Facilities and Services Act of 1951 and Public Laws 815 and 874 to relieve school, housing, and other community facility deficiencies which are attributable to the construction and operation of the atomic-energy plant.

So we have them saying that they are relying on the act, and we have no recommendation either in the advisory committee's report or in the bill which is introduced for continuation of the act.

Our own field representative, working in the vicinity of Pike County. Ohio, a relatively new atomic-energy installation, sends us one example of continuing need when he reports that defense housing construction is now virtually complete, that there are virtually no vacancies in the area, and nearly 10,000 workers still to come.

Another type of continuing dislocation resulting from changes in our military strategy is reported by one of our agencies in terms of an acute situation in the vicinity of Camp Carson, Colo., which has recently been obliged to absorb the personnel of Camp Atterbury. Ind., as a result of the so-called New Look in defense policy. This type of military relocation-and I am not informed as to the reasons for its relocation; I think it is the second time Camp Atterbury has been closed down, and will probably open up again-with its accompanying changes in defense production requirements, is certain to create a continuing pattern of population shift and community dislocation.

In view of these facts, it would seem extremely shortsighted to permit these two basic legislative authorities to expire on June 30, 1954. In view of the difficulty of predicting the exact and detailed nature of defense housing needs in the future or the capacity of private enterprise to meet such unpredictable needs when they arise, it would appear to us to be the better part of wisdom to continue these two authorities-at the very least on a standby basis-as was recommended by the President's Advisory Committee on Government Housing Policies and Programs in respect to Wherry Act military housing under title VIII. It is basic to the very nature of a defense program to be prepared in advance against all possible contingencies.

I might say I have read the testimony of the Department of Defense, and I think everything that is said there is applicable to what I am saying here with respect to housing the families and military personnel.

On the broader front, we recognize that it is fundamental to meeting the special housing needs created by defense adjustments that there should exist sufficient total supply of housing, credit arrangements favorable to adequate and flexible private housing construction or renovation, aids to communities in carrying out their own planning responsibilities, and, where necessary, provision for public housing to meet the otherwise unmet housing needs of low-income groups. To the extent that the President's housing program and the Housing Act of 1954 carry out these objectives, we wish to express our support.

We should like to comment particularly on the value of title VII, providing grants to State, metropolitan, or regional area agencies for metropolitan or regional planning, and to State planning bodies to assist municipalities under 25,000 population in urban planning. It is our own observation that this is one of the most urgent needs of small communities in adjusting to rapid expansion due to defense or other Federal activity.

In one instance of extreme urgency-the Savannah River area—we, ourselves, financed a physical planning survey, but our resources are not adequate for such a function except on a demonstration basis.

In another locality of rapid industrial expansion-Bucks County, Pa.-we have had an opportunity to observe the value of Statefinanced planning services.

Problems of incorporation, of zoning, of taxing and property assessment, of districting for various types of services, of physical planning in the extension of roads, water, sewage, and other facilities of related economic and social adjustment are all basic to the orderly development of defense-affected communities. In the long run, a relatively small investment of Federal funds in this type of service will pay large dividends, not only in social wellbeing but in the efficiency of the labor supply on which our whole defense program depends.

We should like to urge also that authority be restored to the Housing and Home Finance Agency to conduct research in this matter of community needs and adjustments. Such studies in the past have proved most useful in assisting both communities and Federal defense agencies to make a smooth transition.

Our experience in UCDS has brought home to us very forcibly one characteristic of contemporary American life which bears directly on all aspects of economic, social, and governmental policy, that is, its extreme fluidity. Not only is a high degree of adaptability demanded of our productive machinery in order to maintain our economic health and meet changing needs, including our defense needs, but a high degree of mobility is demanded of our people. Census figures are most revealing on this latter score. For example, it is reported that in the past 3 years 15 million people have changed residence as a result of defense activities. Two-thirds of all adults in most American cities were born somewhere else. About one-third of all adults living in a typical city can be expected to move within the next 10 years.

A logical concomitant of this extensive migration is the rapid change in population distribution with rates of community growth which in some instances reach fantastic proportions. For example, Augusta, Ga., which had 71,500 people in 1950, doubled its population in 1 year; Moses Lake, Wash., doubled in 2 years; Richmond, Calif., has five times as many people as in 1940.

This tremendous mobility of population-and there is every indication that it is going to continue-much of it is caused directly or indirectly by Federal defense policy and activity, and it spotlights three basic points which we should like to make in conclusion with respect to Federal housing policy in general and the pending bill, in particular.

1. It is essential to the national welfare and to the success of the defense effort that the Federal Government assume a positive leadership in aiding both private enterprise and local communities to meet the housing and related needs of this shifting population.

2. It is essential that such a program, while facilitating homeownership for those families whose situation makes this desirable, also recognize that an adequate supply of rental housing is important as a facilitating and equalizing factor in this highly fluid situation.

We are very much in favor of homeownership, but I think we have to face the facts that if you have millions of people moving in any

one year, that a supply of rental housing has to be the answer for them.

3. It is likewise essential to recognize that in some situations where speedy action is essential, or where the particular housing needs temporary-as in the case of construction projects, where the construc tion force is very large but the permanent force, once the project is completed, is very much smaller-the regular processes of private enterprise and Government may not be adequate to meet the speci need at hand. In view of the unpredictability of future defense de velopments, the basic importance to their success of a mobile labor supply, and the Federal stake in the successful solution of this prob lem, we strongly urge the continuation beyond June 30, 1954, of bott title IX of the National Housing Act and title III of the Defer Community Facilities and Services Act of 1951.

