to colds and pneumonia. The circle becomes vicious, and the passage of this bill would cut this and act as a basis in which to grow and rise to a level equal to the rest of the United States, in all fields. We do not ask for fine, fancy homes but only something in which to keep warm during subzero weather. We do not ask for a handout but for a chance to compete in a different society. We hope that this chance will be given to us. Sincerely, Senator E. L. BARTLETT, JOHN C. SACKETT, President, Tanana Chiefs. FAIRBANKS NATIVE ASSOCIATION, DEAR SENATOR BARTLETT: We, the Fairbanks Native Association, heartily endorse Senate bill 1915. Passage of this bill will be beneficial to the native people in Alaska. The U.S. Government will be repaid threefold as adequate housing will enable our people to become first-class citizens. The need for housing that would be created under this bill is very great. Alaskan Indians and Eskimos live in the worst slum conditions in the country. Many families live in one-room dwellings which are overcrowded, poorly ventilated and insulated, and hard to heat. Lighting is primitive and inadequate and it is difficult if not impossible for children to study. Sanitation in these "homes" leaves much to be desired and the spread of disease is a constant worry. There are no public or private programs under which people in the villages can obtain loans for building. Lack of financing perpetuates these appalling conditions. Senate bill 1915 is the only prospect for improving living standards of these American citizens. Ten million dollars is not adequate to finance housing for the large native population and we urge you to work for a realistic amount of $50 million. Sincerely, BETTY JOHNSON PERSONAL REPORT OF MARIE C. MCGUIRE, COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION, ON ALASKA VILLAGE HOUSING For 3 days, November 16 to 18, 1965, I attended a conference to explore solutions to the unbearable housing conditions of native Alaskans. This conference was held in Anchorage, Alaska, under the aegis of Senator E. L. Bartlett and the Alaska State Housing Authority. Participating in the conference were officials of a variety of Federal agencies in Alaska, leaders and spokesmen from the villages, and citizens concerned about the disgraceful housing and health conditions prevalent in the Alaskan villages. Following the Anchorage conference. I accompanied a group of Federal and State officials with Senator Bartlett which visited many of the villages. The groups saw the housing, talked with the people, and felt firsthand the impact on them of their living environment. Officials of the three Federal agencies most immediately concerned with the housing and health conditions (the Public Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Public Housing Administration) were included in the group and upon completion of the trip they agreed that the needs of the villages were so obvious and so extreme that finding a solution must be a priority item for each of the three agencies. II. THE NEED Most of the families in most of the villages have extremely low incomes. However, in such villages there may be one or a few persons (such as the owner of the village store) with a relatively high income. In some villages, such as Barrow, there are a number of families with relatively high incomes, usually because of employment with the Federal Government. The low-income majority and the higher income minority in the villages share the common problem of inadequate crowded housing. The present housing in the villages is characterized by inadequate space and ventilation, poor structures, and fire hazards. It also can be related to the tuberculosis rate in Alaska which is 20 times over national average. The average housing accommodation viewed on the trip consisted of 1 small room sheltering 8 to 12 or 14 family members, with impure water from melted ice, no sanitary facilities, structurally fiimsy, often constructed from sod and plywood or packing crates, filthy, and below any human level either to overcome or survive in. The makeshift houses, prone to fire, the darkness and cold, the poverty and human suffering all fed into the total problem of decent shelter. As indicated above, inadequate crowded housing conditions are not limited to those in the poverty group. In Barrow there are families who could afford to buy, build, and own a home but for whom financing is not available. When housing loans are made they are generally limited to terms such as a 5-year period and an 81⁄2-percent interest rate. A. Home loan programs III. PRESENT HOUSING PROGRAMS The possibility of financing under programs of the Federal Housing Administration should be provided for by the adoption of housing standards which are realistic and suitable for the Alaskan climate. The rural housing loan program of the Farmers Home Administration should be made available to the Alaskan villages. Included in the rural housing loan program is a newly developed self-help housing program which provides 33-year loans at 3 percent, plus free construction supervision and other technical services for relatively low-income families. It should be noted that the above loan programs by definition cannot meet the needs of families with incomes so low that they cannot afford to repay a necessarily sizable loan for building materials even when the loan has a long term and a low interest rate. B. Public housing-general program The PHA-assisted program in Alaska is operated by the Alaska State Housing Authority and consists of some 600 units located in 7 communities and about 100 additional conventional units applied for or in planning for 5 other communities. In addition, the Alaska Authority has been attempting to work out arrangements with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Public Health Service to enable it to undertake a pilot PHA-assisted mutual-help project at Hoonah in southeastern Alaska. The Alaska Authority also operates an urban renewal program and housing developments which are not assisted by the PHA, including some financed under section 221 (d) (3) of the National Housing Act. An exception to the Alaska Authority's exclusive control of PHA-assisted programs is an Indian housing authority (the only other housing authority in Alaska) which currently has a 15-unit mutual-help project under development at Metlakatla with technical assistance provided by the BIA. The rents required in the low-rent housing operated by the Alaska State Housing Authority