June. Finally, he said he could not do it until September, so on September 29, I think it was, that we got his report and we started the hearings on October 2.

The President's bill came to us on October 1, so we are moving as fast as we can.

Next Monday, the 8th, without observing Columbus Day, the fact that we never have before in the Congress, Congress works on holidays. But we are going to start marking up the bill and we hope to be able to get a good bill-I think we can. We have two bills to start on at least that I introduced that have been referred to here. I believe you are familiar with them, Mayor Alioto. I think you referred to them, S. 1744 and S. 2182. There are, or will be, other bills, I am quite sure, and of course the President's bill that came in yesterday.

In starting off yesterday, several of us on both sides of the aisle indicated we were not too well pleased with that bill, but there are some good things in there that we can take up.

So I feel quite certain that we will be able to get a good bill. This committee is made up of members who, for a good many years now, have been working on housing and housing problems, and we recognize the fact that we do not get a perfect bill that continues to be perfect. Some programs do fail, no question about it. But, on the other hand, we are not willing to accept the complete damages of so many of the programs that have afforded an opportunity for decent housing for people who, except for such legislation, could not have afforded it.

I know I express my sentiments and I believe it represents the sentiments of the committee as a whole, that we are going to continue to do our best to see that that kind of legislation is put on the statute books in order that you mayors and the local officials throughout the country, the Governors, all of them that are concerned, may look forward to programs that will produce decent housing and decent surroundings for American families.

If they are able to find rental quarters, if they want to rent, we are going to continue to help them.

Mayor ALIOTO. I will just say this with reference to one thing you mentioned, and that is with regard to the housing allowance. If you know where it stands right now, you are better off than we are.

We assume it is purely experimental. They are talking about experimenting with it.

The CHAIRMAN. I am talking about as far as the administration's recommendations are concerned. We spent yesterday with the Secretary of Housing, and his very able aides, and it is an able staff-and the Secretary is a very able man, but of course, the President in his message did not say that it was definitely his program. He indicated that it might be in 1974 or 1975, but he did not know yet, either, whether it is even going to be before us.

There has been a great deal of criticism of it. I think, personally, it seems to me that there may be some good in it, but those are things we have to look for.

I have taken up my time talking.

Thank you very much.

Senator PROXMIRE. I agree with the chairman that there is a good chance we can get a bill out of here by the end of October, but that doesn't do much for you, because it then has to go to the House, and

they have to hold hearings. There is very little chance they can complete action until next year.

What does that mean? That means that it may be as late as next spring, maybe early summer, before we have a bill, and then the President will probably veto it if it is any good, if it has the kind of things you gentlemen recommend, and we have to try to pass it over his

veto.

Meanwhile, I take it what you are primarily interested in is something that the administration has not supported, and as one of you gentlemen said, you are in the very sad position of being the victims of a struggle between the Congress and the President, and you want action.

I would like to ask if you would, as a group, and perhaps Mayor Alioto, you could speak for the group, would you support a clear congressional mandate to end the moratorium on low-and moderate-income housing programs?

Mayor ALIOTO. As the Senator knows, this organization has led the fight on that for a long time, and we certainly would.

Senator PROXMIRE. You have made some progress.

Mayor ALIOTO. Some of us joined the original fight against impoundment by filing the suits in the matter. We have all sounded the alarm on the moratorium. We certainly would support this.

If there is any difference of opinion here, I would like to hear it expressed, but I doubt that there is.

Mayor LANDRIEU. Senator, I don't have an entirely different opinion, but I think it is sort of a counterproductive procedure. We would much rather have at least I would-a resolution of the matter between the legislature and the administration, rather than a mandate which they are going to reject, leaving the matter to the court suits. Even where we have been successful in those cities that court suits

Senator PROXMIRE. Let me interrupt to tell you, Mayor Landrieu, that yesterday Secretary Lynn said that if Congress mandated continuation of the program, he would go ahead with it. That was his response when I asked him, but he indicated Congress hadn't given him that kind of mandate.

