replace blight with attractive and economical housing, social services, and community facilities. The bill recognizes that in many cases rehabilitation may be preferable to clearance but in many cases both will be used as the locality wishes.

I wish to emphasize that local citizens should have an even more important role in such demonstration projects from the early planning stages to the actual construction work. Local municipal leadership has often been unimaginative and unresponsive to the great problems of the cities. I believe this attitude is changing all over the country. Last week my colleague Senator Kennedy and I hosted a conference in Washington attended by over 350 local government officials from our State. I was besieged with questions about the demonstration cities proposal. Officials from the larger cities of Buffalo, Syracuse, and Rochester, as well as the smaller cities and even the townships, sought my help in enlisting their area in the new program. I am sure that my colleagues are aware of the significance such a program would play within New York City, as Mayor Lindsay has already testified to the strong feeling of his administration in support of this proposal.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think certain changes are necessary.

First, I would like to address myself to what I believe are the two most serious deficiencies in the pending proposal: the amount of funds to be made available and the selection process. The President has called for $2.3 billion to be made available over a 5-year period beginning in fiscal 1968. In fiscal 1967, a total of $17 million is to be available for planning and demonstration projects.

These sums will certainly limit the effectiveness of the program because they will limit the number of communities which will be able to receive aid and restrict the actual funds available to those cities which are allowed to participate. I hope that the legislation will be amended to allow the Department concerned to sign contracts with local governments for the entire $2.3 billion during fiscal 1967 even though actual funds would not be forthcoming until later. This would allow communities with aggressive leadership to move ahead immediately with their plans, while the budgetary impact would still be spread over the 6-year period envisaged by the President.

I would like to point out, wherever we have used prefinancing, such as in roads, it has been extremely advantageous to let people go ahead who could go ahead without inhibiting them with the appropriations problem. So that is point 1.

The administration has talked in terms of aiding some 60 to 70 cities, but this seems improbable in view of current funding plans. Secretary Weaver has mentioned that a typical demonstration project in a large city would contain about 100,000 people and that a large city would stand to receive approximately $440 million in Federal aid20 percent of the entire $2.3 billion-over the 5- or 6-year period of the project. If this estimate is accurate, then no more than two or three large cities could expect assistance.

In view of the limited funding of this program, the criteria for eligibility takes on a role of major importance.

So the first point I have, Mr. Chairman, is all we are going to commit is $2.3 billion, and it is very inadequate, and I would certainly plead for more, but if that is going to be our limit, according to the

budget, let's at least commit it in the sense that contracts can be made with respect to it, even though appropriations may occur during the whole 6-year interim.

The second point is eligibility. The criteria for eligibility becomes very important, and, in my judgment, a greater degree of specificity is needed in delineating the rather vague criteria in the bill. So in the next few days, I will offer the following amendments:

1. Grant express authority for more than one demonstration project in any one city. Although I do not interpret the bill as written as restricting the program to one per city, I wish to make the applicability clear. Each of the boroughs of New York City has sections or neighborhoods needing immediate attention and I do not think that each of these large areas-larger in themselves than most of the other American cities should be penalized simply because they are part of the larger municipality of New York City. 2. Channel the available funds to the most critical areas. I recommend a more definitive section setting out the eligibility, in particular to require: (a) the Secretary to determine that a neighborhood is subject to great economic and social pressures and also to require a workable program be submitted by the local community (a similar amendment has been introduced in the House by Mr. Reuss, of Wisconsin); (b) that any demonstration area will contain sufficient housing of low and moderate cost, utilizing to the fullest extent possible housing eligible for rent supplement benefits.

And, Mr. Chairman, I tend to strongly support the rent supplement program and to fight for it, I think it comes up tomorrow or Thursday, and I hope very much the Senate will put it in the bill, notwithstanding that it was eliminated by the Appropriations Committee.

