the Congress and the State of Alaska, in the development of any necessary additional legislation. It may well be that such additional legislation would be applicable also in the continental United States. The President is well aware of the need for further assistance for the Indians in many other areas besides Alaska. Earlier this week he expressed his support for any additional legislation necessary to institute "the most comprehensive program for the advancement of the Indians that the Government of the United States has ever considered." (Remarks at the swearing in of Robert L. Bennett as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, April 27, 1966.) We would in any case, however, favor immediate enactment of special Alaska housing legislation along the lines of S. 1915, with certain modifications. This part of the need for new legislation is already sufficiently identified. Also, the relationship of the Alaska native communities to the State and to the Federal Government is different from that of the many needy Indian tribes within the continental United States. There, the communities involved are mainly "on reservation". They receive special and substantial assistance directly from the Federal Government, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In Alaska, in contrast, the Eskimos and other natives are mainly "off reservation", and assistance should be provided primarily through the State and local governments. Finally, the especially difficult economic and physical conditions applicable in Alaska justify a separate program. This could in turn provide valuable experience for similar efforts in other areas to the extent that they do have comparable problems. We would not consider immediate enactment of a modified S. 1915 to be premature, even though we recognize in fact urge that carrying out an Alaska housing program must be closely tied to an overall development and assistance program. As we have pointed out, sufficient planning authority already exists for the development of such a program. The necessary investigations and planning might well take a year or more, and should be undertaken as rapidly as possible. Enactment of legislation along the lines of S. 1915 would be the most effective means possible of assuring the State of Alaska of the willingness of the Federal Government to assist in such a native development program. Lacking such assurance, there is great danger that the State will not take the initiative in preparing such a program and that there will be further delay in establishing effective coordination-and responsibility-among the many public agencies involved in this urgent problem. We have no information as to the adequacy of the $10 million which would be authorized by S. 1915. It may well be that the housing needs of Alaska natives considerably exceed this amount. However, use of this special program would not, of course, preclude use of our regular housing programs to the extent possible. In any case, we would assume that preparation of the overall native assistance program would necessarily involve the establishment of priorities with respect to the location and types of housing assistance to be provided. We generally concur in the financing and planning provisions of S. 1915. The overall 75 percent limitation on Federal grant assistance under the program would assure a subsantial degree of State financial involvement in the program, which we consider to be essential. Basically, it would be left to the State to determine what portion of the remaining 25 percent of program costs the natives themselves could repay, or provide through self-help, and what amount, if any, the State would pay. Similar flexibility would be provided with respect to the amount of subsidy provided each unit, with the only Federal restriction being a $7500 per unit restriction on the average cost of the housing and related facilities. The State itself is in the best position to determine the appropriate subsidy and overall cost for individual dwellings, as well as to provide the essential supervision of both construction and continued maintenance and use. In any event, the State should plan and assume responsibility for controlling and meeting the cost of maintaining, the housing after construction. The State plan must include a feasible method of handling maitenance and operation. utilizing State aid and other Federal programs. With respect to the planning requirements of S. 1915, we would recommend that it be made clear, either in the bill or the legislative history, that the statewide housing program is to be a part of, and prepared in conjunction with, the necessary statewide native assistance program. Such a program would not, of course, have to cover all necessary assistance for Alaska natives for the indefinite future. It should, however, be truly comprehensive in scope and involve as long-range efforts as are feasible in the circumstances. 89TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 2419 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 16, 1965 Mr. DOMINICK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency A BILL To make assistance to localities under title I of the Housing Act of 1949 contingent upon the publication of the names of the owners of rental properties in such localities which are used for residential purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That (a) section 101 of the Housing Act of 1949 is amended 4 by adding at the end thereof a new subsection as follows: 5 "(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, 6 no contract shall be entered into for any loan or capital grant 7 under this title with respect to any project in a locality unless 8 (1) the names of the owners of properties in such locality 9 which are rented, in whole or in part, for residential pur 2 1 poses are required by law to be published, together with an 2 identification of the properties owned, at least once a year in 3 a newspaper of general circulation in the locality, and (2) in the event the ownership of any such property is changed. 