We have a frightful minority problem. We have now 400,000 Negroes among our population. We have built 100,000 units since. 1946, and hardly more than 1,000 of them are available for Negro occupancy. We have been quite unable to get any help from the Voluntary Home Mortgage Credit because even if they get a mortgage they can't find a house where they will take a Negro. I realize that is a local problem but a problem which the Federal Government, particularly the FHA and VA, can have some responsibility.

That, Senator, is a difficult picture, and I urge your committee to at the very minimum put the amendments of the 1954 act through which will make this program workable, give adequate appropriation to the badly stripped administrative agencies which can't keep up with the workload under the economy program the last Congress put through. I appreciate, as I know both of you Senators do, the really desperate problem which the American urban civilian faces. Senator SPARKMAN. Mayor, I think probably you did better by mincing it down. That was a very fine presentation.

May I say last Friday I spent the afternoon with the Commissioner of Housing for the State of New York, who formerly was staff director of this committee, Joe MacMurray, and with Commissioner Moses and other officials there, seeing some of the work that is being done in New York City. I naturally thought of it in connection with what you said about the terrific fight that must be carried on, even if you Keep pace with this growth of slum conditions. I think you have given us a rather graphic narration regarding it, and one that Congress and the people generally throughout the country ought to understand more clearly than I am afraid we do.

Mr. CLARK. I'd like you to see our Philadelphia program. We are really proud of it. Of course, I haven't even mentioned the other aspects of this which I am sure you are conscious of. There is no question about the fact in my mind that shelter plays an important role in the spread of juvenile delinquency and crime and all that. It's really getting pretty hard to govern a city in the light of shelter conditions, in the light of other problems.

Senator SPARK MAN. May I take another minute. You mentioned juvenile delinquency, and you have very strongly advocated public housing. Do you believe public-housing projects as such in any way contribute to juvenile delinquency or serve as hot beds?

Mr. CLARK. Senator, just the contrary.

Senator SPARKMAN. I wonder if you are aware of the testimony presented to this committee yesterday in which that, among many other charges, was made, made in a rather subtle manner, I would say, but nevertheless quite implicit in its implications.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. Rapsky, who is here with me as house coordinator, tells me we can file with this committee definite figures showing that our public-housing units are islands of decency in centers of delin

quency.

Senator SPARK MAN. I know in my State-and, of course, there the cities and towns that have public housing are relatively small as compared to Philadelphia and New York-every public-housing project that I can think of in my State has removed slum areas in which juvenile delinquency did have every incentive to develop.

Mr. CLABK. There is no question about it. Just as a simple matter of police protection, it's far easier to police a public-housing project

than the type of slum it replaced. There is a fundamental decency in most people, as I am sure you know. If you move them from the hazards and misery they are going to act as decent citizens.

Senator LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say, except for the influence of family and church and schools, which I consider most important, there is nothing more important in the fight against juvenile delinquency than decent housing and adequate recreation facilities. I'd place adequate recreation facilities on par with decent housing.

Senator SPARKMAN. May I ask the distinguished Senator from New York if he was present yesterday when the testimony was being given, and whether or not he saw that exhibit which was included.

Senator LEHMAN. I was not.

Senator SPARKMAN. You will see it later and I think you will understand what I said.

Mr. CLARK. I might suggest, sir, where perhaps you might not care to, I would consider that was not testimony but unproved assertions, and I am sure we can give you figures that will deny it.

Senator LEHMAN. May I say, too, that I know the problems in Philadelphia are substantially the same as in New York, and I am willing to testify from my long and intimate knowledge that every word Mayor Clark has said is accurate and true and should be given very careful consideration.

Mr. CLARK. Thank you very much, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, Mayor Clark. We are delighted to have you with us.

We have next from the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, Mr. Walter B. Mills, who is president of that organization, and Mr. William L. Slayton, assistant director.

Before we get into your testimony, I ask that this letter from Mr. Robert Moses, chairman of the Committee on Slum Clearance for New York City, relating to slum clearance, be included in the record.

Also at this time I ask that there be placed in the record numerous communications that I have from savings and loan associations and organizations interested in the savings and loan program, with reference to independent status for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. (The material referred to follows:)

Slum clearance and urban renewal.

Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN,

CITY OF NEW YORK,

OFFICE OF COMMITTEE ON SLUM CLEARANCE,
New York, N. Y., May 16, 1955.

Chairman, Housing Subcommittee, Banking and Currency Committee,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: Your committee now has under consideration the bill Senate No. 1800 extending the National Housing Act.

The Committee on Slum Clearance strongly approves the slum clearance and urban renewal amendments in the bill providing for additional grant authorizations of $200 million per year for the years 1955 and 1956; the additional $100 million to be authorized at the discretion of the President; and the discretionary power authorizing the Administrator to dispute an additional $35 million of these appropriated moneys, if unallocated, to local public agencies in States were more than two-thirds of the 10-percent maximum allocation has been obligated.

The present program in the city of New York, consisting of 10 projects now underway and 7 other projects in planning, is more comprehensive and further

advanced than any other local program in the country and involves almost $600 million in title I redevelopment work through private capital, as shown on the attached tabulation. Preliminary estimates indicate that the projects shown on the tabulation not covered by capital grant contracts or project reservations and further projects contemplated will require an additional $50 million in Federal title I grants.

