Mr. FRY. You mean this construction? This is only the felt section. As you can see, it is about half.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is not what I am saying. I am talking about the one you have taken off.

Mr. FRY. Pardon me, sir. This shingle

Senator SPARKMAN. That is what I asked-if this shingle was comparable.

Do the FHA requirements or standards apply to VA housing? Mr. FRY. They certainly do. VA housing follows under the specifications established by the Federal Housing Administration. Senator CLARK. Before 1953 were the standards higher?

Mr. FRY. No, sir. Before 1953 a higher weight average, but this is the specification. Actually, it is the Federal specification adopted by the Federal Housing Administration.

Senator CLARK. I understood you to say a minute or so ago-perhaps I misunderstood you that there had been a change in the standard in 1953.

Mr. FRY. No.

Senator CLARK. Which permitted inadequate roofing to be used. Mr. FRY. No. In reading the statement I made the point that I called it to the attention of the Federal Housing Administration, and you asked how long since

Senator CLARK. So the Federal Housing Administration in your opinion has never had adequate minimum standards of asphalt? Mr. FRY. That is correct.

Senator SPARKMAN. Do you refer to this as a 10-year roof? Is that what it is supposed to be?

Mr. FRY. The maximum guarantee of this shingle is 10 years. Senator SPARKMAN. But this one deteriorated this much in 6 years? Mr. FRY. Senator, in 612, and there are literally thousands of them all over this Nation. And if you will permit me to finish my

statement

Senator SPARKMAN. I am going to have to leave, so let me ask you one or two more questions. Do you recommend a 20-year minimum? Mr. FRY. As I have testified before, I think it is ridiculous for the FHA to permit a roof that has a life expectancy maximum of 10 years and that has an average life of 7 or 8 to be put on a house that is mortgaged for 20 years and longer.

Senator SPARKMAN. What would be the additional cost of roofing for 20 years?

Mr. FRY. The addition cost is around $4 a square. A little arithmetic will settle this quickly. A 12-square house would average on this shingle $15 a square, or about $180. If you had to buy two of them for the 20 years of the mortgage life, you would have $360. If you bought the 20-year roof it would cost you $228. So in actual effect this shingle costs more than the 20-year roof because the 20-year roof lasts longer.

Senator SPARKMAN. I apologize for leaving in the middle of your testimony but I have to go. I hope to be back.

Senator CLARK. Mr. Fry, will you go back and continue with your written testimony, please.

Mr. FRY. The Federal Housing Administration is well aware of the fact that 80 percent of all roofs are asphalt roofs, and predominantly asphalt strip shingle roofs.

The Federal Housing Administration is fully aware of the publicity reflecting their services, and that the public accepts, with confidence, the statement used by builders: "Meets FHA requirements" to mean that all construction elements are of proven quality performance, and will last for the life of the mortgage, and longer.

The Federal Housing Administration knows that most, if not all, of the houses sold are already completed, and that the buyer believes that "Meets FHA requirements" means the roof and all construction elements will last for the life of the mortgage, and longer, when he signs the papers.

After 10 years, or less, when the roof fails, and replacement of the roof and repairs to the interior are necessary, the buyer realizes that "Meets FHA requirements" actually means he has been sold a 10-year roof on a house that is mortgaged for 20 years, or longer, and that he is the victim of misplaced confidence in the Federal Housing Administration. The buyer, of course, has to pay, not only to reroof, but stand the expense of interior repairs.

Since most, if not all, financing through building and loan associations, savings banks, and similar institutions use the FHA minimum property standards as the basis for mortgages, the responsibility for the use of 10-year roofs on houses mortgaged for 20 years, or longer, rests entirely with the Federal Housing Administration, although not financially involved.

As of March 27, 1957, FHA circulated a copy of their "Minimum Property Standards" that clearly set forth their responsibility, as clearly defined in the National Housing Act.

The established purpose of the National Housing Act requires: (a) The Act requires that "the project with respect to which the mortgage is executed shall be economically sound.”

(b) To assist in carrying out the purpose and intent of the Act, the FHA shall establish minimum property standards.

