Mr. MITCHELL. In this case, Mr. Multer, you would have to oust the head of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. He is the person who has not made the decision that this program should be put into effect, and I am sorry to say

Mr. MULTER. I don't think it is necessary to oust him in the first instance. I think it is necessary for the President to send for him and say "This is my program and you are my administrator, and that is what you must do. If you can't do it then get out."

Mr. MITCHELL. That is what I was getting ready to add. I am sorry to say that there is a considerable volume of evidence to indicate that not only is the action of the Housing and Home Finance Administration acceptable to the White House, but it has been supported and insisted upon by the White House. I don't believe there is a scintilla of evidence to show that the White House supports the program of saying that the Federal Government must not be used to promote segregation in housing. So if we start talking about putting people out who don't live up to this policy that is clearly what the Constitution requires. We would have to make an extensive housecleaning.

Mr. MULTER. I said many times to my colleagues, on and off the floor, that the problem that concerns me is not so much the problem in the South. Of course, they have a problem, but I said that this problem is even a bigger problem in the North.

Am I right or not about that? Don't we have just as much if not more discrimination in the North than we do in the South?

Mr. MITCHELL. I was in Jackson, Miss., not so long ago. On the street where I had breakfast one morning colored and white people lived together in complete harmony. They will continue to live together in complete harmony on that street until the Federal Government comes in with a program of slum clearance and redevelopment under which they will tear down all those houses.

I don't think they would tear those down because they are very good houses-under which they tear down all those houses and say "We will build something which will be for whites only and the colored people will have to move on."

I certainly agree it isn't a problem peculiar to the South. It is a nationwide pattern. We might as well face up to it. The only way we will correct it is either by the Congress doing its duty or the Chief Executive being very clear and certain about doing something about it. Mr. MULTER. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions?

Mr. VANIK. Mr. Mitchell, I would like, going back to your statement and I want to make my questions business questions so we can expedite the hearing-with respect to your statement about the Buck County situation, the Levitt project, is it your idea that the minority groups are excluded only in the first building. The resale certainly wouldn't have a preclusion?

Mr. MITCHELL. They are excluded in the first building and in the resale. When a resale takes place, it is usually controlled by the person who is the builder and seller of the house.

Mr. VANIK. Is there that kind of control in Levittown on the resale? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.

Mr. VANIK. Then, in your opinion, there should be some legislative action or administrative action to guarantee that in a resale there should be no covenant that would prescribe anyone having any control for resale?

Mr. MITCHELL. What exists now, Mr. Vanik, is that under the regulations no one may put a covenant on housing which is FHA-insured, in writing. But there are oral agreements that housing will be for white people or colored people. That is what is happening.

Mr. VANIK. How is the resale of the Levittown project house controlled?

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Levitt, the builder, is the one who has control over who lives in that area. A person who wants to sell, if it is known that he is going to sell to a colored person, is approached and all sorts of pressures are used to try to keep him from selling.

Mr. VANIK. Those are extraordinary pressures, outside the law, aren't they?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. I would like to make it clear that we believe and we urge that this protection not only be on resale, but housing that is built initially. It seems even more important that it be on housing that is built initially.

Mr. VANIK. How would your amendment, in which I see great merit, curb these extracurricular or extralegal maneuvers on the part of someone like Mr. Levitt to control his project?

Mr. MITCHELL. It would mean that if Mr. Levitt was going to build a project, he would have to assure the Federal Govrnment that when people; that is, if he got FHA assistance, that when people came to rent a house, he wouldn't look at what color they were, but he would look at whether they meet certain standards he is asking of all standards, whether they can afford it, whether they would be desirable, and so forth.

Mr. VANIK. Suppose he gives us his promise, administrative promise. What control will you have over it?

Mr. MITCHELL. It would seem to me whatever other way you have of enforcing the provisions.

Mr. VANIK. Other than by denying future loans?

Mr. MITCHELL. That would be one very clear way. Then other controls that are part of the law would apply in this case, such as you violate any section of it. The Government would be in a position to take action against you.

Mr. VANIK. Once the builder has the loan money, it can't be taken away from him. I wondered what means could be used by the Housing Administrator, or whatever other responsible official might be involved, to procure an enforcement of such a rule.