(c) Maximum opportunities for eligibility for employing residents of such areas who are unemployed or underemployed; (d) fullest utilization possible or private initiative and enterprise; (e) that housing be made available in such a way so as to allow economic integration within the demonstration area, which I think is critically important.

One of the things that is tremendously backward is the participation of the business community of major cities in meeting the crisis in those cities, and if there is one thing I shall apply myself to, it is that. I think our law should be written so as to place a premium on fitting that kind of cooperation, which is made available by the private sector so that the Federal Government will be able to take its part where that kind of an opening is afforded where a little money on the part of the Federal Government, added to a lot of money on the part of the business community, can do a much bigger job than the Federal Government can do alone.

That goes for the demonstration city project especially, because that is the one thing we ought to demonstrate beyond everything else. The big city receives or makes jobs, as for example in Pittsburgh, and in Boston, and in Philadelphia, were done with the business community carrying the major responsibility. And that is what we should encourage in this demonstration cities program.

3. To encourage community and neighborhood self-help efforts for rehabilitation of blighted areas. I recommend the authorization of

Federal grants to local government bodies of up to one-half the cost of establishing local neighborhood conservation programs. This program would be composed of local citizens organized to clean up and repair their own neighborhood. Federal technical assistance and the loan of personnel and heavy equipment would be available. This program would also have the important responsibility for recruiting and training a body of community development specialists skilled in urban renewal and rehabilitation work. Selected personnel would be sent by local governments to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for on-the-job training.

4. Since the urban renewal program underlies the demonstration city program, and there is presently a backlog of applications involving more than $800 million for capital grant commitments, I recommend an increace of $250 million a year in their authorization. This would provide an authorization of $1 billion for fiscal years 1967, 1968, and 1969.

5. Increase the demonstration planning funds. I recommend that the proposed $17 million authorized by the bill for fiscal year 1967 be supplemented with funds from the urban renewal program grant authorization, not exceeding 1 percent of that fund in any one year. If my amendment outlined above is adopted, this would add $10 million for fiscal year 1967 to the $17 million sought by the administration for planning.

In addition I will introduce an amendment to modify the definition of "housing owner" eligible for rent supplement payments under the 1965 Housing Act to add those who are presently eligible under certain limited profit housing programs for middle- and low-income citizens. In New York, under the well-known Mitchell-Lama program, a number of significant middle-income and low-income housing projects have been constructed. I believe this type of program initiative should be eligible for rent supplement assistance in addition to the 221D (3) nonprofit organizations that are presently eligible. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am of the view that the demonstration cities program may well be the method of the future in attacking our slums and blighted areas. It is apparent that such a comprehensive and concentrated force, well directed, with the proper funding, should have the highest priority.

I hope that Congress will recognize the significance of the program and not let this program slide into the maelstrom of political controversy and, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I identify myself fully with those who say that we must meet this responsibility, notwithstanding the war in Vietnam, and that we have the capability to pay the bill and if necessary, to restrain inflation, that we must reduce other projects like public works, which can be deferred, and also stand for a modest tax increase, if need be, in order not to disappoint the country in dealing with its crisis problems in the cities.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Javits. It is a very fine statement.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Charles M. Nes, Jr., first vice president, the American Institute of Architects, accompanied by Mr. William

Scheick and Mr. Philip Hutchinson. We are glad to have you gentlement with us.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES M. NES, JR., FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM H. SCHEICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND PHILIP A. HUTCHINSON, JR., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Mr. NES. Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles M. Nes, Jr. I am a practicing architect and first vice president of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). With me are William H. Scheick, executive director of the AIA, and Philip A. Hutchinson, Jr., the institute's director of governmental affairs.

Today it is my privilege to appear before you as a representative of the American Institute of Architects. Our organization is a professional society which represents more than 22,000 licensed architects. We, as AIA members, are intimately involved in metropolitan planning, urban renewal, and, indeed, in nearly every building project of any magnitude. Although a small profession in number, we have an important role in shaping America's cities.

