CHICAGO TO TEST LINE Another new concept that will have its first full-scale test in Chicago is that of operating a mass transit line in the center mall of an express highway. The Congress Street Expressway is being constructed in that fashion and will give some indication of the relative merits of auto, rail and bus transportation. The pendulum movement of urban transportation, although thought of as relatively new and linked to this country and the automobile's growth, dates back to the pre-Christian era. The home-to-work or farm-to-market pattern of travel is both historic and global. The problem of achieving good urban mobility plagues London, Rome, Paris, Stockholm and other urban centers almost as much as it does metropolitan areas in this country. Congestion was bad long before the motor vehicle. It was particularly bad in London by 1891, when the poorer inhabitants were forced to leave the highrent districts to commercial uses. London became a deserted night city, and the era of the horse, bus and rail commutation was underway. Almost the same conditions prevailed in New York, Boston and Philadelphia, and at the turn of the century surface transit was taking up so much street space that the biggest cities turned to subway or elevated lines to relieve traffic congestion. In Mr. Owens' opinion, the disorderly arrangement of land uses has contributed to maximum transport requirements. The thorny problem of space versus volume shows no signs of abating and is not only choking cities but engulfing the high-density suburban communities that ring metropolitan areas, close in and far out. FAMILY CARS INCREASE One big factor in the complex problem is the sharp rise in family car ownership. In the biggest cities 56 percent of families own a car. In smaller cities the ratio is 75 percent and in the suburbs generally 84 percent. There is a growing necessity for two cars to a family, and 14 percent of car owners across the country have two vehicles registered. Where family income exceeds $10,000 a year, more than 50 percent have two cars. There are more cars than families in Los Angeles and in Miami. In Westchester, Nassau, Suffolk, and Fairfield (Conn.) Counties the automobiles average 1.25 for each household. The planning errors and lack of perception that have contributed so greatly to New York midcity congestion are being repeated in the fast-growing suburbs, many transportation authorities hold. New housing devours open space with little regard for adequate road capacity or parking for the traffic that will be generated. All of this, they contend, makes it imperative that the traditional governmental setup of local, county, and State government be modified and the newest thinking of regional government be explored fully. Within that framework, it is said, a coordinating agency for every facet of metropolitan area transportation might ease a national dilemma. Senator WILLIAMS. This concludes our hearings on the bill S. 3278. We have had 3 days of hearings, and I opened with an expression of thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Sparkman, for this unusual opportunity of having this exhaustive, but not exhausting, hearing. I want to express our gratitude again, Mr. Chairman. Senator SPARKMAN. Let me express my appreciation to you. I think you have done a wonderful job here in developing this case. It is something more or less new, and I think everyone who sat here has come to realize the necessity of some thing being done in this field. I appreciate your approach to it and the manner in which you have so well handled these hearings. Senator WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. The hearings will recess now and will reconvene at 10 o'clock, Friday, on all of the legislation before the subcommittee. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 10 o'clock on Friday, May 27, 1960.) HOUSING LEGISLATION OF 1960 FRIDAY, MAY 27, 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 10:02 a.m., Senator Joseph S. Clark presiding. Present: Senators Clark and Bush. Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session. I have a letter dated April 25, 1960, addressed to Senator Sparkman by Mr. Oscar H. Brinkman, executive secretary of the National Apartment Owners Association, Inc., regarding testimony made by Mr. Henry DuLaurence before this subcommittee on Tuesday. (See p. 424.) The purpose of the letter was to verify some figures given by Mr. DuLaurence during his testimony regarding family formation in the last 10 years. Mr. DuLaurence's testimony included the following statement: In the last 10 years we have built over 10,900,000 housing units but we have formed only 4,900,000 additional families. A question was raised during the hearing on the source of these figures, and whether the comparison between housing starts and new family formation was a proper one. I see by the letter that the source of the figures quoted by Mr. DuLaurence is a Census Bureau report which shows the increase in primary families for the 9-year period from 1950 to 1959 to be 4,900,000. Mr. DuLaurence compared this increase with nonfarm housing starts for the past 10 years, which amounted to 10,900,000. This