Mr. MITCHELL. It seems clear that in that case if this law were in effect and Mr. Levitt said to a qualified person he couldn't have the house, the housing agency would have the authority to overrule Mr. Levitt on that and say that a person could occupy the house.

Mr. VANIK. In other words, you would have to provide some further legal machinery for an appeal so that a purchaser could go to some agency and make his complaint?

Mr. MITCHELL. As we see it, the machinery would be made automatically available if this amendment were part of the law. It would be the same machinery that is used for enforcement of all parts of the law.

Mr. VANIK. With respect to the projects which you referred down in Georgia, the redevelopment projects, isn't it true that the 1954 act has already provided that the displaced people must be rehoused? We went through that problem in Cleveland and I think it is one of the things we had to insure, that the displaced people would be rehoused as an integral part of our application for urban renewal or redevelopment. Isn't that true?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is supposed to be part of the law and part of administrative regulations. As a practical matter, what happens today is when an area is to be redeveloped, very little is known about what happens to the people who are displaced. I have sat through conference after conference in the housing agencies where they tried to explain what happened to people. The most I have seen them able to account for is about 25 or 30 percent of the people who were displaced.

Generally, they don't know what happens to most of the people. They double up and go to live in other slum areas.

Mr. VANIK. I wonder if your amendment will assure that they will be rehoused?

Mr. MITCHELL. We think it would. We would welcome any suggestions on how it should be strengthened.

Mr. VANIK. I have another question.

In your judgment, then, there isn't much likelihood of an administrative order being issued that could take care of this problem; isn't that correct?

Mr. MITCHELL. I am sorry to say that is true. I feel even less like there is going to be one after what the President had to say in his press conference yesterday.

Mr. VANIK. Relating to the manpower bill?

Mr. MITCHELL. When somebody asked about the manpower, and on a general subject of segregation amendments, or anti-segregation amendments, as you may recall, the President said that he thought these programs ought not to be clouded with these extraneous issues. I don't see how you can call a thing extraneous when, as in the case of the manpower bill, on May 18, 126 members of the House voted for that amendment; on May 19, 161 of them voted against having it taken out of the bill. It seems incredible that anybody would say that this was an extraneous amendment that was supported by so many members of a qualified body of Government.

Mr. VANIK. For that reason you feel that the legislation is absolutely necessary, because the administrative policy would not bring about that result, or would probably not create the regulations?

Mr. MITCHELL. What we have tried to set forth, Mr. Vanik, is that over a period of years we tried to get administrative relief. We believed we could, but we haven't gotten it.

Mr. VANIK. Do you believe that the recommendation of 35,000 housing units is going to be adequate the recommendation that has been made by the administration? Of course, the Senate has taken a different slant on it. What is your point of view on that?

Mr. MITCHELL. I would say I think the Senate's figure is a little more in keeping with what everybody believes is necessary.

Mr. VANIK. How, in your opinion, has the Voluntary Mortgage Loan Organization facilitated in any way the lending of money or provisions for lending of money to minority groups?

Mr. MITCHELL. It is strictly a paper program. I think they have made some 200 or more

Mr. VANIK. 201 loans.

Mr. MITCHELL. Loans under that program, but so far as I know, very few have been for minority groups. The Housing Agency made an announcement when it made a loan to a colored man in Washington. It had a big news release on it and had a picture. It turned out there wasn't anything controversial about it. The man lived in a neighborhood where colored people were already living and apparently could have gotten aid from another source. In other words, it is sort of a hoax.

Mr. VANIK. In Cleveland they haven't made one loan, and I know there are thousands of applications.

Would you favor a more liberal FHA lending procedure by way of more realistic appraisal on older property so older property could be more readily acquired?

Mr. MITCHELL. We certainly would. We find in some instances FHA appraisals are such that make it difficult for a person to get financing on a desirable house. It would be better to have a more liberal policy.

Mr. VANIK. I think that covers my questions.

The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, you may stand aside, Mr. Mitchell. Thank you.

We will have to go over to the House in a few minutes.

Will you call the next witness?

Mr. HALLAHAN. The next witness is Mr. Ben Fischer, director of the CIO housing committee.

STATEMENT OF BEN FISCHER, DIRECTOR, CIO HOUSING COMMITTEE

Mr. FISCHER. We have a written statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed as you please. If you desire to do so, you may insert the written statement in the record.