Mayor LANDRIEU. I can't speak for Secretary Lynn, but I do want to point out that wherever we have faced a policy of reluctant expenditure by this administration, it hasn't done much for the cause of orderly planning. What normally happens is that funds are released on you at the last moment and we are then given a deadline in which to spend them. I think most of us have had the experiences of having to do a rather poor job with the programs that have been given to us once impounded funds were released through that kind of procedure.

Senator PROXMIRE. I understand that, and I understand you are in a position where the administration has been able to impound funds. The administration is telling us that there has been such a vast improvement in housing conditions that the need for new construction is nil. Instead, we are told we can depend upon the workings of the private market to provide housing combined with a little incentive for a mortgage tax credit plus housing allowances.

Let me pursue that for a minute. Do the central cities of the United States have a need for new construction? You have indicated that.

Moderate-income housing, housing for those whose incomes are not sufficient to make it possible for them to buy older new homes.

I would like to have information from a number of cities, New York, Newark, Denver, Los Angeles, and whatever others you would like to give us, as a fairly representative cross section of the country indicating the number of units they either have asked for or need. So we have that material in front of us.

Mayor ALIOTO. We will see if we can supply that.

Senator PROXIMIRE. Mr. Lynn told us that we are in great shape, and while there are substandard houses, it is a great deal less than it was a few years ago.

Mayor ALIOTO. We will supply those figures, but most of us agree with Senator Robert Taft's original notion that the competitive enterprise system could not supply the need for low-cost or even moderate housing. In our experience, we know that the free enterprise system even with a little triggering is not going to do the job alone.

Senator PROXMIRE. You don't think it has changed since 1949. Senator Taft was a leader in the legislation. But the situation hasn't improved that much.

Mayor ALIOTO. Some of us had the view when Senator Taft said the private enterprise system could not supply the low cost, but now we have moved up to where it cannot supply the moderate housing in this country either.

Senator PROXMIRE. What do you make of the argument made yesterday by Mr. Lynn and asserted again and again that the present programs are inequitable. We were told that since the Government can't build new houses for everyone, it can only build new houses for a few of the poor and the people with low incomes, it shouldn't construct new housing units for anyone.

They were really crying tears yesterday about the long waiting lines and the fact that no matter what you did with these programs you still would have many of the poor, in fact most of them, who would be shut out. Instead of moving forward with a program, we are told we should not house 1 in 15 or less.

Isn't it true that if you were to meet the housing goals and provide 600,000 units of moderate- and low-income housing a year, this would greatly relieve the pressures on housing, house at least 600,000 families who otherwise could not be housed, and provide sufficient housing and not drive people into the streets. Isn't it necessary to have a first-rate construction program to make code enforcement and the rehibilitation and upgrading of existing units work? Isn't it true that in the past effective code enforcement has been resisted everywhere, because there was not sufficient alternative housing?

Hasn't the criteria been: "Don't do it, or you will drive people right into the streets"?

Mayor HATCHER. Yes, Senator; I think the answer to your question is contained almost in the question itself. The fact is, in Gary, for example, as I said, we were able to gage our needs. We needed about 15,000 units. We have been able to build almost 4,000 of those units in the last 4 or 5 years. That means we still have a waiting list, but it also means something else, Senator.

It means that the people that we have been able to move into the new housing have left other housing that was available for rehabilita

tion, that was available for code enforcement and upgrading to code levels, so that other people could occupy that housing. I would suggest to you that there is really no way that we can begin to meet the needs of any of our people unless we are able to start with that basic construction for low-income housing.

I want to mention one other thing very quickly, and I don't want to encroach upon your time. The fact is that if we talk in terms of a housing allowance, the fact is that many of us are struggling in our cities to maintain a stable population. We don't want our people to move to the suburbs. We want to maintain as much of the moderateincome level of people in our communities as possible.

I would suggest to you that a housing allowance program is going to have the effect of increasing the degree and extent of segregation in this country. There is one reality that I think we must look at in whatever kind of housing program we have.

It is difficult for minorities to move into suburban areas. That is just a fact, whether people want to accept it or not. That being the case, what we are going to have is minorities having to use a housing allowance to invest in and to rent old housing, housing that contains many problems for them.

