more, there was not one objection to this provision dur bate last year, nor were there any objections raised du the bill before the House of Representatives. To date, section 108 has not been implemented be have been appropriated to make this section operativ mainly because the Secretary of Defense has not reques Very shortly after section 108 became law on Aug along with other Senators urged the Senate Appro mittee to include funds in supplemental appropriatio order that section 108 might be implemented. Indeed flood amendment to a supplemental appropriations told, however-in fact, given assurance that the Defense wanted to study this provision before askin implement the program, and so no appropriation wa Since that time I have communicated with the Secre ous occasions to learn the progress being made on his we might be able to expect regarding the implement: 108. I was advised time and again that the study pleted by January 1966, and that the Secretary woul have some recommendations to make to the Cong section 108. January has long since passed and, indeed, we have heard nothing officially from the Secretary. In fa disturbed when the Defense Department's budget for tained no recommendations for implementation of sect advised the Secretary. He, is turn, advised through Mr. Reed, on February * we have completed and submitted to the Secretary a co of this problem. It is expected that our legislative recommend to the Bureau of the Budget in the near future * More recent contact with the Department indicates still in the hands of the Secretary and he has, so far, Congress did not include section 108 in the 1965 Ho Development Act as "eyewash." We did not intend hopes of civilian employees and servicemen of the Defense affected by base closings for naught. We 108 to be useful to them and to alleviate some of burdens caused by circumstances over which they had Since the enactment of last year's provision I have hundreds of letters from those who see a gleam of hop in section 108. These letters have come not only fro where Brookley Air Force Base is located and which out, but from all over the United States. These letters are from civil servants and service p moderate means who cannot afford to finance two cannot sell their home in the area of the base closing there is no housing market in that area as a result of These letters are from people who face foreclosure and tions that go along with such action. These letters a ple who are facing financing diseaster and they are pl relief. HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966 155 I did not, as numerous other Senators did not, agree with the Secretary with these base closings. But this is neither the time nor the place to discuss that matter. It has now become a reality. What we are here for today--and what I hope Mr. Reed is here for today-is to determine when section 108 will be implemented, or, put another way, what can now be done to make section 108 applicable and operative for those for whom it was intended. Without objection, I wish to include in the record at this point the correspondence I have had with the Secretary of Defense and with the White House in an effort to get section 108 implemented. (The correspondence follows:) SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, Washington, D.C., August 12, 1965. THE PRESIDENT, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: As you know, the Housing Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-117) contains a provision (sec. 108) which authorizes the Secretary of Defense to acquire properties from distressed homeowners in areas around military bases ordered to be closed. Eligibility for assistance would be limited to persons who have been separated from their employment or their service at the base as a result of the base closing and who find that there is no market for their properties. I sponsored this provision because of my personal knowledge of the serious economic plight of property owners involved in the closing of a military base. Many families stand to lose their entire life savings when forced to sell their property at a loss when transferring to a new location. Now that the housing bill has become law, I am concerned about when we can expect the administration to put this provision into effect. One of the first things that must be done is to have an estimate prepared of the appropriations needed for fiscal year 1966 to carry out this section of the law. I would urge that the Bureau of the Budget be requested to prepare such an estimate at the earliest possible time so that the Congress can act upon it before adjournment. With best wishes, I am, Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, Washington, D.C. JOHN SPARKMAN. THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, September 4, 1965. DEAR SENATOR: This is in further reply to your letter of August 12, 1965, to the President in which you urged that steps be taken to prepare, and submit to the Congress at the earliest possible time, an estimate of the appropriations needed for fiscal year 1966 to provide for homeowners' relief in military base closure areas as authorized by section 108 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. We are confident that the study of this complex matter, which Secretary McNamara has directed to be completed as soon as possible, will provide a basis for appropriate recommendations to the Bureau of the Budget and the Congress at an early date. We concur in the Secretary's view that a careful study of the best means of affording such relief must be conducted to develop a payment formula which is fully justified in each individual circumstance. Sincerely yours, Your personal interest in this matter is appreciated, and you are assured that it will receive our continuing close attention. LAWRENCE F. O'BRIEN, Special Assistant to the President. SENATE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND C Hon. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, SUBCOMITTEE Washington, D.C. The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SECRETARY: As you know, the Housing Act of 89-117) contains a provision (sec. 108) which authoriz properties from distressed homeowners in areas around mil to be closed. Eligibility for assistance would be limited to been separated from their employment or their service at t of the base closing and who find that there is no market for I sponsored this provision because of my personal knowl economic plight of property owners involved in the closing I refer specifically to Brookley Air Force Base in my State passage of the 1965 housing bill, I have been receiving an of mail from homeowners who see in this provision some re hardship imposed on them by the announcement of the closi Force Base. Now that the housing bill has become law, I am concern can expect the Department of Defense to put this provision I believe action should be taken immediately to keep fait involved, and I urge your early attention to this matter. