Mr. TALLE. No questions. Mr. BROWN. Any other questions of this witness? (No response.) Mr. BROWN. You may proceed to the next subject, Mr. Cole. Mr. COLE. Mr. Slusser, Commissioner of Public Housing Administration. We have given very careful consideration to the provisions of the bill relating to low-rent public housing, and I strongly urge their enactment. Essentially, these provisions would do two things. First. they would authorize additional public housing for 2 more fiscal years at the rate of 35,000 units a year. Second, they would make necessary technical and other changes in existing requirements to permit the full use of that authorization, without departing in any way from the objectives of the Congress, as 1 understand them, in enacting the public housing provisions of the Housing Act of 1954. The bill would maintain in all respects the basic purpose of meeting the relocation needs of families of low income displaced by slum clearance and urban renewal projects under title I of the Housing Act of 1949 or by other governmental action. As you know, one of the principal features of the Housing Act last year was the new broadened approach toward assisting communities in meeting their overall problems of eliminating and preventing the development and spread of slums and urban blight. Further financial assistance for public housing and other special aids of our agency relating to this problem were made conditional upon communities developing approved workable programs for meeting their overall problems of eliminating and preventing slums and blight. The act also imposed restrictions designed to assure that additional public housing would be built only to the extent that families are displaced by urban renewal or other governmental activities in these communities. I believe the purposes of those restrictions are essentially sound and should be adhered to. However, the technical legal effect of the requirements, as applied to existing title I slum clearance and redevelopment projects and other circumstances, have had an unreasonably restrictive effect which delayed and prevented, in large part, the use of the new public housing authorization. I am sure that this result was not intended by the Congress, and, frankly, the full effect of these restrictions was not realized by the housing agency prior to operating experiences under the new act. Mr. Slusser, the Public Housing Commissioner, is prepared to explain the specific changes the bill would make in the existing restrictions on public housing, and the effect those changes would make on the public-housing operations of our agency. I wish to first emphasize the importance of low-rent public housing to the success of our slum clearance and urban renewal operations and the related programs. of our agency. Relocation of displaced families presents perhaps the most serious problem usually encountered in a slum-clearance operation. The greatest need and the greatest public responsibility exists in connection with those displaced families who are also families of low income. With your permission, Mr. Slusser will now present his statement. Mr. BROWN. All right, Mr. Slusser, we will hear from you. STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. SLUSSER, PUBLIC HOUSING COMMISSIONER Mr. SLUSSER. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the lowrent public-housing section of the proposed housing amendments of 1955 (sec. 13 of H. R. 5827) is a modest proposal for the continuation of the public-housing program. This program has suffered in recent years from repeated changes in its goals and authorizations and from the imposition of a series of cutoff dates and deadlines tied to these authorizations. For example, the current low-rent program has an authorization expiring June 30 to contract for 35,000 units. The changes in authorizations and deadlines have made it impossible to schedule the orderly development of low-rent projects. The public-housing program can function best if it can plan reasonably in advance for a steady and uniform flow of work. It takes a local authority 12 to 18 months from the date of its first contract with PHA to plan and acquire land for a public-housing project. After the award of construction contracts, it takes about the same length of time to complete construction and initial occupancy. To assure an even flow of work, it is necessary to have a fixed authority to make contracts and authorize construction for a period of several years in advance. The stops and starts under which the program has operated in the past few years have made steady progress almost impossible. Due to continual peaks and valleys in our own workload, we have been unable to utilize our personnel to the best advantage, or build up and hold the skilled professional staff required to supervise the development of public housing. Projects rushed to construction because of a statutory deadline, may lack thorough planning. They need this. It would be to the advantage of the low-rent program if the Congress would assign fixed and definite goals, albeit modest, toward which it could progress at a uniform rate over a period of several years. The proposed bill seeks to do this. It extends for 1 year the present authorization to enter into contracts for 35,000 units. Because of the great complexity of the requirements in the Housing Act of 1954, it is impossible to contract for these units before the June 30 deadline. To date we have entered into annual contributions contracts for only a few hundred units, and we do not expect to contract for much more than 15,000 or 20,000 units before the cutoff date. A 1-year extension of the present 35,000-unit authorization will permit us to use it in full. In addition to this extension, the proposed bill authorizes new annual contributions contracts for 35,000 additional units which could be entered into at any time in the 2-year period beginning July 1, 1955. A similar authorization for another 35,000 units would become available for the 2-year period beginning July 1, 1956. The authorization for making new annual contributions contracts would thus expire in June 1958, 3 years hence. This would permit PHA and local authorities to schedule new contracts on an orderly basis and allow time for careful planning of the proposed projects before placing under contracts. Under the proposed bill, Congress will effectively control the size of the low-rent program by limiting the number of dwellings which may be put under annual contributions contracts, rather than by controlling the start of construction. After annual contributions contracts have been signed, the local authorities will be free to proceed in an orderly manner from planning to completion of the projects, and occupancy. To carry out the initial planning of projects before entering into annual contributions contracts, the proposed bill authorizes PHA to enter into any necessary new preliminary loan contracts. Such contracts are strictly limited to providing funds for the advance planning of projects, and do not in any way commit PHA to annual contributions contracts. At present before PHA may make a preliminary loan the Housing Act requires approval of the loan application by the governing body of the locality. We believe the number of units proposed in this bill is modest in relation to the needs of the families to be displaced by slum clearance and urban renewal activities and eligible for public housing. Because their incomes are too low to permit them to find decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings offered by private enterprise, public housing must be provided before they are displaced by demolition of their present slum dwellings. The provision of low-rent housing