I am sure there will be some overlapping, because I think the demonstration cities program is broad enough that it would cover maybe many things that we are doing in other programs.

But I think, truthfully, that the urban renewal program has been so well established and has done such a tremendous job, at least for cities that I have visited, and for our city, that I do not think we should lose that into something else.

Senator SPARKMAN. Has urban renewal proved satisfactory in Louisville?

Mayor SCHMIED. I have been with urban renewal, sir, for about 41⁄2 years, and I think it has been the greatest asset to our downtown. community. In fact, I would like to have more, because I think we are doing an injustice to some areas of our city by not going farther than we have gone.

I know you can only bite off so much at a time.

But now that we are starting to redevelop our medical center and our downtown areas and our riverfront and our university and our medical center, all of these things have had just a tremendous impact on us. We would never have been able to accomplish it without urban renewal, and it has been a fine program.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor. I enjoyed your statement. I appreciate having your presentation.

Mayor SCHMIED. Thank you, Senator, for your time.

Senator SPARKMAN. Do either one of you gentlemen have anything to say?

Mr. LEETH. No, sir.

Mr. WARNER. No, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much.

Mayor SCHMIED. Thank you, sir, for your time.

(Mayor Schmied subsequently submitted the following information

for the record:)

Hon. JOHN J. SPARKMAN,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, D.C.

CITY OF LOUISVILLE, KY., May 2, 1966.

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: It is my understanding that you have introduced Senate bill 3282 which is legislation proposed to amend title I of the Housing Act of 1949, authorizing financial assistance for urban renewal projects involving the central business district of a community with regard to certain requirements otherwise applicable. This amended legislation is tremendously important to the future of our cities.

In looking at a draft copy of the legislation, it is noted that it will alleviate certain difficulties in the existing urban renewal legislation, which inhibit the renewal of downtown central business districts. This legislation is vital and of prime importance to the orderly growth of cities and the overall community. The legislation is necessary in order to provide planning and eventual completion of the revitalization of entire central business districts. The amended legislation will allow for renewal of the central business district on a staged basis, thereby providing the greatest flexibility for the revitalization of the downtown areas. This legislation should recognize that certain public facilities essential to the central business district should qualify as noncash grants-in-aid.

By enacting this legislation, Congress should permit cities to be able to plan and basically guarantee the revitalization of the central business district, thereby assuring that private developers will be more encouraged to readily participate, and thus stimulating maximum participation by private enterprise and minimizing the necessity of public acquisition. The enacting of this legislation would increase job opportunities, strengthen the economic base of the overall com

62-551-66-pt. 1-28

munity, and enable the cities to finance their urban renewal programs and other related activities on a more efficient and orderly basis.

This legislation and its intent shows that Congress recognizes that the health of the central business district of a city is essential to a well-balanced overall community. The city of Louisville supports this legislation, and I would appreciate your allowing this letter to be included in the record of any hearings regarding the legislation.

Sincerely yours,

KENNETH A. SCHMIED, Mayor.

Senator SPARK MAN. Our next witness is Mr. Nathaniel Keith, president of the National Housing Conference.

Mr. Keith, we are pleased to have you before our committee again. STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL S. KEITH, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL HOUSING CONFERENCE

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. We have a copy of your statement. You know, of course, that the whole statement will be printed in the record. You proceed as you see fit.

Mr. KEITH. If agreeable with you, sir, to conserve the committee's time, I will summarize the high points of the statement.

Senator SPARKMAN. Very well.

Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I welcome this opportunity to appear again before this committee to present the views of the National Housing Conference on major legislative proposals of crucial importance to housing, urban renewal, and community development.

As the members of the committee will recall, it was my privilege to appear before you last year in support of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 which represented most significant and farreaching legislation in these fields.

The bills which are before your committee now likewise include important proposals by the administration for extending national programs directed toward meeting the massive problems of urban and urbanizing communities where the great preponderance of the U.S. population live and work.

The National Housing Conference was deeply impressed by the scope and incisiveness of the President's message on the cities. We are likewise impressed by the objectives of the proposed Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 which is now before your committee.

Notwithstanding the progress and expanding activities directed toward the elimination of slums and blight in more than 800 communities throughout the country, it is obvious to all of us that only a small fraction of these pressing problems have been corrected by our national efforts to date, and that there persist in most communities large sections characterized by slums, congestion, poverty, and all the attendant social evils.

The persistence of these conditions constitutes a glaring contradiction to American resources and achievable American aspirations to establish a decent standard of living and a rewarding environment for all our population. As recent experience has shown, these large areas of blight, dilapidation, and poverty are also breeding grounds

for social disorders which are a blot on the image of American society, at home and in the world.

On behalf of the National Housing Conference I therefore register our enthusiastic endorsement of the broad objectives of the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 to launch massive local programs for the upgrading of broad sections of cities through the concentrated and coordinated use of all available Federal aids and local private and governmental resources, including the supplementary Federal grants proposed by the bill.

We are in full accord with the findings and declaration of purpose set forth in section 2 of the bill. We welcome its recognition also that the solution of the human problems in these areas require more than the upgrading of the physical environment and must involve equally a great intensification of social programs and services.

In keeping with the long-term commitment of the National Housing Conference to programs leading to a massive expansion in the supply of adequate housing for low- and moderate-income families and individuals and of essential community facilities and services, we welcome the explicit recognition of these needs in the declaration of purpose of the bill, in the definition of comprehensive city demonstration programs contained in section 4, and in the statement of relocation requirements set forth in section 9.

