Mr. MCDONOUGH. Would it be multiple housing or individual housing?

Mr. ROGERS. I don't think we have exactly specified what it would be as far as multiple or single.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Would it provide for mobile housing?

Mr. ROGERS. Perhaps that could come under the classification. We didn't spell that out as to exactly what. I would think that would be left up to the administrators.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. What about sewage-disposal facilities in areas where there is no sewage system?

Mr. ROGERS. Well, of course, we have provided that it must meet the local health standards, and that is part of the bill, in order to provide the sanitary facilities it will have to meet the local requirements for proper sanitation.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Light and heat, and other things, from local sources, or individual power units where necessary?

Mr. ROGERS. That is right.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. All right.

Mr. RAINS. Thank you, gentlemen; we have three other Congressmen here. Thank you very much for appearing. Next is Congressman Don Magnuson.

Come around, Congressman Magnuson.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAINS. We are glad to have you.

STATEMENT OF HON. DON MAGNUSON, CONGRESSMAN AT LARGE FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee in support of legislation authorizing the sale of approximately 2.17 acres of land in the High Point housing project in Seattle, Wash., to the Seattle School District.

This proposal has been pending before your committee in the form of a bill, H. R. 9190, introduced by my colleague, Mr. Pelly. I urge that the provisions of this bill be incorporated as a section of the 1958 Housing Act.

I should like to give the subcommittee a brief sketch of the background of this particularly troublesome problem, so that you will understand the need and the equity for passage of the legislation.

The High Point project was constructed in 1942 as permanent war housing under provisions of the Lanham Act. It occupies approximately 141 acres of land and contains 1,300 apartments. In 1953, the project was conveyed to the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle under section 606 of the Lanham Act, as amended, subject to the provisions of an administrative contract which requires that the project. be operated for low-rent purposes and that the net revenues be returned to the Public Housing Administration.

Fifteen acres of the site originally were owned by the Seattle School Board for school purposes, but were taken by the Federal Government for war housing purposes at a price of $8,500. When the housing project was laid out, approximately 312 acres were set aside for a playfield, in contrast to about 15 acres originally held by the school board. In 1944, a school was built on part of the playfield by the Federal

Works Agency. Three years later, the school was sold to the school district for approximately $28,000, and the balance of the playfield was acquired by the school district in 1951 at no cost.

In the spring of 1952, the school district constructed a permanent addition to the school, but the growing enrollment also made necessary the erection of 13 portable. Both the addition and the portables occupy part of the original playfield site, substantially reducing the play area despite a rise in enrollment from 306 in 1943 to more than 1,000 at the present time.

In October 1953, the school board opened negotiations with the Seattle Housing Authority looking to the acquisition of additional property for playground purposes. By September 1954, these negotiations had culminated in a proposal by the Seattle Housing Authority to sell the 2.17 acres covered by H. R. 9190 to the school board. This property is occupied by 10 buildings containing 28 apartment units, which the housing authority proposed to sell for offsite removal. By letter dated September 30, 1954, the deputy director of the San Francisco regional office of the Public Housing Administration authorized the Seattle Housing Authority to proceed with the disposition of the 10 buildings for off-site removal and the sale of the 2.17 acres to the school board at an acceptable appraised value. Subsequently, the land was appraised at $14,175, and the school board agreed to purchase it at this price. The value of the buildings for off-site removal was appraised at $12,900.

Arrangement for the sale of the property on the agreed terms was proceeding normally until, in April 1955, a bombshell was dropped in the form of a letter from Commissioner Slusser in Washington, D. C., disapproving the proposed sale. The Commissioner took the position that, under existing law, the school board would have to buy the land and the buildings as is at a price estimated anywhere between $71,000 and $154,000-and take the responsibility and the loss involved in selling the buildings for off-site removal. This proposal was rejected by the school board, and that is the way the matter has stood ever since.

I disagree with the Commissioner's interpretation of the law, because I understand he is authorized to sell property buildings when no longer suitable for housing occupancy. These buildings meet that test. They have been declared surplus to the housing needs of the project by the Seattle Housing Authority, and this finding has been concurred in, at least by implication, by the Public Housing Administration. These buildings have not been occupied since October of 1954, and they stand vacant today. Furthermore, they are undesirable because many of the students have to cross the yards going to and from school.

But, even though this committee might join me in disagreeing with the Commissioner's interpretation of the law, the only way we can obtain relief is through the enactment of legislation giving the consent of the Federal Government to the sale of the buildings for offsite removal and the sale of the land to the Seattle school board for the appraised price of $14,175.

În summary, I should like to point out at least three specific factors which justify this proposal:

First, through improper planning, the Government took some 15 acres from the school board and substituted only about 312 acres for school purposes.

Second, the 10 buildings are surplus to housing needs of the project, are undesirable for occupancy, and stand vacant today.

Third, the regional office of the Public Housing Administration originally approved this proposal.

I have a file documenting the background of this case which was sent me in June of 1955 by the Right Reverend Stephen F. Bayne, Jr., chairman of the Seattle Housing Authority, which I should like to submit for inclusion in the committee's file. Included among these documents is a map of the project outlining the land in question.

This proposal has the unanimous support of the Seattle Housing Authority, the Seattle School Board, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, the local parent-teachers' association, and all other community groups.

I urge, Mr. Chairman, that the provisions of H. R. 9190 be incorporated as a section of the Housing legislation now under consider

ation.

Thank you.

Mr. RAINS. Thank you, Mr. Magnuson. You can leave the file and it will not be included in the record, but it will be in the file of the committee.

Now, Mr. Pelly, your colleague, introduced the bill which you speak in support of; is that right?

Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes.