letter will be placed in the record, but I believe that it is appropriate to point out that such a comparison between housing starts and increase in primary families has questionable value. Housing demand comes from household formation, not family formation. The group of people who live together in a housing unit is by definition a household. Households include, in addition to families, unrelated persons living together and persons living alone. In 1959 there were 7,361,000 such individuals occupying separate dwelling units according to the Census Bureau. Any evaluation of housing demand that ignores the formation of new households resulting from this source would be meaningless. The accepted comparison between housing starts and new household formation is the 10-year nonfarm housing starts of the privately owned units amounting to 11,238,000 with the household formation for the same period amounting to 10,222,000. These figures are from official Government sources. (The letter from Mr. Brinkman follows:) NATIONAL APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: At the committee's hearing on Tuesday, May 17, some question was raised as to the accuracy of the following sentence in the statement of Mr. Henry DuLaurence, chairman of the legislative committee of the National Apartment Owners Association, Inc.: "In the last 10 years we have built over 10,900,000 housing units but we have formed only 4,900,000 additional families." An opinion was expressed that family formation exceeded the figure of 4,900,000. I have since received the following from Mr. DuLaurence's office: "We received our data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census Report, series P-20, No. 94, which states in March 1950 there were 39,303,000 families and in March 1959 there were 44,202,000 families which makes approximately 4,900,000 additional families during that period." We shall appreciate it if you will have this letter incorporated in the record of the hearings. We thank you again for the courtesies extended in the hearing. Sincerely yours, OSCAR H. BRINKMAN, Executive Secretary. Senator CLARK. On behalf of the chairman, Senator Sparkman, I would like to welcome back the Administration witnesses who are here today and to express his regret at not being able to be here. The primary purpose of this hearing is to obtain testimony from officials of HHFA on bills which have either been introduced since you gentlemen were here at an earlier date or to elicit your comments on the testimony of other witnesses and bills you did express your views on. In some cases, at least, the views of other witnesses were not quite in accord with the views of the Agency, and we felt you should have an opportunity to rebut. Before calling the witnesses to the witness table, I would like to have included in the record later on a letter dated May 27, directed to Senator Sparkman from Commissioner Zimmerman, of the Federal Housing Administration; also, a letter to Senator Sparkman from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States under date of May 27, signed by Mr. Clarence R. Miles, manager of the chamber's legislative department, expressing the views of the chamber on various bills before this committee; also a series of letters directed to me from various hospitals and hospital administrators and universities with reference to the proposed extension of urban renewal authority so as to include hospitals as well as educational institutions. I would also like to welcome, on behalf of Senator Sparkman, and I am sure all the other members of the subcommittee, Mr. Bruce Savage, the new Commissioner of Public Housing Administration, and to express the hope, which I am sure my colleagues share, that our association together will be fruitful in the public interest. Mr. Mason, it occurs to me, subject to your own thinking, that perhaps we could proceed most expeditiously if you bring your first team up here with you to the table and then act as a field manager, calling up pinch-hitters when you needed them, substituting pitchers if you feel you should, and allow them to go the full nine innings if they seem to be throwing the hard, high one past the committee. STATEMENT OF NORMAN P. MASON, ADMINISTRATOR, HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY J. STANLEY BAUGHMAN, PRESIDENT, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION; JULIAN H. ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION; DAVID M. WALKER, COMMISSIONER, URBAN RENEWAL ADMINISTRATION; BRUCE SAVAGE, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC HOUSING ADMINISTRATION; AND JOHN C. HAZELTINE, COMMISSIONER, COMMUNITY FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION-Resumed Mr. MASON. Thank you, Senator Clark. We would be happy to do this and go more than nine innings if necessary. Senator CLARK. I do not think it is necessary for you to introduce our old friends here, but perhaps you would like to say a word about Mr. Savage. I think this is his first appearance before the committee. Mr. MASON. Senator Clark, I would like to introduce to the committee the new Commissioner of the Public Housing Administration, Bruce Savage, of