(c) The minimum property standards are intended to secure those characteristics in property which assure present and continuing utility, durability and desirability throughout the life of the mortgage.

(d) To obtain the characteristics, which provide the assurance, the minimum property standards set forth the minimum qualities considered necessary in the planning, construction and development of a property, which is to serve as security for an insured mortgage.

Specifically referring to the sections quoted:

(a) Obviously, a house with a 10-year roof, mortgaged for 20 years, and longer, is not "economically sound";

(b) The "Minimum Property Standards," established by the FHA, do not carry out the purpose and intent of the act, when they permit 10-year roofs to be used on houses mortgaged for 20 years, or longer; (c) Certainly, the FHA "Minimum Property Standards," that mit the use of a 10-year roof, do not "assure present and continuing utility, durability, and desirability throughout the life of the mortgage," when the mortgage period is for 20 years, or more; and

per

(d) Certainly, permitting the use of 10-year roofs on houses mortgaged for 20 years, or more, does not provide the required security for an insured mortgage.

Conclusively, the Federal Housing Administration, despite full knowledge of the facts as here stated, have knowingly failed to carry out their responsibility, and have arbitrarily refused to abide by the intent of Congress, to properly protect both the Government and the public's interests under the National Housing Act.

The Federal Housing Administration is fully informed of the fact that all manufacturers of asphalt roofs are fully equipped to immediately supply asphalt strip shingles of high quality construction, that are not only guaranteed, but bonded for a minimum of 20 years, and that last much longer.

I respectfully request this committee to take the proper and necessary steps to have the Federal Housing Administration

(1) Correct the "Minimum Property Standards," to require that all roofs, regardless of composition, whether it be asphalt, tar, tin, iron, aluminum, copper, wood, or any other material, be bonded, or reliably guaranteed to last for a minimum of 20 years; and

(2) Comply, without reservation, with all the requirements of the National Housing Act.

I am prepared to answer any questions you may care to ask, and to substantiate the facts here stated.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Fry, for a very interesting statement. I would like to ask you just a couple of questions. Mr. FRY. Delighted, sir.

Senator CLARK. Your company is one of the largest manufacturers of asphalt shingles in the country, is it not?

Mr. FRY. That is true, sir.

Senator CLARK. You make these shingles which are guaranteed for only 10 years as well as those which are guaranteed

Mr. FRY. Not any more. For the last 4 years, to meet the specifications of Government work, we did make the low quality standard shingle. As of February 1, we have discontinued making any of that type of material.

Senator CLARK. February 1 of this year?

Mr. FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator CLARK. Were your shingles used on a great many houses insured by FHA?

Mr. FRY. Yes, sir. I would say, "very largely." We are about one of the largest suppliers.

Senator CLARK. So that your testimony is really reasonably objective, is it not? You are not just trying to get your own shingle in. Mr. FRY. By no means. I have been fighting this battle for more than 15 years, Senator.

Senator CLARK. What do this question with them? conduct?

the FHA people tell you when you raise What excuse do they have for their

Mr. FRY. They have innumerable, and I have never been able to get a direct answer to the question: What justification do you have for permitting the use of a 10-year roof on a house that is mortgaged for 20 years?

I have here a file that is quite thick. If you want to have me read some excerpts, I would be glad to.

Senator CLARK. I would be glad to have your summary. You were saying they have not given you any satisfaction?

Mr. FRY. They cannot take minimum property standards. They want to stay with a minimum, but a minimum to what degree?

Senator CLARK. I imagine we will have them up here at some time to give testimony.

Mr. FRY. I sincerely hope you do.

Senator CLARK. I hope you will help us and tell us, to some extent, about what they will tell us.

Mr. FRY. They will tell you they want to maintain as low cost as possible to make as many houses available for people, and they feel that spending $40 or $50 more to get a roof that will last for the life of the mortgage might hinder the sale of the house.

Senator CLARK. Senator Sparkman asked you some questions about comparable cost, but at the risk of repeating, I wonder if you could take an average FHA house, let us say, one that sells for around $13,000, to pick a figure out of the air. How much more expensive would the 20-year shingle make that house than the 10-year shingle?

