sible American worthy of the name can purchase a home for his family if he so desires. Any liberalization of the provisions of the Housing Act would result in subsidized housing for the improvident, at the expense of the thrifty and the frugal. PUBLIC HOUSING Many of the bills before the committee propose large increases in public housing without regard to cost or actual needs. As we all know, public housing first started as a make-work project during the 1930 depression. As times improved, the work was continued with the ostensible purpose of furnishing publicly subsidized housing to that group of deserving citizens who were so poor that they were unable to furnish good housing for themselves. Under the guise of filling this need, the public housing lobby has come back again and again for congressional authorization to increase the number of housing units. There is no question that originally the basic purpose of public housing appealed to both the planners and the legislators who voted the money needed for this very expensive operation. In the last few years, however, the administrators of public housing tired of rental only to the poor and the needy, who frequently weren't the most desirable or tractable tenants, and proceeded to rent this subsidized housing to people of moderate or middle-class means. Gradually, the restrictions for renting to the lowest economic group of society were eased and then done away with entirely. Except in the State of Ohio, local directors are virtually uncontrolled and determine who shall live in public housing units. Public housing has been investigated on many occasions for many reasons. Certainly it is now time to stop any further construction of public housing and see to it that the use of this housing is restricted solely to the poor and the needy. The public housing law should have provisions that will permit policing and investigations to enforce this restricted use of public housing. Pending such a reorganization, no other public housing should be permitted to be built. Once this is done and our poor and needy are housed in present public housing, we are quite sure it will be found that most, if not all, of present needs will be taken care of by our present public housing units, which number over half a million. In our opinion, the use of housing as a political instrument should cease. There are some well-meaning suggestions in the various housing bills which are being considered but most of them seem to be motivated by political considerations. As we have indicated, no small part of our present slum problem in this country can be laid directly to the use of housing as a political football during rent control days. The Federal Government is now forced to spend billions yearly in order to correct some small part of the damage created over a period of years in 15 million rental units then existing. We are also unalterably opposed to any future public housing. Only in Ohio has any effort been made to use public housing for its dedicated purpose-helping out the needy and those on relief and public assistance. Nationally, the Public Housing Administration has abdicated this high purpose and now permits subsidized housing for the middle class, rather than restricting it to the low-income groups in our society. The public housers fail to explain why the middle class should be subsidized in housing any more than they should be subsidized in food, cars, clothing, et cetera. One of our friends suggested that we write what he termed a "constructive" report on the further liberalization of the Housing Act of 1954. By that he presumably meant the further liberalization of the already liberal provisions of the present Housing Act. We believe that a "constructive attitude" can also mean one that can bravely call a halt to the further needless subsidization of the shiftless and the improvident with public funds. It would be far better to use public funds for the welfare of the Nation and the people as a whole, regardless of the temporary political advantage of a subsidized home for every family. If we are unable to stop the spread of subsidy to all classes of our society, then our democracy will collapse because of the cverburden which is imposed on the responsible elements of our society. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brinkman. You have given us an interesting statement and one that is thought provoking. There was one figure you used. I realized you were giving Mr. duLaurence's statement. There is one figure that I wish you would check. You said that in 10 years we formed only 4,900,000 additional families. The Census Bureau reports that from 1950 through 1958, 8 years, there were 6,848,000 new households. I assume we mean the same, family formations and new households. Certainly, it is household formation you really mean to cover. So it it seems to me there must be a mistake in that figure. Mr. BRINKMAN. There may be, Mr. Chairman. I am not responsible for these figures. Senator SPARKMAN. I realize that. I said that in the beginning. Mr. BRINKMAN. I will check with Mr. duLaurence, and if that figure is wrong, we will certainly correct it for the record and submit a letter of explanation, if we may, to be incorporated into the record. We will either confirm it or correct it. Is that satisfactory? Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. I remember way back in 1947, Senator Taft appearing before this committee, and I believe he estimated family formations at that time at about 700,000 a year. That was as far back as 1947. I believe family formations now are running right at 1,000,000 a year, between 900,000 and 1,000,000. I have seen the figures, but I do not recall them. Anyhow, you have given us something to think about. Certainly, we ought to have in mind always to be certain that there is not overbuilding, generally, or in areas where it can be avoided. Mr. BRINKMAN. I do know that on the Pacific Coast where many of our associations are located, there is a very large vacancy rate in apartments. Senator SPARKMAN. I was somewhat surprised at the vacancy rate you had. Mr. BRINKMAN. Those are Census Bureau figures, Senator. you. Mr. BRINKMAN. Thank you. We will correct this if we find it is a mistake. (See p. 943.) Senator SPARKMAN. Very