We support the Demonstration Cities Act of 1966 (S. 2842), the Urban Development Act (S. 2977), the Housing and Urban Development Amendments of 1966 (S. 2978), and legislation to encourage and assist in the preservation and maintenance of historic structures (S. 3097). However, we have several recommendations which we hope will be helpful to this subcommittee.

I. DEMONSTRATION CITIES ACT OF 1966

We are extremely enthusiastic about provisions in S. 2842 providing for "comprehensive city demonstration programs." For the first time to our knowledge, language has been written into a bill that recognizes the importance of quality of design and construction.

Section 4(c) (2) requires the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to give maximum consideration, in determining whether a comprehensive city demonstration program is eligible for assistance, to whether "the program will enhance neighborhoods by applying a high standard of design and will, as appropriate, maintain distinctive natural, historical, and cultural characteristics."

A high standard of design for a city demonstration program is a desirable goal and it is something that can be achieved without added expenditures. If taken into consideration when planning a project, the redeveloped neighborhood will become a better place to live. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, a high standard of design should be a goal for all federally assisted building programs.

We are certainly pleased that this bill recognizes the value of preserving the historical and cultural characteristics of urban neighborhoods. Later on in my statement I comment on the need for historic preservation. Suffice at this point to quote from a report of a Special Committee on Historic Preservation entitled "With Heritage So Rich" which states:

Not since the War of 1812 has the United States suffered any serious loss of its buildings through foreign military action. Yet in the 2d half of the 20th

century, we suffer an attrition of distinguished structures which has the aspect of a catastrophe when the human use of our architectural resources is considered. For true loss is in the measure of how well or meanly we and our descendants are to live *** with sufficient wisdom and inventiveness on our part we can indeed use the past for a window into better ways of living.

Section 4(c) (3) further directs the Secretary to give maximum consideration, in determining whether a comprehensive city demonstration program is eligible for assistance, to whether the program is designed to make maximum use of new and improved technology and design, including cost-reduction techniques. Writing this into the proposed law will insure that demonstration cities will be truly demonstrative of good quality construction and design at reasonable cost.

Through our Nation's improvements and increasing sophistication in industrialization, we now have an abundance of new technology and materials. We are able through our designs to create, using this technology, a new type of architecture. Specifically, through a healthy relationship between the economics of building technology, materials and esthetic use, we can achieve durability and lasting quality. A contemporary valid architectural expression would be impossible to achieve without a respect for technology and material efficiency.

We believe section 4 (c) (5), which requires the Secretary to give maximum consideration to whether the (city demonstration) program is consistent with comprehensive planning for the entire urban or metropolitan area, is an overriding consideration. Unfortunately, the problem of urban blight and chaos is not solely the result of bad taste or bad planning, but of very little planning coupled wtih a great deal of indifference.

Office of the Federal Coordinator

The AIA believes the Federal Coordinator for each comprehensive city demonstration program will be an extremely useful liaison officer. It is our understanding that the Coordinator is to have no authority over local officials and no power with respect to the programs and activities of the locality. Rather, the Coordinator is to expedite and coordinate Federal contributions to the demonstration city program and serve as a middleman.

If our analysis of the Coordinator's functions is correct, we believe he should be closely associated with the Urban Information Center program which is part of the Urban Development Act. This relationship would give the Coordinator the greatest possible knowledge and facility to assist the demonstration city. Later in my statement I suggest an amendment to the Urban Development Act to establish the first urban information centers in coordination with the demonstration cities. Such a relationship will, we believe, provide great assistance to the demonstration cities program and, at the same time, demonstrate the utility of the urban information center.

II. URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT

Grants to assist in planned metropolitan development

The AIA agrees with the findings expressed in the proposed Urban Development Act and supports the purpose of the legislation, which is to encourage the States and localities to make effective comprehensive metropolitan planning and programing. Only through Federal,