Indianapolis, Ind. Mr. Savage is a man who has had wide experience in the construction industry and also has a high regard for the needs of the people of low income of our country and has evidenced this publicly over a period of time. And we feel he can make a real contribution in this field that he is embarking upon. I would say to you that we expect great things of Mr. Savage, but perhaps not today. He has only been in office 2 days, with all this business of delay of confirmation and getting his commission signed, and so on. We swore him in last Tuesday afternoon. Senator CLARK. I am sure the subcommittee shares your great expectations. Mr. Savage, of course, you were here when we had the hearing on confirmation, but it is good to welcome you here in your official and full capacity, and we are happy to welcome you. Mr. MASON. Senator Clark, Mr. Savage may have a very few remarks, if he could. Senator CLARK. Go right ahead, Mr. Savage. Mr. SAVAGE. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I assumed, as has been stated, 2 days ago this position, being Public Housing Commissioner only since last Tuesday. I have been and still am interested in public housing for a number of years. Of course, very recently, I have been studying it intensively. However, of course, I can hardly pretend yet to have the knowledge necessary to be of any real assistance to your committee on the detailed provisions of the legislation before you today. I certainly look forward to working with the members and the staff of this committee, and I would like to emphasize that all of the facilities of PHA are, of course, at your disposal at any time. I wish to thank the committee for its very wonderful work in helping me get this confirmation. I appreciate it most deeply, and I would like at this time, then, to, if I have your permission, bow out for the moment and refer the questions on public housing, if I have your permission to do so, to Mr. Mason, whom you know quite well. Do I have your permission to do this, sir? Senator CLARK. That would certainly be all right with us, Mr. Savage. I see Mr. Davern sitting back there. If Mr. Mason would like to have him up here to assist, it would be all right with us. If you would like to play it differently, it is perfectly all right. Mr. MASON. Senator Clark, I would like to have Mr. Davern sit in. Mr. SAVAGE. May I retire? Senator CLARK. Certainly. Mr. Davern, would you then come forward and take the empty chair of your new boss? Mr. MASON. Senator Clark, we will proceed now in any manner you choose. I have a prepared statement; I would be perfectly willing to file this if you would like to start with questions directly, or to read it, as you wish. Senator CLARK. I suggest, if Senator Bush is in accord, we have your prepared statement made a part of the record at this point and that we proceed to elicit your testimony on the particular bills before the committee, upon which we will want to have your last-minute views before we proceed in a markup session. Does that suit you, Senator Bush? Senator BUSH. I observe that each of these comments in his statement is fairly brief on each of the bills. I do not know but what it would be just as well, for focusing attention on their views about these bills, if he went through his statement. Then, the others, I would agree, may want to brief their statements. But I would like to get the official opinion on these different bills at the outset. Senator CLARK. That is quite all right with me. I suggest, then, Mr. Mason, that you proceed with your statement and that we treat each bill as a unit. When you have concluded your statement on that particular bill, we will have an opportunity to ask questions on that before we pass on to the next one. Mr. MASON. I think this is an excellent idea. The first item is S. 3509, direct loans for rental housing for the elderly. Senator Clark's bill, S. 3509, would provide in section 6(a) for doubling the present $50 million authorization for direct Federal loans for rental housing for the elderly. As your committee knows, this program was authorized last fall in the Housing Act of 1959. It was opposed by the administration because we felt that in the long run it would actually provide less housing for elderly persons by driving privately financed housing out of this field. Private financing cannot compete with direct Federal loans having maturities as long as 50 years; and bearing extremely low interest rates. The interest rate formula in the law would result in borrowers currently paying a rate of 31% percent under the direct loan program. I believe that the housing needs of elderly people can best be met under two other existing programs. The Federal Housing Administration's mortgage insurance program for nonprofit rental housing for the elderly was begun in 1956 and was perfected only last September. At the same time FHA was authorized to extend special aids to profit-motivated rental housing for the elderly and to nursing homes. The needs of low-income elderly persons are increasingly being served under the Public Housing Administration's low-rent housing program which has been oriented in the last few years to give special |