Senator BYRD. I would like to know whether or not the organization represented by these very capable gentlemen has taken any position with regard to civil defense bomb shelters. The inclusion of bomb shelters in the new construction of housing that is anticipated in the near future?

Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, we testified for that before the Holifield subcommittee of the House of Representatives that we would favor a very comprehensive program of bomb shelters to be included in various kinds of building programs. We have never taken a firm position as to its relationship to a housing program but it certainly would not be beyond the limit of the position which we have taken. We have advocated such developments in terms of schools, hopsitals, and college housing. There would certainly be a place where this kind of thing could be done and there is no conflict between the point you are raising and the position the AFL-CIO has taken in the past on this issue.

Mr. SHISHKIN. May I add, Senator Byrd, that it is very important that the provision made by Congress for these necessary facilities is provided for specifically as far as their financing is concerned and this does not impinge upon the necessary housing funds.

There are many of these things that are needed and they ought to be provided and appropriated for specifically.

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have this expression of position by Mr. Biemiller who is a former distinguished Member of the House of Representatives. I am pleased to know that the AFL-CIO is cognizant of the great need for authority in this direction. We were talking a great deal about the protection of our missile sites and the protection of this and that. I think these days we are overlooking the most important piece of our foundation, the protection of the people. I am fearful that there might come a time when this country might be blackmailed into surrender simply because the people do not feel that they have adequate protection against a surprise bombing attack or any other bombing attack for that matter. I would certainly hope that the organization that is before this distinguished committee today continues to do some research in this field and will continue to offer suggestions to the Congress.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Senator Byrd.

Yes, Mr. Shishkin?

Mr. SHISHKIN. I would like to make a couple of points, Mr. Chairman, in rounding out the summary-in relation to public housing there is a continuing need to provide decent homes for displaced families and also those now living in slums not slated for immediate clearance. We recommend the 1949 authorization, now this means about 150,000 to 200,000 units for construction at any time. This will permit communities to proceed at their own pace.

We favor provision encouraging a larger measure of local autonomy. We also urge repeal of restrictionist riders in the past appropriations bills.

On urban renewal we favor a 10-year $600 million a year provided in S. 193 as being the minimum needed to finance urgently needed projects. On relocation of housing and housing for the elderly, Mr. Chairman, the AFL-CIO for a decade now has urged effective middle income housing programs and is still convinced of its necessity. We

regret no legislation has been introduced to meet this need. In the absence of this program we are urging long-term, low-interest loans to reduce housing expenses for two groups whose need is especially urgent-families displaced by urban renewal and other public projects; and the elderly. The problem of displaced families would be met by title III of S. 193 and we urge a similar program to finance housing suitable for the elderly. Existing programs for these groups under the FHA do not permit charges of a low enough level displaced families and the elderly can afford.

And then come our other recommendations. We recommend an additional $1 billion to FNMA for purchase of $13,500 and under mortgages under FHA and VA programs. Improvement and expansion of cooperating housing program. At least $300 million for direct loans for ĜI housing. Also a requirement of payment of prevailing wage in any housing construction involving any form of Federal financial assistance. Other recommendations are set forth in detail in my prepared testimony.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to be before this committee. I want to commend the chairman for his initiative and leadership in carrying out this very important task before this Congress and to the members of the committee who are working with him on this very vital problem.

I would like to say in conclusion that I think one thing ought to be borne clearly in mind. The fabric of our national character is woven in the home. This is just as important as schooling, as school provision or anything else. The American home is the place where our ability to cope with the future of maintaining leadership, in science, in every single field, that is all lodged in the American home and I think it is about time that the Congress responded to this challenge. This is the opportunity for the 86th Congress to really come to grips and discharge its responsibility toward the future of the American home. Thank you.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Shishkin.

Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, may I have the record show that the group from the AFL-CIO also included Mr. Bert Seidman, an economist with our research department and Mr. John Edelman, legislative representative of the Textile Workers Union of America who is also chairman of the subcommittee on housing of the legislative council of the AFL-CIO, and a member of the housing committee also of the AFL-CIO. And I think you recognize full well as the testimony proceeded that it is our opinion that S. 57, your own bill with some additions from Senator Clark's bills, would make, in our opinion, the kind of program which the American people need from this Congress.

Thank you very much.

Senator SPARKMAN. I am sure I do not have to remind you that when I introduced S. 57 I stated that it represented substantially the bill that the Senate agreed on last year and that while it did not measure up to my full hopes I thought it was a bill that we could get through quickly and would, at least, give us a fair housing

program.

We are very glad to have both of the gentlemen with you. Do either one of you have a word to add?

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. John Edelman.

Mr. EDELMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am collecting a series of individual supplementary statements from local city councils of our trade-union movement throughout the country. I have several already in, but additional ones are coming in. Might I have leave to file these statements before the conclusion of this hearing?

Senator SPARKMAN. By the 28th.

Mr. EDELMAN. The 28th of this month; yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Because we want to send the transcript to the printer immediately upon conclusion.

Mr. EDELMAN. We will file before that date.

(The information referred to had not been received at the time of going to press.)

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your testimony.

The next witness is Mr. Wallace J. Campbell, director of the Washington office of the Cooperative League of the United States of America.

Mr. Campbell, you have been before our committee many times. We have your statement.

STATEMENT OF WALLACE J. CAMPBELL, DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON OFFICE, COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we are very pleased to have this opportunity to present to the committee our suggestions concerning the legislation which is now before you.

