HHFA permits such payments or credits covering both land and buildings only with respect to improved property. No payments or credits are permitted for unimproved property. Moreover, payments and credits on improved property must be terminated at the end of the tax period in which the improvements are demolished.

We believe that the Congress, in enacting these particular provisions, intended that such taxpayments or credits be allowed on all acquired property, improved and unimproved, so long as such property is held by the local public agency. If this understanding is correct, we urge again that Congress make clear to HHFA that such payments or credits apply to unimproved property and to property from which the improvements have been removed, so long as title thereto remains in the local public agency.

Public disclosure by redeveloper

The Housing Act of 1959 included a new requirement, section 105 (e), that "no understanding with respect to, or contract for, the disposition of land within an urban renewal area" shall be entered into by a local public agency unless the agency shall have first made public the name of the redeveloper, names of its officers, principal members, shareholders, etc., and estimate of rentals and sales prices of housing to be built in the redevelopment area.

The experiences of NAHRO members in connection with section 105 (e) are that the present wording and administrative interpretation of the section tend to create unnecessary problems for local public agencies. We request, therefore, that the section be reworded to the extent that it would no longer apply to redevelopers that are public and nonprofit entities, or to sales of project land to businesses and individuals displaced by clearance, as well as to sales to abutting-property owners. We also ask that the term "understanding" in the section's language be removed. As the language stands now, with the term "understanding" subject to such broad interpretation and application, local public agencies are seriously encumbered.

Relocation amendments

Mr. Clark's bill, S. 3509, and another bill now under consideration by this committee, S. 3042, introduced by Senator Javits, include amendments which would allow higher relocation payments.

While NAHRO does not oppose a raising of relocation payment limits, we believe there is a possibility that a simple endorsement of payment increases would tend to put the urban renewal relocation program in a somewhat unhealthy light-implying, perhaps, that the program up until now has been less adequate than it really has been.

The relocation record of urban renewal is a good one, with very few exceptions. No other public program in the history of the country has assumed comparable relocation responsibility.

We are not saying that all of the answers have been found. Therefore, we heartily support undertakings such as that which Senator Sparkman calls for in S. 2802-a comprehensive study of the disposition of claims for just compensation for persons whose property has been acquired under Federal programs through condemnation proceedings or otherwise.

In the meantime, however, there are substantial indications that the physical aspects of relocation have been handled adequately under the payment ceilings set by the Housing Act of 1959. According to reports from a number of NAHRO members who head local public agencies, the $200 limit for families and individuals has not proved inadequate, even in high-cost areas.

True, there are instances of the $3,000 limit being inadequate for some small business relocations, but, we believe these cases to be very few. Study needs to be given to a more flexible formula for handling the occasional high-cost case. We repeat that we are not opposed to higher payments, but there is an overriding need for the kind of factfinding that Senator Sparkman proposes. NAHRO offers its full cooperation-furnishing data, etc., to such an enterprise.

Authorization

3. PUBLIC HOUSING

Again, our major recommendation is the one made earlier that the $336 million annual contributions authorization of the U.S. Housing Act of 1949 he restored.

Fixed annual contributions

In restoring the above authorization, the Congress should also require that the Federal agency administering the program pay to local housing authorities annual contributions in the full fixed amount established in their basic annual contributions contract. If local authorities can set up their annual budgets for this full fixed contribution as a base, they will find it possible to serve a much wider cross section of the low-income families of the community. Frequently, in order to insure the financial feasibility of a project, a local authority has to set a limit on the number of very low-income families it can service primarily elderly single persons or couples, since they are among the very lowest income groups in most communities. Further, with this fixed subsidy as a basic budgeting item, authorities will be able to develop maintenance and repair reserves tailored to their needs and to provide realistic programs of transition by educating newly admitted families coming from poor circumstances to adjust to their new quarters and environment. And if favorable economic circumstances bring in more rental than is budgeted, authorities can retire their debts in advance of schedule and move more quickly into a nonsubsidized operation. There is no precedent in other federally aided programs for the costly and continuing supervision that is imposed by, in effect, figuring out a new subsidy figure each year over a 40-year loan period. The annual contributions should be seen as a lumpsum grant, paid out yearly, in fixed sums, over the full period of the development loan.

Sale of dwelling units to tenants

And, again, as in several past years, we ask for an amendment to the USHA act that will make it possible for over-income public housing tenants to purchase their units outright or to enter into a cooperative ownership with other tenants or the local housing authority. Again, this is a recommendation of the Fisher report as well as of every other major student of the public housing program who has sought improvements in its operation over the past 4 or 5 years. The importance of giving housing authorities a chance to put this idea to the best is hard to deny. Nothing can be lost in opening the way to home ownership for publichousing tenants who have passed the maximum income limits of the local housing authority. We are indeed gratfied that S. 3509 provides for such an amendment. Additional subsidy for the elderly

Another amendment in S. 3509 that we would like to see enacted makes it possible for local housing authorities to receive an additional subsidy up to $120 per annum for each aged family accommodated whenever such subsidy is needed to maintain the project solvency. The present public housing program already recognizes special financing problems of housing for the aged by authorizing a higher per room construction cost for units built for the aged. Since such units are always smaller than those built for family use, it has not been found possible, in many localities, to provide fully equipped units under normal room cost limitations. Yet the total dwelling cost may be much less than for a family unit; hence, the annual subsidy "earned" by that unit is much less, since subsidy is percentage of the development cost. With this smaller subsidy the family of the very lowest income must be accommodated-and frequently, in connection with such housing, added community facilities and services must be provided. So, if housing authorities are to do their share in meeting the needs of the elderly, they need to have the benefit of a new subsidy formula.