Mr. FRY. If the house sold for $13,000, using the FHA "Minimum Property Standard" shingle on the original house, and you wanted to put the other one on, it would be $13,040.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much.

Mr. FRY. In effect, it seems to me, Senator, that a fellow that can afford to invest $13,000 in a house should certainly be able to pay $228 for the roof to protect the $13,000 investment.

Senator CLARK. I would think so. Thank you very much, Mr. Fry.

I would like to offer for the record a letter received by Senator Sparkman from Senator Philip A. Hart of Michigan, introducing Mgr. Wilbur Suedkamp, who will be our next witness. (The letter referred to follows:)

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

May 16, 1960.

Senator JOHN SPARKMAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It had been my hope I would have the privilege of presenting to you and your committee a distinguished citizen of Michigan, Msgr. Wilbur Suedkamp. Unfortunately, I must attend a meeting of the Antitrust and Monopoly Subcommittee tomorrow morning.

Monsignor Suedkamp has given Michigan courageous and effective leadership in many areas of social concern and especially in the matter of its older citizens. It was my good fortune to sit with Msgr. Suedkamp on the board of a community house in Detroit which served effectively a depressed area, and which flourished principally because of his energies.

I know you will enjoy meeting and hearing him.
Sincerely,

PHILIP A. HABT.

Senator CLARK. Monsignor Suedkamp, will you please come forward to testify? Senator Hart has some very nice things to say about you, which I have no doubt are true. He expressed his regret at not being able to be here personally to introduce you this morning. We have a copy of your formal statement here which will be printed in the record. Will you just proceed in your own way, please, sir.

STATEMENT OF VERY REV. MSGR. WILBUR SUEDKAMP, SECRETARY, CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT, REPRESENTING CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF MICHIGAN; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES T. McCUISH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT FOR SERVICE FOR THE AGING, CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ARCHDIOCESE OF DETROIT

Monsignor SUEDKAMP. I would like to introduce Mr. McCuish, who is with me, from Detroit. He is executive director of our department for service for the aging.

Senator CLARK. Happy to have you here, Mr. McCuish.

Monsignor SUEDKAMP. He is the coordinator of 9 institutions for the aged and, on any 1 given night, has about 1,025 beds for the aged at his disposal.

Gentlemen, I am grateful for the opportunity to share with this subcommittee some of our concerns on housing for the low-income elderly people of this country.

It is important to state again and again the principle of subsidiarity. We believe that people in a democracy must first solve their own problems, and only when they are absolutely incapable of doing so should the Federal Government become involved in supplying social welfare. It is a benign and supportive role that the Government should play in bolstering the work of the nonprofit, voluntary, private agency. In my own archdiocese I am the director of an annual $5 million social welfare program. We can see from our vantage point a role that the Federal Government can play at this time in the critical situation of housing our elderly low-income people. We believe money should be made available through direct loans at a low rate of interest as a minimum basis for expanding housing for the lowincome elderly.

We are aware of the FHA program for housing elderly people under section 231 of the National Housing Act. We, in the Archdiocese of Detroit, purchased the former 750-room Detroiter Hotel. This institution is now called Carmel Hall, and is under an FHA mortgage under section 207 of the National Housing Act. In fact, the Carmel Hall mortgage loan was approximately $4 million. The present FHA program which insures a loan is not entirely satisfactory because of the high debt service charges on the loan. When we borrow money we must pay 514-percent interest and 12 percent to amortize the mortgage, plus another one-half of 1 percent for the FHA insurance. This totals 714 percent which must be paid on borrowed money. How can we provide low-cost housing at these high charges on a loan?

Senator CLARK. The net result of your experience would be, would it not, that a large portion of the elderly families and individuals who require housing are priced out of the market under this FHA procedure and cannot really take advantage of Carmel Hall, which you are providing for them, because they just cannot afford it? Monsignor SUEDKAMP. That is right.

We do not feel that the private builder is meeting the problem of low-income aged people, nor, above that, can they supply the auxiliary services needed.