The comprehensive and coordinated attack on these problem areas proposed in the bill therefore holds forth the promise of greatly expanded local programs and greatly expanded Federal assistance to communities to overcome these blots on American society. We are convinced that, on the basis of experience and progress in communities over the past decades and of the growing recognition of the need for greatly expanded efforts in this direction, these objectives can be achieved, provided sufficient Federal financial support and leadership are forthcoming.

Our reservations with respect to the content of the bill which is before your committee do not run to its objectives, which we enthusiastically support. Our reservations run rather to the question of wether the Federal resources which would be available under the bill are sufficient to realize these promises. Specifically, I would like to present the following comments to the committee:"

(1) While the language of the bill itself does not place a ceiling on the number of cities which could participate in the demonstration cities program, the presentation by the administration and the amount of supplemental Federal financial assistance proposed indicate clearly an intent to limit the participation, for the time being at least, to 65 or 70 cities of varying sizes. There can be no question that the number of cities throughout the United States which are qualified to meet the requirements for a demonstration program as set forth in the bill and which would be vitally interested in availing themselves of this imaginative broader approach are substantially in excess of this number.

In the interest of the long overdue expansion in our programs for elimination of slums and blight, we seriously question a policy which would discriminate against cities of equal capacity and equal commitment to accomplish the laudable objectives of the bill.

We therefore strongly urge that the committee in undertaking action on this bill make it clear that the benefits of the cities demonstration program shall be available to all qualified cities which apply and in the order of their application. We also strongly recommend that contract authority for the total supplemental demonstration grant of $2,300 million recommended by the President be authorized in this bill, to become available immediately upon the enactment of the legislation.

The volume of the ensuing applications from qualified cities would then place both the administration and the Congress in position to gage the long-run need for financing of the cities demonstration program, which clearly will be greatly in excess of $2,300 million.

(2) Another factor of equally great concern to us is the inadequate financing of the underlying programs which would establish the basis for city demonstration programs. It is clear that the most fundamental of these programs is urban renewal which obviously would represent the core of any extensive city demonstration program.

The urban renewal capital grant authorization, as established by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, is far below the rate of requests for commitments for eligible projects which are currently being received from the more than 800 communities participating in that program. The result is that there is a current backlog of applications involving more than $800 million in capital grant commitments and that commitment authority for any new projects, no matter how meritorious or urgently needed, are evidently not possible before the beginning of the next fiscal year.

Furthermore, when the additional contract authority of $725 million for the fiscal year 1966-67 becomes available on July 1 this year. the indications are that the backlog of pending eligible applications will rapidly exhaust this amount unless the progress of the program is to be arbitrarily curtailed.

The whole implication of the Demonstration Cities Act is that urban renewal activity in the participating cities will have to be greatly expanded in order to accomplish the objectives of the program. This situation leads us to two major conclusions:

First, that the urban renewal program as such is substantially underfinanced and, second, that the increased demands for urban renewal commitments which will be generated by the demonstration cities program can be accommodated only through a curtailment of urban renewal funds for other eligible projects either in the same cities or in other communities not participating in the demonstration program. The alternative, which we strongly urge this committee to consider, is to increase substantially the urban renewal authorization.

At the 35th Annual Convention of the National Housing Conference, the members of our organization, acting on the recommenadtions of its broadly based resolutions committee, urged that the capital grant authorization for urban renewal be increased by $1 billion per year for a 3-year period. This action was based on the evidence of constantly increasing local demand for urban renewal assistance and the further demands which will be generated by the demonstrations cities program.

If such action is not feasible at this session of Congress, our members strongly recommend that the balance of the contract authority

of $2.9 billion made available by the 1965 act for a 4-year period be released without limitation as to fiscal years. This would have the result of satisfying present backlog demands, the continuing applications which will be filed by communities at an increasing rate, and the expanded demands which will be generated by the demonstration cities program. This would also place the Congress in position to reappraise the long-term continuing need for urban renewal funds in 1967 or 1968.

Because of the long leadtime involved in urban renewal activities. between the initial commitment of capital grant funds and their actual expenditure during project execution, the impact of such action on budgetary expenditures in the next 3 fiscal years would be of very small proportions.

(3) In the light of the far-reaching objectives of the Demonstration Cities Act, comparable problems of underfinancing would be presented by related grant programs authorized by the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 which would be involved in many, if not all, of the local demonstration programs. I refer particularly to the programs for grants for basic water and sewer facilities, grants for neighborhood facilities, and grants for urban open space and beautification.

As stated previously, the National Housing Conference is strongly in accord with the objectives of the bill for an increase in the supply of adequate housing for low- and moderate-income families and individuals as an indispensable element in the undertaking of the proposed demonstration programs.

We point out to the committee that the accomplishment of this objective and the satisfaction of the relocation requirements of the bill will necessarily require the development of new housing and related community facilities either on vacant land or on other sites not involving substantial residential displacement. It should therefore be clearly recognized that Federal assistance will be necessary for such residential development, whether or not contained in the demonstration program area as such or within the municipal limits of the cities involved.

In concluding my comments on the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966, I wish to reiterate the strong support of the National Housing Conference for the far-reaching objectives set forth by the bill and our equally strong recommendations for amendments as suggested previously to make the achievement of these objectives a feasible reality.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT

I would also like to express the general support of the National Housing Conference for the objectives of the Urban Development Act, S. 2977. The goals set forth in title I of that bill with regard to more effective coordinated metropolitan area planning and programed development have long been supported by the National Housing Conference.

In our opinion the supplementary grants for certain types of development facilities which would be authorized for metropolitan areas meeting the requirements of this title would provide an important in