good. The committee stands in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 18, 1960.) HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1960 WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1960 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, at 10:05 a.m., Senator John Sparkman (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Sparkman and Clark. Also present: Senator Javits. Senator SPARKMAN. Let the subcommittee come to order, please. I think we better get started as we have a pretty full schedule this morning. First, I understand Senator Javits wants to make an additional statement. Senator, we are glad to have you back in the subcommittee and will be glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OF JACOB K. JAVITS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK-Resumed Senator JAVITs. I thank my colleague very much. I have to leave in 10 minutes for an important engagement in New York, but before I leave I wanted to introduce some very distinguished educators from my State who are here to testify today, whose testimony I believe should prove very helpful to us in our work here. I wish also to introduce some statements from other leading educators in the State of New York. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to introduce some statements. The first is from my colleague, Senator Keating. (The statement referred to follows:) U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, May 17, 1960. Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Housing is presently considering S. 2912, a bill to amend the Housing Act of 1950 with respect to the amount of college housing loans which can be made to any one State. As a cosponsor of this measure, I want to take this opportunity to cite and discuss my several reasons for favoring an increase in the existing limit from 10 to 121⁄2 percent. The objectives of the Federal college housing program are of the highest importance to our Nation's institutions of higher education and to our total student population. The administration has made it clear that it supports and, in fact, prefers Federal assistance to colleges and universities through a loan program geared to the improvement of college housing and dormitory facilities. Such an approach avoids the obvious difficulties involved in having the Federal Government contribute directly to funds for such purposes as teachers' salaries and major curriculum related expenses. Mr. Charles A. Brind, counsel to the University of the State of New York recently called my attention to the fact that the existing 10-percent limit on the amount of college housing funds which can go to any one State has in many cases prevented New York State from obtaining as large a share as it would like of the total amount of Federal funds available for college housing. Upon further study, I found that 1959 degree credit enrollment in New York State institutions of higher education was above 10 percent of the national total. Furthermore, projections for future increases in New York State college enrollment indicate that enrollment will increase very markedly in the next decade. On the basis of these and other major indexes as to the number, size, and nature of New York's institutions of higher education, I initially considered recommending to your committee that the arbitrary 10 percent ceiling on the amount of college housing funds which can go to any one State be raised to 15 percent. My colleague, Senator Javits, a member of this committee, suggested 122 percent and in light of his considerable experience in this field, I decided to join with him in recommending the increase to 121⁄2 percent, which is the figure proposed in S. 2912. I earnestly hope that the committee will take favorable action on this bill. It is my belief that such action is necessary to insure the equitable distribution of the funds appropriated for college housing. Our amendment would not benefit New York alone. It would also be of assistance to the several larger States in which total college enrollment is relatively high and in which college housing needs are rising. The steady increase in the number of students in institutions of higher education in New York State has clearly outgrown the 10-year-old limitation on the amount of college housing funds which can go to any one State. It is in this light that I urge that the Housing Subcommittee report favorably on legislation to increase this limit. I would appreciate it if you would have this letter made a part of the hearing record in conjunction with the testimony of the several witnesses from New York State, who are interested in the enactment of legislation along the lines of S. 2912. Very sincerely yours, KENNETH B. KEATING. Senator JAVITS. The next one from Chancellor C. C. Furnas, of the University of Buffalo, in favor of the college housing increase and the increase in the figure from 10 to 1212 percent as to the maximum amount which any State could draw. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF C. C. FURNAS, CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF BUFFALO, N.Y. Gentlemen: The University of Buffalo is an institution which serves almost 12,000 students, a substantial proportion of whom come to us from beyond commuting distance. The student body has representatives of every State in the Nation. The Federal college housing loan program has made it possible for the university to have under construction at the present time a residence hall to house and to feed 504 additional women students. The same program enabled the university to complete about 2 years ago a residence hall and dining facilities for 440 additional men students. These two structures were financed by loans from Housing and Home Finance Agency totaling $5,300,000. The University of Buffalo currently has before Housing and Home Finance Agency a request for a further loan of $3 million to aid in the construction of a new student union building in which the 11,000 students who commute to and from the campus may have adequate cafeterias, meeting rooms and other facilities generally found in student union buildings. Before the end of fiscal 1965 we plan to ask for two loans for the construction of additional residence halls. Each request will be in the neighborhood of $3 |