In effect, they are investing in 20 years of problems, while at the same time others will be able to go into suburban areas. I don't think we really want that, Senator, especially those of us in multiracial communities who are making a very sincere and real effort to maintain a stable, mixed population.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Packwood?

Senator PACKWOOD. Mayor Alioto, you can direct this as you want: HUD today holds title to about 250,000 housing units that they have had to take back under one program or another. This represents 250,000 failures. What change can we make in the present program to overcome this apparent problem?

Mayor ALEXANDER. I believe, Senator Packwood, that that figure represents mostly FHA unsubsidized housing, not the kind of housing that cities are responsible for. It is a result of the relationship between the Federal Government and the developers of that housing.

The mayors of these cities can tell you that their housing programs have been much more successful than that, and I don't think that kind of failure should deny the cities to provide an opportunity to provide adequate housing for the poor.

Senator Proxmire mentioned Mr. Lynn, the HUD Secretary. We met with him last night in an extended session. He has the notion that there is hand-me-down theory which is: we should build housing for other segments of the community which are presently being ignored, and we can't do anything for the poor until we take care of everyone else. There will be a hand-me-down kind of arrangement.

Unfortunately, we need rehab money, and in large chunks. We have been promised that $60 million of rehab money will be released to help us in this area, released from impoundment. We have nothing to hand down to anyone until we have new housing. So I don't think the failures you point out, and we all admit that those failures exist, should halt all programs, as they were halted in January.

Senator PACKWOOD. Let me ask you as a quick aside. I come from Oregon, which is the largest lumber-producing State in the United

States. When you were speaking of substandard housing, you said 70 percent of your housing are wooden-frame houses. Are you suggesting a causal relationship? [Laughter.]

Mayor ALEXANDER. We are very proud of the lumber that comes out of Oregon. The fact is that our cities have an average of about 40 or 50 years for each house, and the wiring and plumbing is difficult to replace without "312" money. What we are begging for is a mixture. We don't need just one program. We need a variety of aids to help us rebuild our housing stock.

We want to save those wooden houses that are very important to us. We want to build more.

Senator PACKWOOD. Thank you.

Mayor ALIOTO. We have a program to preserve our great wooden Victorians in San Francisco.

Senator PACKWOOD. I am sure you will find that wood is very durable.

Mayor SHEEHAN. If I might add a point to your question, I think in many instances, the failure of the section 235 homeownership program resulted from the fact that many of those houses, especially if they were older houses, were overpriced and underinspected. Tighter control and more involvement of the local city administration could perhaps have prevented the difficulties, or might prevent it in the future.

We sent in our inspectors. In many instances if the plumbing or heating system were totally or virtually defunct, and the house was overpriced, they had to fail. They could not carry the charges plus the heavy investment in repair-rehabilitation.

Senator PACKWOOD. That leads me to my next question. There has been discussion of block grants. If you had your druthers in housing, would you prefer a block grant program, assuming that you get the same amount of money overall that you are getting now? If we left it to the local authorities to determine what housing and where, would that be a preferable program?

Mayor MINETA. Definitely; I think in the whole field of housing, we feel the mix of where the units ought to be built, and what kind of units should be left to the local jurisdiction. This kind of block grant in housing is something we have spoken to in the past and that we would support today.

Senator PACKWOOD. The premise of Secretary Lynn's testimony yesterday on housing allowances, was that we either have or will, by reliance on market forces, have an adequate supply of decent housing. I am beginning to question this premise.

But, let's assume for the purposes of the question that we would add sufficient incentives to substantially expand the private housing market, and housing would be available. What, then, would be wrong with the concept of a housing allowance?

Mayor MARTIN. Senator, I think our position on that would be that at this point in our conversation with the Secretary last evening, there has not been any definite program laid out.

Would the allowances be paid to a city and then to the recipient? Would it be paid by the Federal Government to the recipient? Would it go through the local housing authority? I think at this point we are completely in a state of confusion about what they are really thinking.