average near $90 per unit per month, including $25 for regular maintenance, $22 for utilities, $18 for administrative expenses, $9 for extraordinary maintenance, $6 for payments in lieu of taxes, $5 for capital expenditures, and $4 for other expenses. These projects are staffed by employees of the authority. except for the project at Petersburg which is operated by the city government on behalf of the authority. The above Alaska figures compare with the national average rent for lowrent housing of about $40 per unit per month, with about $14 for regular maintenance and operation, $11 for utilities, $7 for administrative expenses, $3 for payments in lieu of taxes, and $7 for other expenses. C. Public housing—Indian program Perhaps the most comparable situation in the lower 48 States to the Alaskan village situation is that found on Indian reservations. In 1961 the Public Housing Administration, in collaboration with the BIA, attempted for the first time to respond to the housing needs of American Indians on reservations. Here, too, the housing was pitiful and unquestionably was a factor in retarding efforts to achieve good health and education, and economic, cultural, and social opportunities. The PHA has attempted to meet the problem in two ways: (1) A conventionally operated rental program, and (2) a mutual-help program where the Indian family receives an equity in the house in relation to the value of the construction labor that it provides. In the case of Indian reservations, when it was found that there were many who could not afford even the low rents which had to be charged in the conventional low-rent projects and who could be motivated by a strong desire for home ownership, the mutual-help housing program was devised in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In the mutual-help program, a group of participating families provide a sufficient amount of labor in the construction of their homes to earn a substantial equity toward ultimate ownership, and they also provide all utilities, repairs, and maintenance, so that they may occupy the homes at a nominal cash rental ($10 per month at Metlakatla) and achieve homeownership within 15 to 20 years. The current mutual-help program is geared to the provision by the BIA of certain services and assistance to tribal housing authorities, including construction supervision and other technical and administrative assistance during the development and management stages. The mutual-help program responds to the needs of most of the low-income group; the conventional rental program reaches the needs of the higher income Indians in the low-income group. Because the physical and social planning and understanding are quite different from the conventional urban program, and neither the BIA nor the PHA has had the staff level or skills necessary, the Indian housing program has proceeded slowly. As of December 31, 1965, there were 1,006 conventional rental units and 274 mutual-help units under construction or in management. In addition, there are about 1,000 units of conventional rental housing and 1,000 units of mutual-help housing under annual contributions contracts and approved program reservations. The BIA indicates that some 60,000 units of housing for low-income Indians are needed. In addition, housing also is needed for Indian families whose incomes are above the public housing limit. In a few areas FHA-insured mortgages are becoming available with financing through conventional private lending instructions. In addition, Indians in rural areas are eligible for insured or direct loans under the Farmers Home Administration's rural housing loan program. IV. OBSTACLES TO EXTENSION OF PHA INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAMS TO ALASKAN VILLAGES A. Project economic feasibility and management While the PHA's annual contributions eliminate the necessity for public housing rental income to provide for repayment of capital costs, the rental income must be sufficient to provide for all operating expenses. The public housing program does not provide an operating subsidy except in the case of the special limited subsidy for the elderly (including the handicapped and disabled) and displaced. The extremely low level of income in most Alaskan villages would indicate that the rental income from a rental housing project would not be sufficient to provide for the operating expenses. It is apparent that an operating subsidy of some kind would be necessary for public housing in Alaskan villages. This could be in the form of a cash contribution from the Federal or Alaska Governments, the provision of service by government employees stationed near the housing (such as BIA or State school teachers), and the provision of maintenance and utilities for the housing by the tenants, or a combination of the foregoing. In the case of the mutual-help program in the lower 48 States and at Metlakatla in Alaska, BIA personnel are stationed near the housing and provide any needed managerial supervision and assistance while the Indian participants (tenants) provide their own maintenance and utilities. However, it should be noted that in the mutual-help program the home ownership incentives and the mutual-help equity of the participants provide assurance for their continued interest in properly maintaining their homes whereas such assurance would not apply to a rental program. Some of the villagers could be trained in managerial and maintenance skills, particularly those who go away from the village for their high school education and then return to the village. The rate of pay for such services would be meager (because it would be related to the number of units and the rental income) and therefore in some places would represent only part-time work. B. Dwelling structure standards Because of the severe climatic conditions in much of Alaska, it is not feasible to include in village housing the conventional water and sewage disposal systems. In addition, the high cost of fuels and relatively high rate of fuel consumption necessary during the winter, result in the need for smaller and more compact housing than that considered to be standard in the lower 48 States. These necessary differences in standards have been an obstacle to the obtaining of housing under programs of the Public Housing Administration and the Federal Housing Administration. However, there apparently is no absence of basic data available from the PHS and others as to suitable housing materials, sizes, insulation, and