for these families is an absolute essential if the slum clearance and urban renewal program is to make the progress expected of it. In addition to extending the program, the proposed legislation seeks to simplify certain complex requirements included in the Housing Act of 1954, while at the same time adhering to the general philosophy then established by the Congress. Under the present law, new public housing contracts can be entered into only in communities which have adopted a workable program for slum elimination. This requirement is continued in the proposed legislation, but in addition, any community which had undertaken a title I slum clearance project prior to the adoption of the Housing Act of 1954 could also qualify for low-rent housing. This parallels a similar provision applicable to FHA mortgage insurance under section 221. The Housing Act of 1954, in addition to the workable program requirements, stipulated that a community to be eligible for public housing must also be receiving Federal aid for a title I slum clearance or urban renewal project. Since there are many other ways in which a local government can eliminate slums pursuant to its workable program, it seems unfair to deny public housing to a local authority which proceeds on its own steam without asking for Federal assistance under the title I program. Moreover, the requirement that a title I project be started in a locality before a contract can be made for low-rent housing is on its face inconsistent. A public housing project could hardly be planned, constructed, and ready for occupancy by the time the title I project was ready to clear its slum area and displace families. Therefore, the proposed legislation omits the requirement that the carrying out of a title I project be a condition precedent to any new annual contributions contract for low-rent housing. This change will put public housing on the same basis in this respect as FHA mortgage insurance under section 221. As a condition for executing a new annual contributions contract, the present act requires certification by the local governing body that public housing is needed for families displaced by a title I slum clearance or urban renewal project. Since it is proposed that the carrying out of such a title I project be no longer a prerequisite to public housing, the present bill eliminates this certification. Instead, it requires that the local governing body adopt a resolution approving the number of units to be provided under the new contract, thus assuring the Congress that the construction of additional public housing is in accordance with the wishes of the respective communities. Under the pending bill, the Housing and Home Finance Administrator will be required to find that the number of new public housing units to be provided does not exceed the number of families of low income, eligible for admission to low-rent housing, which he estimates will be displaced within the metropolitan or housing market area of the locality as a result of public slum clearance, urban renewal, or other governmental action. The present law requires that the Administrator determine that the number of new units will not exceed the number of units to be needed for such displaced families. The proposed change will make it clear that the Administrator, in making his determination, is not required to take account of units which may become available from time to time in existing low-rent housing projects. This will permit new public housing to be built for displaced families without affecting occupancy in existing projects, which could then continue to serve other eligible low income families. Such families include those: (1) Who leave the slums on their initiative without being forced out as a result of governmental action; (2) who are displaced by private enterprise which is clearing a slum site on its own initiative; or (3) who are displaced as a result of fire or other disaster. I believe the proposed changes are essential. They will maintain the basic purpose of meeting the relocation needs of low income families displaced by slum clearance or elimination, and will permit a flexibility necessary to meet the varying conditions in different communities. With these changes we are confident that the proposed extended program can be administered with maximum success. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Slusser, this means, then, in all localities of three or four thousand people, that there will not be more public housing? Mr. SLUSSER. I didn't understand your question, sir. Mr. BROWN. I said this amendment simply means that in small communities of three or four thousand houses they will not have public housing? Mr. SLUSSER. No, sir, not necessarily. Mr. BROWN. You have to have slum clearance to have public housing. Mr. SLUSSER. Or urban renewal. Mr. COLE. Under the present situation we think this would be more helpful to the small communities than the present law and the small communities could have an urban renewal program but it would still maintain the basic philosophy enacted in the 1954 law, to make those people eligible who have been displaced, and therefore the small community quite truthfully would have more difficulty than the large in securing public housing authorization. Am I correct, Mr. Slusser? Mr. SLUSSER. That is correct. Mr. BROWN. Would my State of Georgia be eligible now? Mr. COLE. Sir? Mr. BROWN. My State is Georgia. Would we be eligible under this amendment? Mr. COLE. Would your State? Mr. BROWN. Georgia. Mr. SLUSSER. Yes. They would be eligible. Mr. BROWN. They were not eligible last year. Mr. COLE. Mr. Brown, we are advised that Georgia has just had a constitutional amendment which would bring them under it. Mr. BROWN. Under this amendment how many States would be eligible now? Mr. COLE. Under this amendment, 43 States. Mr. BROWN. Out of 48? Mr. COLE. Yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. Mr. Multer? Mr. MULTER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Slusser, how long have you been with the Agency? Mr. SLUSSER. Since July 7, 1953. Mr. MULTER. You probably recall, as I do, the first public housing bill, when introduced, I think it was the Wagner-Taft-Ellender bill. It then became known as the Taft-Wagner-Ellender bill, and those disinguished gentlemen were accused of socialism and communism in advocating a program of this kind. I am sure you are a good Republican, and if there were any communism or socialism in this program you would have long since found it. Did you find any? Mr. SLUSSER. No. I don't believe so, sir. Mr. MCDONOUGH. Not in the present bill. Mr. MULTER. I am talking about the law and the projects that were going to communize and socialize our Nation. Mr. MCDONOUGH. He is not trying to sell communities now. They were trying to sell communities. They were saying, "This is what you are going to have." Mr. GAMBLE. They weren't trying to sell them. They were trying to force them down your throat. Mr. BROWN. Let's have order, please. Mr. MULTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the objections to public housing, both when the program was first projected and then when it got underway, and some of the objections that are still being urged against it being continued today, were that public housing projects do not improve the general condition of the communities, that these projects very quickly become run down and are just as slovenly as the slums in which the people had lived before they moved into these public housing projects. Have you found that to be true? Mr. SLUSSER. No, sir. I have traveled a good part of the United States and have visited many local authorities and I have found none that I would put in that category, sir. |