to rebuild our cities. We congratulate the Congress for enacting legislation to establish the new Cabinet-level Department of Housing and Urban Development. We urge the Congress and the President to provide sufficient funds and adequate staff for this agency-to enable it to establish the basis for a new and productive relationship between the Federal Government and America's rapidly growing cities. In the face of the present backlog and increasing needs of a growing population for adequate housing, the volume of residential construction should be raised to at least 22 million dwelling units a year. In order to assure a balanced supply of housing responsive to the needs of economically disadvantaged families Federal, State and local programs should include consultation with and active representation of trade unions, genuine cooperatives, and minority groups. Housing for low-income families We reaffirm our support of a step-up of low-rent public housing construction as a vital means for meeting the housing needs of low-income families. Such construction should be increased to a yearly rate of at least 125,000 dwelling units for the next 3 years. The Public Housing Administration should be authorized to make capital grants for writing down land costs for low-rent developments that are not in renewal areas, to the same extent as is done for projects within renewal areas. We also urge authorization for the sale of low-rent public housing developments or parts of such developments to tenant cooperatives or to tenants who meet the income requirements for homeownership responsibility-where such sales would serve local needs for balanced housing and where new low-rent developments would replace those that are sold. The provision of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 as amended, which requires a 20-percent gap between the lowest private rental available and the upper rental limits for admission to public housing should be repealed. Adequate funds should be made available to implement the rent supplement program for disadvantaged people, enacted by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965-within the framework of stepped-up construction of housing for low-income families, including low-rent public housing. We ask that title I of the 1965 law be amended so that a least one-half of the total authorization, instead of only 10 percent, be made available for projects financed at an interest rate of 3 percent. This change will achieve the sound objective of combining in one development, housing for families of low incomes, along with families of moderate income. There is a need, in housing developments for low-income groups, for skilled personnel to counsel such families in meeting their problems and improving their economic condition and to encourage participation in the community. Federal grants should be made available to provide such personnel and essential physical facilities for these necessary social services. Urban renewal In reaffirming support for the urban renewal program, we note that the authorization of the 1965 act for this effort was inadequate to meet the needs of communities seeking to clear their slums and rejuvenate their blighted and deteriorating areas. We therefore, ask that the capital grant authorizations be increased by $1 billion per year for a 3-year period. This increase is essential for urban renewal to bring new life to the decaying central cities and towns, in accordance with their requirements. We also ask for an amendment which would increase the Federal grant from two-thirds to three-quarters of the net project cost. Housing for moderate income families Previously enacted housing programs have failed to provide sufficient housing for those whose incomes are above the maximum set for admission to low-rent public housing but below the income needed to obtain standard private housing financed at market interest rates. The 1965 housing law provides for an additional below-market interest rate program under section 221 (d) (3) of 40,000 dwellings a year over a 4-year period. This authorization falls far short of meeting the needs of moderateincome families. We ask for a new authorization of 3-percent interest loans under section 221(d) (3) to provide 100,00 additional dwellings a year, or 300,000 additional dwellings over the next 3 years. To this end, the authorization for the Federal National Mortgage Association to purchase these loans should be increased by $2 billion, All housing under this program should be provided by cooperative, nonprofit and limited dividend corporations. It should serve families of moderate incomes who are unable to obtain adequate housing in the private market. The increased FNMA authorization would constitute a revolving fund for future loans under this program, through the utilization of the 1965 housing law, to pool and sell to private investors participations in a trust secured by below-market interest mortgages. The 1965 law authorized Federal appropriations to reimburse FNMA for the difference between the rate FNMA pays on the sale of participations to private investors and the 3-percent rate it charges. Nonprofit developments sponsored by labor organizations and by genuine cooperatives should be given an increasing role in all of the programs to provide housing for low or moderate-income families. This includes the below-market interest rate program under section 221(d) (3) and the rent supplement program under title I of the 1965 housing law. Motivated by the protection of the best interests of the consumer, this sponsorship assures accomplishment of the objectives of these housing programs, free from the risks and costs involved where sponsors are not consumer oriented. Housing for the elderly The 1965 housing law authorized $150 million of loans a year for a 4-year period, for housing for the elderly under section 202. This is inadequate in view of the tremendous need. We ask that this authorization be increased to $250 million of loans a year for the next 3 years. Cooperative acquisition of existing projects Further improvements are needed in the cooperative housing program under section 213, to enable the cooperatives to perform a larger role in providing better homes at lower monthly costs. A major, much-needed, improvement is to enable a consumer cooperative to acquire an existing property, with FHA insurance of the mortgage, in an amount which can be carried by the income from the property when operated on a nonprofit basis. Community facilities The 1965 law provided a total of $800 million of assistance over a 4-year period for the installation of public water and sewer facilities. This authorization was inadequate for these purposes. There is a need, moreover, for grants for many types of public facilities and public works. This includes the community facilities required for the conduct of programs involving services and assistance in the war against poverty. We, therefore, recommend an authorization of $2 billion annually for a 3-year period for public facility grants to local governments. Because of the importance of the renewal of central cities as the essential core of metropolitan areas, Federal grants should be allowed to cover 75 percent of the cost of essential community facilities, instead of two-thirds of the cost, as at present. Metropolitan and regional planning Cities and towns are the places of residence, the workshops and the cultural centers of the Nation. Coordinated programs of urban planning and urban development are essential for sound growth of our metropolitan areas. Sound metropolitan area planning will be enhanced by expanding Federal financial assistance to our cities for community facilities, acquisition of land