REGARDING FHA INSURANCE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT The inflation of raw land prices in the last 20 years has materially increased the price of housing. The price increase has been caused basically by the continued strong demand for housing. Efforts to profit from this demand have come from two sources: first, the developer-builder, and, second, from the land speculator who usually has other sources of income and is able to get capital gains tax treatment on the sale of raw land. FHA insurance of land development plays into the hands of the land speculator. It broadens his market. It will increase the number of bidders for the limited amount of land that can be successfully developed and marketed. Everyone under the umbrella of FHA insurance can engage in what is normally a high risk investment operation. Land prices will be forced up more than they would be otherwise. Higher land prices mean higher cost building sites. That will be detrimental to housing. This provision contained in section 201 of the bill should be stricken. UNPARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE AND INADEQUATE DELIBERATION Part of my objection to this bill is procedural. If time, staff, and facilities were available, convincing objections to every new proposal in this legislation could be made; but they are not. My attention and views must be limited to only two titles. I am convinced that the rush for early passage is contributing to bad legislation which is not carefully enough honed by committee consideration, not fully enough examined by experts with differing views, not sufficiently probed by the spotlight of public opinion and not debated thoroughly enough to qualify as properly deliberated. We, as members of the committee and the Congress, have an obligation to our colleagues, constituents, and all U.S. citizens to thoroughly and exhaustively deliberate each item of legislation. We have not fulfilled our obligation with this bill. The full committee devoted less than 6 hours to this bill-all in executive, secret session-including interrogration of two panels of witnesses (who favored passage blindly), "marking up" the bill, voting, and all. Of course, no adverse witnesses were invited or heard by the full committee. Many of us had questions which were not answered. This is a $6 to $13 billion bill-with built-in guarantees for perpetuation and escalation for at least 40 years whether housing is needed or not. The bill deserved more and better consideration by our committee. BURT L. TALCOTT. INDIVIDUAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE In this bill, there is a great deal to support. The whole of title IX, dealing with farm and rural housing; the whole of title V, dealing with college housing which will be largely concerned with providing dormitories; the whole of title IV, which will considerably ease the problems inherent in condemnation proceedings and which I think could be expanded but which I realize is limited by the jurisdiction of our committee; the whole of title III, dealing with urban renewal; and many other sections dealing with the Federal Housing Administration and other parts of the bill-all of these are desirable proposals which could well be incorporated into legislation by this or any other Congress. Unfortunately, all that I have listed and more besides is dwarfed by the expenditures inherent in section 101 of the bill. The costs of this entire bill are listed by the administration at $6 billion-plus. The cost of section 101 alone, however, which commits the Federal taxpayer to payments of $200 million annually for 40 years, if the plans expressed in the bill are enacted into law and carried out, will amount to $8 billion-plus. In addition, there is section 104, concerned with public housing in various forms. The cost of this section can and will run to $6 billion. In explanation, the administration figures its cost over only a 4-year period, but since its commitments run for 40 years without the right of recall, I think the Congress must face the problem of 40 years' total cost. These buried billions of dollars to be paid by taxpayers, the majority of them as yet unborn and certainly unfairly committed, will weigh against the desirable elements of the bill itself. Sections 101 and 104, two of the bill's 65 sections, propose benefits for only 1/21⁄2 percent of the country's families but account for 50 to 60 percent of the bill's cost. Another factor, not considered in our deliberations, is the rising cost of construction. This in the case of sections 101 and 104 could wipe out much of what is proposed to be built. We are no longer committed to units for the low income and disabled. We are committed to dollars. If the whole of this bill is restored to economic commonsense I would like to support it. I have hopes of doing so, but only under such conditions. 192 CHESTER L. MIZE. 89TH CONGRESS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session REPORT No. 679 HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1965 July 23 1965.-Ordered to be printed Mr. PATMAN, from the committee of conference, submitted the following CONFERENCE REPORT [To accompany H.R. 7984] The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7984) to assist in the provision of housing for low- and moderate-income families, to promote orderly urban development, to improve living environment in urban areas, and to extend and amend laws relating to housing, urban renewal, and community facilities, having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as follows: That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as follows: In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amendment insert the following: That this Act may be cited as the "Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965”. Note. The Conference Report was approved without change by both Houses, transmitted to the President, and signed into law on August 10, 1965. The text can be found on page 1 of this compilation. STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7984) to assist in the provision of housing for lowand moderate-income families, to promote orderly urban development, to improve living environment in urban areas, and to extend and amend laws relating to housing, urban renewal, and community facilities, submit the following statement in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference report: The Senate struck out all of the House bill after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute amendment. The committee of conference has agreed to a substitute for both the House bill and the Senate amendment. Except for technical, clarifying, and conforming changes, the following statement explains the differences between the House bill and the substitute agreed to in conference. TITLE I-PROVISIONS FOR DISADVANTAGED PERSONS Housing eligible for rent supplements on experimental basis The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House bill making rent supplements (subject to a limit of 10 percent of amounts appropriated) available to housing under the section 221(d) (3) belowmarket rate program (new units), the section 231 program of mortgage insurance for the elderly (new units and those not finally endorsed for insurance), and the section 202 program of direct loans for the elderly (existing and new units), on an experimental basis, for up to 20 percent of the dwelling units in any property. The conference substitute conforms to the Senate provision but the 20-percent dwelling unit limitation is restricted to existing projects and, in addition, 50 percent of the funds for experimental projects is earmarked for newly constructed section 221(d) (3) below-market interest rate projects in order to assure the equitable allocation of funds as between these projects and projects designed to serve the elderly exclusively. Operating costs limit The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House bill limiting the operating costs of any property aided under the rent supplement program to amounts for similar housing in the community. The conference substitute contains the Senate provision. Eligibility for rent supplements The Senate amendment contained a provision not in the House bill making eligible for rent supplement payments those persons (meeting the income test) whose dwellings are extensively damaged or destroyed in a disaster area after April 1, 1965. The conference substitute contains the Senate provision. 63 |