5 after any such publication and before the fifteenth day prior 6 to the date of the next annual publication, the name of the 7 new owner of such property is required to be published, to8 gether with an identification of the property owned, in such 9 newspaper at least once a week for the two successive weeks 10 following such change of ownership. For the purposes of 11 this subsection, the term 'owner' means, in the case of any 12 property, any person or entity having the legal or equitable 13 title to such property. Such term shall also include (A) in any case where an owner is a corporation, the officers and 15 directors thereof, and any person or entity owning or control16 ling 15 per centum or more of any class of stock of the cor17 poration; (B) in any case where an owner is a trust, the 18 trustees and beneficiaries thereunder; and (C) in any case 19 where an owner is a partnership, the partners thereof without regard to whether their liability is general or limited." 14 20 21 (b) The requirements imposed by the amendment made 22 by subsection (a) shall not be applicable to any project 23 which received Federal recognition prior to the date of 24 enactment of this Act. THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Subject: S. 2419, 89th Congress (Dominick). Hon. A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, Chairman, Committee on Banking and Currency, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further reply to your request for the views of this Department on S. 2419, a bill to make assistance to localities under title I of the Housing Act of 1949 contingent upon the publication of the names of the owners of rental properties in such localities which are used for residential purposes. This bill would prohibit any contract for a loan or capital grant for an urban renewal project in a locality unless the names of the owners of residential rental properties in the locality, and the addresses of their property, are required by law to be published at least once a year in a local newspaper of general circulation. The purpose of the bill as stated by its sponsor is to “ *** encourage improvement in slum housing by making public the names of the landlords responsible for these horrible conditions***the fear of widespread public notoriety will provide tremendous further impetus toward the goal of eradication of both urban and rural slum housing conditions * * *.” 66 The Department of Housing and Urban Development is aware of the difficulties that responsible officials in a number of cities have had in trying to identify the owners of slum properties in order to require them to correct housing and building code violations. This Department is, therefore, in complete sympathy with the purposes of this bill. There are, however, a number of problems involved in the legislation proposed. Since this bill would require the publication of the names of residential rental property owners and the addresses of their property, "pursuant to law," most localities would probably have to adopt implementing legislation. In many cases this would require State legislation, and/or local charter amendments. In many communities, enactment of the required legislation might take considerable time. Under the provisions of the bill, new urban renewal projects could not be undertaken during this period. The bill would, therefore, have the effect of delaying the elimination of slum housing in many communities. Particularly in large cities, it would be difficult to identify "slum landlords" from a publication listing the names of all residential property owners and the addresses of their properties. A mere address listing does not convey information about the condition of the specific property. In addition, an unclassified listing of owners of residential rental property might unjustifiably stigmatize many who have done no wrong, while some "slum landlords" living outside the area, and others living in the locality, might be totally indifferent to the listing of their names and the properties they own. Finally, the proposed newspaper listings of residential rental property owners and the addresses of their property would be a large and expensive undertaking. In many communities, no benefits may accrue from such a listing. In these circumstances, this Department believes it would be unwise to condition the right of a locality to participate in the urban renewal program upon the publication of such a list. Each community, in the light of its own circumstances, ought to be free to decide whether (and the method by which) to publicize the owners of slum properties. For these reasons, the Department of Housing and Urban Development recommends against enactment of S. 2419. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program. Sincerely yours, ROBERT C. WEAVER. 89TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION S. 2477 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 30, 1965 Mr. KUCHEL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency A BILL To authorize assistance under title I of the Housing Act of 1949 for renewal of blighted areas of a locality containing war housing projects. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, loan and 4 grant assistance under title I of the Housing Act of 1949 for the renewal of any blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorat6 ing area of a locality which consists primarily of temporary 5 7 war housing projects constructed under an Act entitled "An 8 Act to expedite the provision of housing in connection with 9 national defense, and for other purposes", approved October 10 14, 1940, as amended (the so-called Lanham Act), may |