reserves, and for up-to-date mass transit systems. A satisfactory housing and urban development program must include the necessary aid in providing community facilities, open space and community sites, and assuring soundly planned mass transit facilities, to be operated under proper labor standards. Metropolitan area planning should be fitted into a framework of regional plans designed to meet the problems of future growth. Equal housing opportunity A key feature of labor's housing program is its drive for equal housing opportunity for all Americans. There is no place in America for racial ghettos. Equal access, without regard to race, creed, color or national origin, to every residential neighborhood in every American community should be assured for every family in America. Equal opportunity in housing should be assured in all programs in which housing is provided with Federal aid or is protected by Federal insurance of mortgages or guarantee or regulation of mortgage loans. We ask that the President's Executive order on equal opportunity in housing be strengthened and its coverage extended to cover not only FHA and VA insured mortgages but also mortgage activities of all federally assisted or federally insured banks and savings and loan institutions. We pledge our fullest cooperation with the work of the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing. We again call for the enactment and forceful administration of State and local laws to outlaw all discrimination in housing on account of race, creed, color or national origin. Labor standards The Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 extended the requirement of compliance with prevailing wage rates and labor standards called for by the Davis-Bacon Act to new areas not previously covered. These requirements should apply to all employees engaged in construction in any program involving Federal financial assistance or Federal mortgage insurance. National Housing Conference For over 30 years, the National Housing Conference has been a leading force in the drive for better housing and better urban living for American families. A broadly based spokesman for the public interest, the National Housing Conference has cooperated with organized labor in working toward this common goal. The National Housing Conference therefore merits the continued support of the AFL-CIO and its affiliates. Labor housing committees Labor's goal of good homes in modern well-planned communities for all Americans can only be achieved with the vigorous support and cooperation of all of organized labor. Our housing efforts will be particularly enhanced by the establishment by affiliated unions and central bodies of effective housing committees to develop and support forward-looking housing programs in local communities and across the Nation. We call for prompt establishment of such committees to work closely with the appropriate agencies of local, State, and Federal governments and to back the housing committee of the AFL-CIO in its efforts to achieve the housing objectives of the trade union movement. STATEMENT BY THE AFL-CIO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ON URBAN AMERICA, For 2 years in a row, residential building has been out of step with the rest of the U.S. economy. Added to the previous deficits in the volume of new housing built within the reach of moderate- and low-income families, this lag has resulted in a far-reaching imbalance in America's economic development. Urban action is needed to deal with this fundamental economic problem. In the fiscal year 1967, starting next July 1, according to a census estimate, basic population factors should increase the rate of household formation by 180,000. This increase alone calls for a corresponding increase in housing starts. A much greater step-up in starts is necessary to redress the accumulated deficits of previous years to make possible the rehousing of families living in slums and substandard homes and those doubled up in overcrowded tenements. We support the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966, proposed by President Johnson in his special message to Congress on January 26. This is an important and auspicious step in the right direction. At the same time, we believe that the specific recommendations proposed to carry out this program are unduly modest. Their scope should be enlarged to make possible a truly effective onslaught on urban blight in cities and towns, large and small. If "massive additions to the supply of low and moderate cost housing," proposed by the President, are to be realized, additional legislation is needed. We believe provision must be made to step-up construction of low-rent public housing to a yearly rate of at least 125,000 dwelling units a year. We also urge that adequate funds be made promptly available to implement the rent supplement program for disadvantaged people, enacted by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. The authorization of the 1965 act for urban renewal was inadequate to meet the needs of communities seeking to clear their slums and rejuvenate their blighted and deteriorated areas. We, therefore, urge that the capital grant authorizations be increased by $1 billion per year for a 3-year period. America's urban problems are of foremost importance to the Nation's future welfare and growth. Now is the time to begin, with vision and courage, the necessary long-term effort that measures up to their complexity and their size. (Mr. Shishkin later supplied the following information for the committee :) Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR & CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Washington, D.C., May 9, 1966. Chairman, Housing Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: At the conclusion of my testimony before your subcommittee on April 22, I made the following statement: "Year after year, Federal housing programs have shown greater Federal receipts than expenditures. They have cost taxpayers nothing." According to the figures furnished by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, on a cash budget basis, the excess of receipts from housing programs over expenditures of HUD (or HHFA), amounted to $23,200,000 in 1964 and $61,600,000 in 1965. This is a notable fact which I hope the committee will take into account in weighing the merits of the housing legislation now before it. With many thanks and all good wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, BORIS SHISHKIN, Secretary, Housing Committee. Senator SPARKMAN. The next witness is Miss Beverly Diamond of the National Council on the Aging. Miss Diamond, will you come around, please? Miss Diamond, we are glad to have you with us, you and your associates. As I have told the others, your statement will be printed in full in the record. You proceed as you see fit. STATEMENT OF BEVERLY DIAMOND, NATIONAL COUNCIL ON THE AGING; ACCOMPANIED BY GARSON MEYER AND NICK J. MILETI Miss DIAMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Mr. Garson Meyer, who is president of the National Council on the Aging, an executive of Eastman Kodak, and Mr. Nick Mileti, who is vice president of Senior Consultants and a member of our housing committee. We will not go through this whole statement. We will try to make incisive statements on specific aspects. Consonant with the administration's proposal for a comprehensive and coordinated approach in developing new towns and in the demonstration cities' program, we would like to see a similar comprehensive and coordinated assault on housing problems of older persons who are most vulnerable to change, least capable of coping with such programs and have probably reached the zenith of their mobility. Yet the |