Mr. RAINS. On other occasions, the committee has agreed with Members of the Congress in similar circumstances to this. I feel sure that your request will have sympathetic consideration.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I appreciate that very much.

Mr. RAINS. Are there any other questions?

Mr. BETTS. May I ask 1 question about the nature of the appraisal that you mentioned produced a $14,000 price? You said it was appraised at $14,175. Who appraised that?

Mr. MAGNUSON. Well, I don't know, specifically; I suppose professional appraisers. I understand it was the appraisal board of the Seattle Real Estate Board. I might add that it seems to me that the Federal Government should not take advantage of local people his way. The buildings are surplus; they are going to have to be sold as surplus for off-site removal, and they aren't going to get anything like the money they are demanding of the school district at the moment when they sell them for off-site purposes. It seems to me it is just a case of taking advantage of a local body in order to milk the last nickel possible out of them.

Mr. BETTS. Did Mr. Slusser agree with that appraisad for a realestate loan, the $14,000 amount?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I don't know, but apparently so, because the realestate board and the school board, apparently, thought everything was fixed, and it was a real surprise when this was rejected by Commissioner Slusser.

Mr. BETTS. That is all.

Mr. RAINS. Thank you very much.

The next witness we have is Delegate Bob Bartlett, of Alaska.

Should we address you as the new Governor of Alaska, or the new Congressman from Alaska?

Mr. BARTLETT. Preferably as dogcatcher of Point Barrow.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. The biggest State in the Union. Are you competing with Texas?

Mr. BARTLETT. Texas has been pretty good to us. We aren't going to say anything derogatory about them at all.

STATEMENT OF HON. E. L. BARTLETT, DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE TERRITORY OF ALASKA

Mr. BARLETT. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, the Housing Act of 1957 contained in section 204 (a), a provision that until the close of August 7, 1958, the price to be paid by the association for mortgages should not be less than the unpaid principal amount thereof at the time of purchase in respect to special assistance functions. I should like to appear before you now and urge that that authority in the Housing Act of 1958 be extended for whatever time in your judgment should seem appropriate.

I am told by bankers in Alaska-and I believe the people in the agency here will confirm their judgment-that continuation of this provision is highly important. I think it won't be in Alaska in a relatively short time when capital becomes more interested in the State of Alaska than it has been in the Territory of Alaska, but I do suggest that for the period immediately ahead continuation of that provision would be most useful in the housing development of Alaska, because without it there is difficulty, there has been difficulty, in disposing of the mortgages, and I would hope that the committee would extend that authority for at least a year.

The Senate bill, S. 4035, has as section 106 a provision that mortgage amounts may be increased in geographic areas where the cost levels so require, and the report on this Senate bill says that section 106 authorizes the FIA Commissioner to increase mortgage ceilings for mortgages insured in Alaska, Guam, and Hawaii, and the explanation, the complete explanation of this provision is stated on page 5 of the Senate committee's report.

I should like to urge upon you the advisability of incorporating similar language in the House bill, because it is true, as we all know, that the cost levels in Guam, Alaska, and Hawaii are higher than on the mainland.

Mr. RAINS. How much do you want to increase the cost levels, by how much?

Mr. BARTLETT. It gives authority to increase by 50 percent. Mr. RAINS. You are talking about the mortgage ceilings now? Mr. BARTLETT. Yes.

Mr. ADDONIZIO. When does this expire?

Mr. BARTLETT. There is no particular expiration for this part.

Mr. RAINS. But August 7 is the expiration date for the par purchase provision?

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes.

Mr. RAINS. The Senate extended that 1 year?

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes.

Mr. RAINS. Do you think 1 year would be sufficient, in your judgment?

Mr. BARTLETT. I would like to have it for a longer period, but I don't think I could very well appear before you and urge a longer time, either, because circumstances and conditions might change and make it unnecessary, although I suppose the Agency wouldn't have to employ that authority if there was no longer a need for it.

Actually, I would like to see it for a couple of years but I scarcely have the temerity to make that request. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I think it ought to be extended. It is quite essential that this be done, according to all of the information which I have received.

I think that completes my statement. Thank you very much. Mr. RAINS. Thank you. What you want is two things: You would like a par purchase provision, which this commitee has reported favorably on many occasions, extended for 1 year on special assistance; and second, you would like for the mortgage ceilings on FHA mortgages in places like Hawaii, Alaska, and Guam, to be discretionary on the part of the Administrator, to increase it by 50 percent?

Mr. BARTLETT. You have stated my recommendations very concisely, yes.

Mr. RAINS. Thank you very much.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you.

Mr. RAINS. The next Congressman is Congressman Billy Matthews, of Florida.

Come around, Congressman Matthews. We are glad to have you. Mr. MATTHEWS. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF HON. D. R. (BILLY) MATTHEWS, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. MATTHEWs. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify concerning this very important housing legislation, and I want, first of all, to thank this committee for the magnificent job that I think you have done. I am particularly interested in the provisions in the legislation which provide for loans to colleges and universities, for college housing, and for other related activities. It is my understanding that this program has proved to be sound and has been very beneficial to our colleges and universities.

I have the high honor of living in Gainesville, Fla., where the University of Florida is located, and I can testify as to the benefits of this program for that great institution. I sincerely hope this committee will continue to approve our fine college housing and related programs. Mr. Chairman, particularly, I would like to speak of that part of the college housing program which concerns the construction of union and student centers on the various campuses of our colleges and universities. It is my understanding that $100 million was originally authorized by Congress for loans to aid in the financing of service facilities such as college unions, student centers, infirmaries, and so forth. It is my understanding that this program which has been authorized under the college housing program will probably be soon exhausted unless provisions are made to increase this authorization.