foundations upon which it may be possible to develop suitable standards for Alaska. It would be desirable, if not an absolute necessity, for the Congress to indicate, by specific legislation or by legislative history, its sanction for Federal assistance to the development of housing in Alaska with standards substantially below those for the lower 48 States. C. Land The ownership of most of the land in Alaska is undetermined. This is because of a provision in the first Alaska Organic Act of 1884 which states: "The Indians or other persons * ** shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them." Claims filed under the foregoing provision amount to 122 million acres which is more than one-fifth of the State and possibly a majority of the valuable land area-the streambeds, river valleys, plains, and forests. Further, under the Statehood Act, the State has the right to select more than 100 million acres of Federal domain for its own over a 25-year period. So far the lands selected by the State and the claims under the 1884 provision set out above conflict with regard to nearly 10 million acres. In addition, a dam has been proposed for construction on the Yukon River at Rampart and, if constructed as presently proposed, it would result in the flooding of an area including 9 villages and will require the relocation of some 2,000 natives. We understand that it is possible for natives to claim a lot within a townsite and receive a title which is restricted as to alienation in much the same manner as are Indian allotments in the lower 48 States. Allotments of land are also possible for Alaskan natives in much the same manner as for Indians in the lower 48 States. The foregoing indicates that the selection of sites for which a clear title may be obtained to satisfy the usual requirements of a private lender, or of the FHA, the Farmers Home Administration, or the PHA, may not be possible in some villages. D. Employment-construction seasons Another problem is the conflict between the short construction season which coincides with the short season of the year when Alaskan villagers can obtain employment. Such employment in many cases provides all or most of the villagers' annual incomes. Therefore, participation in a housing program, such as the mutual-help program would result in the loss by the villagers of all or a substantial portion of 1 or more year's income. E. Federal staffing requirements If the PHA is to undertake an effective housing program for Alaskan villages, it will be necessary to have the staff and skills necessary to coordinate with other Federal and State agencies and to develop and construct the kind of houses that are possible and feasible and yet be of a quality to justify at least the period of annual contributions or loans. The provision of adequate construction supervision and other technical assistance will be essential and must be provided by either Federal personnel or by employees of a local housing authority or other sponsoring agency. It would be more economical for the Federal personnel assigned to a village housing program to be headquartered in Alaska rather than in San Francisco or Seattle. The Bartlett bill VI. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS In an attempt to provide some relief for the Alaska village housing problem, Senator Bartlett introduced S. 1915 last year (a companion bill, H.R. 12371 has been introduced this year by Representative Rivers). Under the provisions of this bill the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development would be authorized to make loans and grants to the State of Alaska, or any authorized agency or instrumentality thereof, in accordance with a statewide program approved by the Secretary, to assist in providing housing and related facilities for natives and others residing in Alaska who are otherwise unable to finance such housing within their means. The cost of the housing and related facilities could not exceed an average of $7,500 per dwelling unit. The Alaska program, to the extent feasible, would be required to encourage the proposed users of the housing and related facilities to utilize mutual help and self-help in their construction, and provide experience and encourage continued participation in self-government and individual home ownership. Grants made under the provisions of S. 1915 could not exceed 75 percent of the aggregate cost of the housing and related facilities. An amount not to exceed $10 million would be authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for the purposes of the bill. S. 1915 seeks to establish a framework under which the State and its localities may be able to provide suitable housing and related facilities for their residents at an average cost of $7,500 per unit, which cost is to be shared by the Federal Government and the State and its localities. This is an area where the details of the method by which the housing is to be provided will have to be worked out by the parties concerned. Senator PROXMIRE. Our next witness is the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. STATEMENT OF EDWARD M. KENNEDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have this opportunity to appear before your committee this morning to support S. 3097. I would like to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Maine for preparing this legislation and also for his service on the Special Committee on Historic Preservation. The work of this committee, as published in the book "With Heritage So Rich," is an outstanding contribution to the field of historic preservation. And the photographs in this book, of Factors Row and Factors Walk in Savannah, Ga.; Commonwealth Avenue in Boston; the San Antonio River flowing through La Villita, Tex.-all serve to reinforce my belief that the architectural legacies of our past demonstrate the continuity and development of our traditions, testify to the genius of generations of Americans, and emphasize the need for immediate action to preserve our heritage. I can hardly improve upon Sidney Hyman's definition of the objectives of historic preservation: We want the signs of where we came from and how we got to where we are *** the thoughts we have along the way and what we did to express the thoughts in action *** it is all these things and more like them that we want to keep before our eyes as part of our lived life as a people, and as connecting links between a past which millions of Americans helped make and a future which we must continue to make. |