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely, THE DEPUTY SECRETARY Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: We have your letter of August you urge that the Department of Defense take early action provisions of section 108 of the Housing and Urban Developme I can assure you that we support the principle and intent 108. Unfortunately, however, we have been unable to provide Committees with a sufficiently reliable estimate of the cost enable those committees to include funds in the military priation bill for fiscal year 1966. Moreover, a question ha respect to the application of the provisions of section 406 of as amended (42 U.S. Code 15941) which, with certain speci hibits the construction or acquisition of family housing unit of military installations or activities" unless authorized by lin military construction authorization act. In order for the Department of Defense to move forwar homeowners' relief, we must develop an appropriate formu the amount of relief which it would be equitable to provide cumstances. We must develop estimates of the number of m homeowners which are involved. Based on these factors, we estimates of the costs of the program spread over the schedul lation or activity phasedowns. With respect to section 108 as now written, our examin language would pose administrative problems. For example be acquired not on the basis of fair market value, but o average prices for similar properties during "a representati the base closure announcement. This language could le controversy on matters such as what period was truly repres closure market. Further, the legislation would place the Government in t sibly underwriting "windfalls" to many homeowners, since many areas may have risen prior to the base closure annot instances the owners would be handed a speculative profit. equitable homeowners' relief should be based upon relea indebtedness, together with reimbursement of actual cash HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1966 157 properties, exclusive of monthly payments which, like rent, should be treated as a living cost. We share your concern about the families at Brookley Air Force Base and other installations which have been affected by base closure actions. A comprehensive study of this problem has been initiated. It will answer the questions I have discussed above, and will furnish the basis for appropriate recommendations to be presented to the Bureau of the Budget and to Congress at the earliest possible date. Your interest in this matter is greatly appreciated, and I can assure you that we plan to take positive action. Sincerely, CYRUS R. VANCE. Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Reed, we are glad to have you here today. We appreciate your coming. We have had you at our committee before, and we are always glad to see you. STATEMENT OF JOHN J. REED, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY Mr. REED. Thank you. Senator SPARKMAN. I apologize for leaving, but I feel that I have to go. Senator Douglas has kindly agreed to preside over the meeting. I hope you will discuss this matter quite fully, quite frankly. And may I say I hope you bring some good news. Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Chairman, we will see to it that Mr. Reed's reply will be conveyed to you almost immediately. Senator SPARKMAN. Fine. I have a copy of his statement I am taking with me.. Senator DOUGLAS. Good. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Reed, will you commence? Mr. REED. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear before this committee this morning to discuss a subject which is not only of mutual interest to the Congress and the Department of Defense, but one which is of vital interest to thousands of people throughout the country. First, please let me express to you the personal regrets of both Secretary McNamara and Secretary Ignatius that they were unable to be present today. Both have taken an active interest in formulating a solution to the problem of providing assistance to homeowners who have been affected by the base closure program. As a point of reference-a benchmark so to speak-let me make clear the Department of Defense's position on the matter of providing some degree of assistance to those who are faced with major financial losses as a result of military base closure actions. We believe it is an obligation of the Government to provide financial and other help to those military personnel and Government employees who are subjected to potential monetary loss in the sale of their homes occasioned by a situation-that is, an act of Government-over which they had no control. Deputy Secretary of Defense Vance in his letter of September 2, 1965, to Chairman Sparkman gave assurance of the Department's support of the principle and the intent of relief as set forth in section 108 of Public Law 89-117. In that letter he cited detailed fact-gathering study of the problem in order an appropriate formula for determining the amount. it would be equitable to provide under various circums provide data to support a sufficiently reliable estim of this proposal in order to form the basis for a re to the Appropriations Committees of the Congress. In addition, the letter expressed our reservations statutory and administrative problems which the lang 108, as now written, posed for the Department. A comprehensive study of the matter was initiate basis. Following approval of the essential recomme study, a legislative proposal was submitted to the Budget. That agency is now studying the proposed obtaining the views of other interested departments. pectation that a legislative proposal will be submitted in the very near future. Senator DOUGLAS. Mr. Reed, I think at this point rupt. Do I understand, therefore, that you refuse t legislative provision of Congress as passed last year, that you will only act if additional legislation, which is enacted? Mr. REED. We will recommend, Mr. Chairman, that be enacted. Senator DOUGLAS. What about carrying out the exis Mr. REED. We do not feel it would be in the Gover to implement 108 as now written. Senator DOUGLAS. I have great admiration for Secre and I think he has assembled a very able group of a matter of fact, I was one of the few Senators who ap ings program. So I do not want you to think that pathetic to the Department. But I think there is a very grave question of const a fundamental principle of American Government-i Department says, "We will not obey an act of Congr instead demand other legislation." As long as this law is on the books, it is the law of do not believe that a Department has the right to dis I think this is a fundamental violation of the powe tives of Congress. Now, all over the world there has been an attritio powers and an increase in administrative and burea and we are rapidly creating a bureaucratic, adminis which you have faceless administrators not repres people deciding whether or not they will obey laws representatives of the people. I think this is an unjustifiable procedure, regardle of the case-I would be willing to listen to the meri and I am astounded really that you should advance Now, you should be heard in your own defense I t man |