Mr. FISCHER. I would like to insert the statement of the chairman of the housing subcommittee of the legislative department of the CIO, Mr. Frank Hoffmann, who is unable to be here. He has a statement. The CHAIRMAN. That may be inserted.

(The information is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF FRANK N. HOFFMANN, CHAIRMAN, HOUSING SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE CIO

My name is Frank N. Hoffmann. I am the chairman of the housing subcommittee of the legislative committee of the Congress of Industrial Organizations. I am also legislative director of the United Steelworkers of America.

The CIO and the steelworkers appreciate this opportunity to appear here today to discuss our views on the housing problem. We desire to be helpfu! to the House in its consideration of legislation dealing with housing. I might add, as a representative of the United Steelworkers of America, that not only are we concerned with assisting our members and their families in securing adequate housing, but also, as responsible citizens, we feel that we owe an obligation to all other groups who may not be as fortunate as members of our international union. In addition to the concern which I have expressed, there are other factors which I should like to make clear.

The prosperity of the American housing industry is an important factor in determining the well-being not only of members of the CIO but of all workers in America-directly because millions of them produce materials and other

items which go into new homes and are employed in the construction industry and indirectly because the American economic system is interdependent and the jobs of all of us are influenced by the degree of prosperity in all areas of the economy.

The economic impact of home construction is tremendous. It is one of the major industries of the nation. Its relatively high level of performance in the past two years has been an important bulwark against recession and against a continued rise in unemployment.

Furthermore, as consumers of housing, members of the CIO and other unions, as well as persons who do not belong to any union, have the same interest. A continuing high level of home building should enable these individuals to obtain adequate and economical housing in the areas and at costs where this has not heretofore been possible. The item of housing is a big one in the family budget. The achievement of a good home is a major factor in the standard of living which the workingman seeks.

The views of the CIO reflect its belief that a high level of home building is imperative to the national welfare. We firmly believe that-with the aid of wise public policies-decent homes for the great mass of low- and middle-income families of America, whose needs are the greatest and whose resources for meeting them are the least, can be attained.

Mr. Ben Fischer, director of the CIO's national housing committee, will present a more detailed statement of our organization's position. Mr. Fischer recently served as an alternate member of President Eisenhower's Advisory Committee on Government Housing Policies and Programs. In addition, he has participated in the development of the national housing conference proposals which have been presented to this committee.

Mr. FISCHER. I have a written statement with an attachment which I would like to insert in my own behalf. I suppose I can be most helpful perhaps by making a few brief comments and getting to perhaps the core of this problem.

(The information is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY BEN FISCHER, DIRECTOR, CIO HOUSING COMMITTEE

On behalf of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, I wish to express our appreciation for this opportunity to appear before this committee.

My name is Ben Fischer. I am an international representative of the United Steelworkers of America. I am also the director of the CIO national housing committee, and I appear here today in that capacity.

The comprehensive studies made under the auspices of the National Housing Conference indicate that America needs a construction rate of 2 million new housing units annually for the next 10 years if we are to eliminate slums and provide good housing for our families. While the objective of a decent home in a decent community for all Americans is widely acclaimed, there is little evidence as yet of an overwhelming zeal, either in the construction industry or in Government, to support a practical program to achieve it.

Those who now claim we are overbuilding are mistaken. The CIO views on this question were fully set forth in a recent letter to the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee from CIO President Walter Reuther. For the record, we attach a copy of this letter.

It is possible, however, that the present rate of new construction may soon exceed the demand of that portion of the market which can afford to purchase or rent most of the new housing now being constructed. These costs are beyond the means of the low-income groups, those earning less than $3,000 a year, and above the carrying ability of the so-called lower middle-income group, those earning between $3,000 and $5,000 a year. Even in the income bracket just above $5,000 most families are forced to overextend themselves and sacrifice other essentials in their effort to obtain suitable housing.

The answer, however, is not to curtail new construction, as some seem to be urging. The answer is rather to adopt a program designed to expand new housing for low-income and lower middle-income families whose need for new housing is greatest.

In this connection, we must note that slum removal on a large and effective scale cannot be achieved without an extensive program of new housing for lower income families. The so-called urban renewal and urban redevelopment pro