You will note that of the $500 million provided for capital grants in the original Federal program that, although approximately $48 million was allocated to the city of New York, it was still essential for the city to apply for additional Federal funds to carry out its program. Of the additional $35 million on hand for this purpose, $15 million was allocated to this city. This provision has worked very well in the past and should be included in the new legislation in order to provide incentive and permit speedy and effective progress to be made in States which are pushing their programs faster.

In regard to low-rent housing, a sound, substantial program is a necessary adjunct to the public and private work on redevelopment of slum areas in major cities. The 35,000 additional units per year provided in the bill for 1955 and 1956 are an absolute minimum from the point of view of need.

We are in favor of the increase in maximum commitment amount for a single mortgage under the provisions of section 220 from $5 million to $50 million. The $5 million limitation is too small for slum-clearance projects such as we are carrying out in the city of New York in view of the fact that nearly every project involves larger sums. Such an increase will permit more flexibility and effectiveness in planning the construction and financing of large-scale redevelopments as a unit.

One other change in the FHA provisions should be made. We strongly recommend that specific inclusion be made in the provisions of section 220 to the effect that it is the intention that the mortgage commitments to be made thereunder by FHA should be made on the basis of actual and proven construction costs as shown through certified statements. The references to value as a measure of the mortgage commitment, which have created difficulties and obstacles in getting the title I program under way and which have brought with it depressing factors arising out of the slum nature of the property, should be eliminated. These are part of a coordinated slum-clearance program sponsored by the Federal Government and the local public agencies, and it was intended as a means of inducement and encouragement that the actual costs involved should be the measuring device for mortgage commitments.

Certainly the slum nature of the property, which it is the purpose of the law to clear, should not be the yardstick for reducing these commitments and penalizing the sponsors. Because of the inclusion of the term "value" not a single project in the New York City title I slum-clearance program has received an FHA commitment despite the long period during which section 220 has been in effect. Interminable procedures and difficulties in promulgating regulations delayed FHA action in the agency until very recently. We are now proceeding in New York with the local FHA offices under an agreement with Commissioner Mason in a way that we believe will finally produce actual FHA commitments as intended under section 220. Nevertheless, the fact is that prolonged delays have hurt the program not only in New York, but throughout the country.

It is significant that in New York only the two projects which have received conventional financing, without FHA commitments, have proceeded to construction. On other projects, demolition and relocation have proceeded in substantial areas but actual construction has been held up because of the lack of FHA guaranties provided for by the law. If it were not for the recent agreement with Commisisoner Mason, the program in New York would have been abandoned and a great measure of discredit and responsibility placed at the doorstep of the Federal Government. We believe that FHA commitments will now be issued without further redtape and delay, but there is still general scepticism about it. We shall appreciate having your record include this communication stating our position, and shall appear before your committee on May 18th as scheduled.

Sincerely,

ROBERT MOSES, Chairman.

2 Redevelopment Co.

Home loan bank

PHOENIX, ARIZ., May 16, 1955.

Senator JOHN SPARKMAN,

Chairman of Subcommittee on Housing,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: I, as president of the Savings and Loan League of Arizona, an organization in which all the savings and loan associations in the State are members, most strongly urge on their behalf your favorable action on the pending House Resolution 5945 to provide for the independence of the Home Loan Bank Board, as introduced by Chairman Spence of the House committee, to be added to the housing bill as an amendment, for it was the intent of the originating act that the home loan bank board be an independent Federal entity. We also most heartily endorse the amendments regarding the allowance of Federal associations to make loans to small builders and acquire land in connection with urban renewal projects; and the purchase of approved securities by Federal associations, as approved by the United States Savings and Loan League and the National Savings and Loan League. Our league requests your and your committees' most earnest consideration.

Yours very truly,

JOSEPH G. RINE,

President, Savings and Loan League of Arizona.

ST. PAUL, MINN., May 16, 1955.

Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN,

Chairman, Housing Subcommittee,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.:

The Savings and Loan Associations of America urgently request consideration to the following: First, Home Loan Bank Board as an independent agency. Secondly, limited authority for Federal associations to make loans to small builders and acquire land in connection with urban renewal projects. Thirdly, Federal associations be permitted to buy securities as approved by the Home Loan Bank Board.

H. C. LINDQUIST, President, Minnesota Federal Savings & Loan Association.

Senator SPARKMAN,

WEST BOYLSTON, MASS., May 16, 1955.

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.:

I favor pending bill which will commit savings and loan association to developed land for small builders. This bill will be a direct aid to my program as I cannot possibly accumulate the necessary funds to develop land.

Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN,

JOHN D. DRUCE, President, County Homes, Inc.

PORTLAND, OREG., May 16, 1955.

Chairman, Housing Subcommittee, Senate Banking and Currency Committee,
Washington, D. C.:

We thoroughly endorse the position to be presented by United States Saving and Loan League representatives at your committee hearing tomorrow. The different interests and needs of the business make a separate independent Home Loan Bank Board a vital need and we solicit a friendly consideration of the facts by your committee.

BEN H. HAZEN,

President, Benjamin Franklin Federal Saving and Loan Association.