Repeal of restrictive amendment

We recommend the elimination of subsection 10(j) of the Housing Act of 1954, which requires local authorities to pay over to the Federal and local government all of their net receipts from their low-rent projects after capital indebtedness is liquidated. Under this provision, projects remain under Federal control virtually in perpetuity. Further. the amendment, in effect denies the need for subsidy, and instead puts the Federal Government in the position of extending a loan with what could prove to be a century-long repayment period. Technical amendment

We recommend perfecting the language of the amendment of the 1959 Housing Act that permits the use of urban renewal sites for public housing; present language seems to limit use of the provision only to future renewal projects rather than to those presently being assembled. The language included in S. 5309 will accommodate this.

4. FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND METROPOLITAN AFFAIRS

This association has for several years advocated that all Federal agencies and programs developed to assist cities in meeting problems of urban blight be centralized in a single department that has Cabinet status. Thus, urban problems would be dealt with on the same basis as rural problems-through a department tied in with the overall administrative machinery of the Government. S. 3292, introduced by Senator Clark, has our endorsement as a most important first step, but we think it wise to consider inclusion in the proposed department some operations, relating to urban affairs that are not presently in HHFA and its constituents. We should be glad to work with this committee in defining just what functions this proposed new department should administer.

The arguments in support of this department have been presented forcefully and well on many past occasions. We do not repeat them here, but repeat our strong conviction that the housing and urban renewal program cannot hope to get the kind of national leadership in support it needs if it is not served through a department that is held in the same respect and dignity as the Department of Agriculture.

5. PUBLIC FACILITY LOANS

HHFA, through the Community Facilities Administration, is presently making advances and loans to localities hard pressed for funds to help them finance a variety of public works programs. There are several bills before this committee advocating the extension of all FCA advances or loans to cover new types of public facilities. In view of the serious land problems that builders are facing, it is our view that localities could ease this problem and at the same time exercise much needed control over open land use, if they were to be made eligible to receive CFA advances and loans to assemble outlying tracts and service them with basic public facilities. The land could be turned back to private ownership, but with certain covenants laid on the land as to density, transportation, services, etc. The problems of the inner city and the outer city are insepabaly bound together and we must begin to treat them on a simultaneous and coordinated basis.

6. HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY

We share with the House Appropriations Committee a sense of deep frustration that nothing has happened up to now to set in motion a direct loan program of housing for the elderly that was authorized in the 1959 act. We hope that the pilot program that the Appropriations Committee provided for in the Independent Offices Appropriation Bill for the coming fiscal year will get through the Senate and will quickly move into execution. But regardless of what may happen to this private program, we strongly support the provision in S. 5309 for a $100 million authorization. It is obvious that housing for the elderly must be provided under a number of different financing devices, to serve the wide variety of needs that exist among the elderly. A direct loan program is the only device that can serve certain needs, just as it was only a direct loan program that could serve certain groups of veterans for whom the FHA loan insurance mortgage program was unworkable.

7. MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING

No aspect of the housing problem has so persistently confronted us as how to meet the needs of the family of moderate circumstances, particularly a family displaced by some form of public action. Senator Sprakman's recently released "Study of Mortgage Credit," has given us much needed insight into some of the problems involved here. It is only through this kind of study and research that we can hope to come upon a solution consistent with our private enterprise and economy. Our own association is prepared to get into this subject in a major study it hopes to undertake before the year is over. And, certainly, if the kind of Federal research program we advocate below is launched, it will inevitably give us some direction to follow in reaching the solution to this increasingly difficult problem. Our own association has never balked at the idea of a direct Federal Government loan program for this sector of the housing market, but it can understand why there is reluctance to take this step. Our own studies will seek to determine if there is another way out, or whether we must put ourselves full strength behind such a program.

We are pleased to see that an additional vehicle has been proposed to accommodate the middle income market. S. 1342, introduced by Senators Clark and 55869-6018

Javits, provides for the establishment of a Federal Limited Mortgage Corporation to administer a program which will permit financing middle income housing at rates and on terms which will achieve a monthly payment slightly lower than that possible under sections 220 and 221, hereby making it possible to provide more housing for families of lower income. This proposal, we hope, will be supplemented with other programs to reach the large numbers of families whose incomes are not sufficient to acquire housing without some form of subsidy.