For identification I would like to point out that the Cooperative League of the U.S.A. is a national federation of consumer, purchasing and service cooperatives, serving every State in the United States, including Alaska. The league includes in its membership regional, State, and national organizations. It serves 13 million families who are members of farm supply, consumer goods, insurance, credit, rural electric, health, housing, student, and other cooperatives.

I. COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PROPOSALS

First: We would like to point out that we feel that this committee, and particularly Senator Sparkman as chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing, should be given due credit for the emergency housing legislation which was adopted at the beginning of the last session of Congress, just a year ago.

As a result of the emergency legislation, the building industry led the economy in its return to recovery. The sudden rise in new housing starts, and the impact on the economy, are generally credited with having provided new jobs, not only in the building industry, but in the many industries which supply housing materials. The economy as a whole, therefore, was stimulated by your action. As an organization representing the consumer interest, we feel that the consumers of America also benefited through the addition to the housing supply of thousands of additional housing units which otherwise would not have been built.

Second. This year, even though the economy is on a firmer basis than it was a year ago, there is still a great need for a dynamic housing industry. There is an even greater need for increased housing to meet consumer needs, for at our current rate we have made no impact on the great backlog of slum dwellings and substandard housing which is the fate of an estimated 15 million Americans; also we are not keeping pace with the growth in our population.

Other witnesses will be testifying on the overall housing need, with recommendations on the steps which should be taken by the Congress to meet that need. The Cooperative League fully supports these programs to meet the housing needs of the people, including: an expanded program of urban renewal; a reauthorization of public housing on the scale authorized in the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill of 1949; a more adequate program to meet the needs of elderly persons; an emergency program to take care of hundreds of thousands of people who will be displaced by the highway program, slum clearance, and urban renewal programs in general; and an adequate program of college housing.

In more specific terms, we recommend an urban renewal program which would authorize $600 million a year for 10 years, or a total of $6 billion urban renewal program. This program is so popular that, as far as I know, there have been no witnesses testifying against it. The mayors of almost every American city have been represented through their national organizations in testimony supporting the program.

In any overall program to meet the housing needs, it is essential to build for the lowest-income families who can secure adequate housing only if their needs are subsidized. We should complete the public housing program authorized by the Congress in 1949 under the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill. There is a backlog of unused authorization which should be made available now to meet more adequately the needs of our most underprivileged families.

We endorse the proposals introduced by Senator Clark and others to provide direct loans for displaced families and for elderly persons. The need on college campuses for housing is so great that we support the continuation and expansion of the popular college housing program. We would urge, however, that provision be made in that program for student cooperatives to borrow funds directly for the construction of housing facilities operated by the student cooperatives. During the past 25 years, the student cooperatives have developed a program creating a sense of responsibility among the students themselves. Many student cooperatives have a quarter of a century of experience in providing student housing at the lowest cost of any program.

The emergency housing legislation initiated by this committee last year provided a billion dollars for advance commitments by the Federal National Mortgage Association for housing at $13,500 or less per unit. The Cooperative League supports an extension of that program. We have only one specific suggestion in this connection. In the legislation adopted last year to meet an emergency, a discrimination against cooperatives was allowed to stand in the bill which, I am sure, was not intended. While the legislation limits the purchases by FNMA to mortgages which are $13,500, or less, the board

of directors of FNMA ruled that this meant that no blanket mortgage could be purchased under this program, even if the average mortgage amount per unit were less than $13,500. That ruling automatically excluded cooperative housing projects which have a single mortgage covering many dwellings, both in the management type and the sales type cooperatives. The Congress could correct this discrimination by writing into the bill an authorization to include the purchase of mortgages of $13,500 per unit, which are insured under FHA section 213.

Third: The programs of the administration contained in the budget message are wholly inadequate and fail to meet the housing needs of the American people. We do not subscribe to budget and legislative recommendations which would sacrifice human needs by failing to provide an adequate housing program to meet the needs of all income groups.

The legislative policy announced in the Housing Act of 1949-to provide a decent home for every American family should continue to be the yardstick for housing legislation. Moreover, as Congress recognized last year in the emergency housing bill, an adequate housing program is important to the achievement of a sound economy and full employment. Through assuring continued high rates of industrial production and increasing the gross national product, we not only keep pace with the growth in our population, but also produce additional tax revenues. It is shortsighted to cut off these programs which are so essential both to human welfare and our economic welfare.

II. PROPOSALS TO STRENGTHEN THE COOPERATIVE HOUSING PROGRAM

As many of the members of this committee will remember, the cooperative housing program, under FHA section 213, came as a compromise after an intensive debate on a middle-income housing bill which would have authorized a comprehensive cooperative program to meet the middle-income housing needs of the country. Senator Sparkman and a subcommittee studied the cooperative housing program in the Scandinavian countries and brought back a report and recommendations which were incorporated in S. 2246. That bill was defeated by a very narrow margin in the Senate after having been adopted by its Banking and Currency Committee. When the middleincome bill was defeated, a compromise was worked out which authorized the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages on cooperative housing. The program was established in April 1950, and will soon celebrate its ninth birthday.

We want to commend this committee for its recognition through the years, that cooperative housing should be encouraged as a means of providing better housing at lower costs so as to meet the needs of moderate income families. This committee took the initiative in enacting not only FHA, section 213, but also FNMA special assistance for cooperatives. From time to time, the committee has adopted necessary amendments based upon experience. Since no housing bill was passed last year, except the emergency bill, there has been an accumulation of amendments which experience has shown to be necessary. While some of these are merely technical amendments, all of