with them, asked them for what they thought was strong and what they thought was weak, and what needed to be improved, and what needed to be destroyed, and what needed to be kept. And in this way we have developed what we consider a very effective device. It may be of some interest to you that in each of the project areas that I have responsibility for this mechanism has ben somewhat different, evolved in a different way. But the testimony that comes at our critical public hearings in these two cities has been the determinant. And I may say that I think in recent years there has been a beginning in this direction in the city of New York.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. You are talking about seeking their advice and counsel, et cetera?

Mr. LOGUE. We go beyond that.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. But as to your interpretation of this particular section in this act, do you feel that that would do it? Or does this require that the citizens from the area be made part of the administration of the program?

Mr. LOGUE. I think that is covered Mr. Congressman, in another phase in another way, where it suggests that improvement opportunities for residents of the area be maximized.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. It is right here, it follows, and I will agree with you there, Mr. Logue.

Mr. LOGUE. It directly follows.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I do not think that this is the same thing.

Mr. LOGUE. It is not.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. This, I would say, has to do with the physical, building, let's say, construction. But I still have trouble as to the interpretation of the meaning that should be given to this "widespread citizens participation in the program."

Mr. LOGUE. I would say that that is missing a verb, it should be "widespread citizen participation in the preparation of the program." It is a matter of seeking advice, and I would say seeking consent. But in an informal way, I think that my personal opinion, for which I accept only personal responsibility, is that the OEO has overstructured

this.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. In other words, this can present real difficulties, can it not, in that oftentimes you are looking for technical people, with technical qualifications, who are not available, it is unfortunate, but these are the facts of life, and yet the people from the area insist that they should be employed, or participate.

Mr. LOGUE. We have not had this difficulty. It has been recognized as the responsibility of the professional staff to choose the material, but it is the content of that material which is reviewed and discussed with the community.

Mr. BARRETT. The time of the gentleman has expired.

We

Mr. Mayor, we do not want to place an imposition on you. realize that you are a very busy man. But Mr. Ashley wants to ask you some questions. And I was wondering if you could not make your staff convenient to him, to communicate with him and answer any questions which might be necessary to help formulate this bill?

Mr. LINDSAY. I should be delighted to do that, Mr. Chairman, either that or to return-I have an engagement with another committee today at 2 o'clock to testify, at least subject to the floor action, and

other witnesses. And so I would be pleased either to come back or meet informally or have the staff check with his staff.

Mr. BARRETT. I think that, rather than creating an imposition on you, your staff could answer these questions for Mr. Ashley. Mr. St Germain, do you have a quick question?

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I do have some more questions, but I can-he can answer them in writing.

The sixth criterion, the relocation plan in section 9, I am wondering if you people are having any problem there, or can you foresee a problem in relocation, should you be working on, say, in two of the New York areas at the same time.

We

Mr. LINDSAY. It is an excellent question, and a proper one. always have problems with relocation, and they are big ones. We are reorganizing and changing our approaches in this area as rapidly as we can. Relocation is part of the task force study that is going on at this point.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. I might ask you, perhaps you might offer the committee or submit to the committee a suggestion as to perhaps a rewording of this requirement that would make it more feasible for you to comply.

Mr. LINDSAY. Of course, this bill is a critically important one. In its provision on page 10 of the bill, which includes grants to cover the full cost of relocation payments, that makes this program a lot easier to move ahead. Central to any plan anywhere at any time is the problem of relocation and this particular provision in the bill, section 9 (b), is critically important. I think it is one of the most significant parts of this piece of legislation myself.

On the other hand, in addition to the headache of cost, which we always have in the big city because of its congestion—

Mr. ST GERMAIN. That is, do you have the physical facilities? Mr. LINDSAY. And our demonstration program plan will be submitted in detail as soon as this act is passed by the Congress and signed into law, as I hope it will be. And it will, of course, outline as closely as we must our plans for that particular demonstration area on relocation.

Mr. ST GERMAIN. Thank you.

Mr. BARRETT. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Logue.

We certainly appreciate your coming today.

The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 3, 1966.)

DEMONSTRATION CITIES AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 1966

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING OF THE
COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William A. Barrett (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Barrett, Mrs. Sullivan, Ashley, Moorhead, Stephens, St Germain, Gonzalez, Reuss, Widnall, and Fino.

Also present: Representatives Gettys and Mize of the full com

mittee.

Mr. BARRETT. The committee will come to order.

This morning, we have as our first witness Mr. Boris Shishkin, representing the AFL-CIO.

STATEMENT OF BORIS SHISHKIN, SECRETARY, HOUSING COMMITTEE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. SHISHKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to be here before your committee and to testify on these bills which are before you now, which deal with what I call America's urban revival. We have been talking about renewal and redevelopment, but I think that what is involved here in response to President Johnson's proposals and other bills that the chairman of this committee has presented, taken together, represents the broad revival of our urban centers, both large and small. And I want to emphasize this today, because I think it goes all the way across the board.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Shishkin, the committee is glad to have you here this morning because your statement is always edifying and informative. And if you desire to complete your statement before we ask you any questions, you may do so. And at the end of your statement, we will use our regular procedure under the 5-minute rule, and each of the members will have an opportunity to ask you any questions. You may proceed.

Mr. SHISHKIN. I thank you very much.

I have a statement here. I don't want to take the time of the committee to read the entire statement. I would like to have it inserted in the record as if presented, please.

Mr. BARRETT. That may be done, without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. SHISHKIN. I will try to summarize the essential points in this presentation of mine.

Let me say at the outset that the enactment last August of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 was a historic step toward translating into positive action the Nation's concern with the plight of our cities and with the plight of the people forced to live in city slums.

But this one step, important though it was, was not enough to enable us to come to grips with the enormous, urgent, and deep-seated problems confronting our Nation's cities and towns.

Much more remains to be done, and labor welcomes further initiative reflected in the new legislative proposals before you, to carry forward this vital task. I have some facts here to emphasize the point that our cities are really bursting at the seams, but the population is growing by leaps and bounds, and the impact of this population growth concentrated in the urban centers must be taken into account and provided for if any sound planning for future growth is to take place.

And I would like to stress especially that this problem is immediate and urgent, and the immediacy and urgency of this problem is underscored by the developments that are upon us now.

Modern America must assure the provision of modern living conditions for its people. The need is for better cities and towns, better neighborhoods, and above all, for more and better housing.

Housing construction has been out of step with the rest of the U.S. economy. The AFL-CIO has estimated that, in the face of the present backlog of past deficiencies and increasing current needs for adequate housing of a growing population, the volume of residential construction should be maintained at the minimum of 22 million dwelling units a year over 10 years.

Yet, in the first 6 years of the present decade, the total of private and public housing starts (including farm) has been far below this

minimum.

In 1965, these housing starts totaled only 1,542,400 units, and in January 1966, the seasonally adjusted annual rate of these starts was still at about that level.

The accompanying table I shows in perspective our performance as shown by housing starts since 1960.

This performance has been deficient. It has been far from dynamic. For 2 years in a row, residential building has failed to keep pace with our Nation's economic progress.