8. SCHOLARSHIPS

As evidence that there is a growing need for trained technicans in the housing and urban renewal field, more and more schools and colleges are including renewal courses, seminars, lectures, and workshops in their curriculums. And there is a gathering movement in the direction of privately sponsored fellowships in this field. But still the shortage persists. We, therefore, approve the provision in S. 5309 for a Federal scholarship assistance program. However, we would like to see more emphasis put on the needs for not only training and the skills of planning, architecture, and public administration, but in the skills of human relations, community organization, and the actual housing project management. It is everywhere observable that a large part of the housing and renewal job has to do with better understanding of human motivation, frustrations, and deviations from what is thought of as socially acceptable behavior. There must be more training and technicians capable of giving guidance and leadership in these areas.

9. RESEARCH

It is of considerable significance, we think, that over one-third of the Fisher report to HHFA Administrator Mason builds a case for the need for profound and continuous research into the problems of housing and urban renewal. Our association approves this emphasis and would like to see the 1960 omnibus housing bill authorize the appropriation of funds sufficient to organize and staff a permanent research division within HHFA. Meanwhile, we see both the section 314, demonstration grant program and the section 701, planning assistance program as important research tools and would recommend $10 million authorization to keep them moving in the year ahead. Further, we would recommend $500,000 appropriation for making of special housing quality tabulations from the new 1960 housing census data. The new body of information that the census will bring us this year can be used intensively and immediately to get at some of the missing facts about urban conditions to which we referred earlier in this statement. A half million dollars spent now to take full advantage of census data will put us in a position to move ahead much more quickly and with much more confidence in the proper direction than has ever before been possible.

Toward the objective of providing needed information for research, we recommend adoption of S. 3379, introduced by Senator Sparkman, but with the fervent hope that its provisions will be expanded upon to accommodate our recommendations above.

IN GENERAL

NAHRO has repeatedly stressed the importance of adequately serving all parts of the housing market. The success of our city-rebuilding effort centers on an adequate housing supply. This fact was underscored by Senator Sparkman's "Study of Mortgage Credit."

Therefore, we support legislative efforts in this session of Congress aimed at the passage of an emergency housing program which would authorize FNMA to commit up to $1 billion to the purchase, at par, of FHA-insured or VA-guaranteed mortgages of $13,500 or less. This follows the pattern set by the Emergency Housing Act of 1958. It has already been approved by the House, and has come into the Senate under the provisions of S. 3471.

We should like to express our approval of the provisions of S. 3512, introduced by Senator Williams, covering amendments to the Housing Act to strengthen and make more effective the cooperative housing program-a very important resource in the provisions of housing.

In conclusion, I want to reemphasize NAHRO's firm commitment to a total housing and urban renewal program, and to underscore the vital element of time in program development. Those who argue that the Federal Government should not commit itself to 10 or more years ahead unless the cities can docu

ment the time required and the dollars and cents of a full-fledged scale renewal job cannot be aware of the city planning processes in general and the renewal project planning procedure in specific. After more than a half century of city planning activity in this country, not more than a handful of cities have longrange capital plans, tying physical and fiscal planning together for a 5- or 10year period. Without this basic plan to work against, a forecast of a full-scale renewal plan in terms of time and money cannot be packaged up overnight, or even over a year's time. But the crude facts of urban blight are here for all of us to see. And the renewal experience since passage of the 1949 Housing Act can certainly give us a realistic insight into the time and money costs. For the Federal Government to forsee a continuance of its present role for at least another 10 years is possible simply on the basis of census figures and the amount of substandard housing existent in the country today. When it is then recognized that the very largest part of the renewal job lies in the rehabilitation and conservation of existing housing of standard quality, it can be seen that urban renewal is here to stay as a permanent governmental function.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Boris Shishkin, secretary of the Housing Committee, AFL-CIO. Mr. Shishkin, will you and your associates come around to the table.

While you gentlemen are being seated, I will say something I said before you came in. The Senate is in session, and there are going to be some rollcalls. We do not know just when they will come. Therefore, I would ask you to expedite your statement as well as you can without impairing it.

We are delighted to have all three of you. Mr. Shishkin, for the benefit of the record please identify the two gentlemen who are with you.

STATEMENT OF BORIS SHISHKIN, SECRETARY, HOUSING COMMITTEE; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN W. EDELMAN, MEMBER, HOUSING COMMITTEE; AND BERT SEIDMAN, ECONOMIST, AFL-CIO

Mr. SHISHKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss the proposals for housing legislation you are now considering and place before the committee our views with regard to housing legislation.

I have with me Mr. John W. Edelman, a member of the AFL-CIO Housing Committee and national representative of the Textile Workers of America. Mr. Edelman has long been concerned with housing problems in various sections of the country and is one of the pioneers in the field of housing, particularly housing for low-income families. I also have with me Mr. Bert Seidman, an economist, of the AFLCIO, who is one of the outstanding national authorities on housing economics.

On behalf of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, I wish at the outset to convey to the members of this subcommittee the sense of deep importance which organized labor attaches to the need for good housing for all Americans and for an effective policy to achieve this objective.

At the most recent convention of the AFL-CIO held in September 1959, the resolution on housing unanimously adopted stated:

America has the skilled manpower, the materials and equipment, and the financial resources to assure every family the opportunity to obtain a decent home. All that is required to achieve this goal is a forward looking, imaginative housing program.