I should like to say a couple of things in conclusion. While I feel that the best way to deal with the situation in the year ahead is st least to keep the basic statutory authority on a standby basis, even f there are no appropriations, I think we know far too little about the needs of this mobile population, the construction force, and our miltary people, particularly for temporary housing, and that we ought t take some steps to find out more about it.

The CHAIRMAN. It is on a standby basis, temporary basis, now, isn't it?

Mr. MOORE. I am referring to temporary housing, as differentiated from permanent houses. The fact that you have 26,000 constructio workers in Pike County, Ohio, they have to be housed in temporary housing. It is not financially feasible for private enterprise to pro vide it. People have to have a place to live, or they won't come t work, and you have problems.

I should also like to say that we have a good bit of knowledge of the Territory of Alaska, and while I don't want to say that the spect methods of meeting their housing needs, actual and potential, becare of the defense installations up there, is through any one method suc as continuing the extension of the special act for Alaska, I think tha there should be provision, either through continuation of the Defense Housing Act and the special act. But, our field reports

The CHAIRMAN. We are going to find out why the Housing Administration didn't recommend that.

(The information requested follows:)

CONSIDERATIONS AS TO THE CONTINUED NEED BEYOND JUNE 30, 1954, FOR THI AUTHORITIES IN PUBLIC LAW 139, WITH RESPECT TO DEFENSE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

I. LIMITED NEED FOR AND USE OF THESE AUTHORITIES DURING FISCAL YEAR 1984 1. Critical defense housing areas. The provisions of Public Law 139, Congress, in regard to defense housing and community facilities and servi can only be applied in localities determined to be critical defense housing areas in accordance with the criteria set forth in this law. In order for an area be determined to be a critical defense housing area, it must be found that a new defense plant or installation has been or is to be provided, or an exis ing defense plant or installation has been or is to be reactivated or its operat substantially expanded, (b) a substantial immigration of defense personne required to carry on the activity and (c) a substantial shortage of hous exists or impends which impedes or threatens to impede the activity. Dur fiscal year 1954, only 3 new areas have met these qualifications and been dest nated critical defense housing areas, as compared with the 229 areas that sa

een so designated prior to the beginning of fiscal 1954. Since June 30, 1953, he defense activities in about 10 of these areas have been or are scheduled o be deactivated. In a number of other areas, the number of uniformed peronnel and defense workers has been substantially decreased. Thus, a good nany of the 232 critical defense housing areas that have been so designated n all probability no longer meet the criteria set forth in the law. At present, t appears that not more than 1 or 2 more areas might qualify for such desigation prior to June 30, 1954.

2. Title II of Public Law 139—FHA title IX mortgage insurance for private 'efense housing.-There have been only 10 private defense housing programs ssued under the terms of Public Law 139 since June 30, 1953. These programs otal 1,686 housing units. This compares with the total of 95,630 private defense ousing units which had been programed under Public Law 139 and were still utstanding as of March 29, 1954.

Since the enactment of Public Law 139 in September 1951 through February 954 a gross total of 110,908 units have been programed for private construction, nd 15,278 units have been canceled out of the programs, leaving a total of 5,630 units still in the private defense-housing programs as of February 28, 1954. bout 6,200 units have been canceled since July 1, 1953, and further cancellations f several thousand units are expected to be made before the end of the fiscal ear by reason of declining defense-housing needs.

3. Title III of Public Law 139-Government-owned temporary defense hous17.-Eleven programs amounting to 1,567 units of public temporary housing have een issued during fiscal 1954. This compares with a total of 18,971 units which ad been programed under title III since the enactment of Public Law 139 in 951, and 4,533 units which have been canceled or terminated leaving 14,438 ublic temporary units active as of December 31, 1953. On June 30, 1953, there as a total of 14,199 public temporary units active in the program. During the rst 6 months of fiscal 1954, a total of 1,328 units were canceled or terminated, esulting in an increase in the total number of public temporary units active the program of only 239.

4. Community facilities and services.-As previously indicated, community acilities and services can be provided under the terms of Public Law 139 only 1 areas that have been determined to be critical defense-housing areas, and nly three areas have been so determined since July 1, 1953. It is probable nat very little activity in regard to community facilities and services would ke place under present conditions. In this regard, when Public Law 139 was xtended in 1953, no additional appropriation was made for community facilities nd services and the activity that arose during fiscal 1954 has been covered by he small balance remaining from previous appropriations.

II. FUTURE NEED

1. General outlook for defense needs.-Barring unforeseen events, all signs oint to a continued gradual decline in new defense installations or other activies which would require new housing or community facilities. The number n the Armed Forces has dropped from about 3,700,000 to less than 3,500,000, nd indications are for further decline. A number of Army installations have Iready been deactivated (e. g., Camp McCoy, Wis., and Camp Roberts, Calif.), nd others are in process of deactivation (e. g., Camp Pickett, Va., and Camp 'olk, La.).

The presently planned level of industrial defense production is assured withut obstacle of labor or housing shortages. There are no longer any areas of acute abor shortage. Housing and labor surpluses exist to a degree in most defense reas, including many which previously had shortages. Most defense minerals ave been removed from the "critical" list and no longer warrant special defense roduction aids. There are probably no areas where defense production is, or 3 likely to be, impeded by reason of lack of housing.

It is true that adjustments will continue to take place in the Armed Forces which will call for the expansion of some facilities and even activation of new acilities (especially in the Air Forces). It is the view of the Housing Agency hat housing requirements in connection with these limited and spotty situations an to a considerablé degree be satisfied under the provisions of title VIII of the National Housing Act plus the assistance of other FHA mortgage insurance title II) and VA guaranties. The authorizations in S. 2938 for increasing mortage terms under title II of the National Housing Act would make mortgage nsurance under that title more favorable to meeting defense needs. Also, the

FNMA "special assistance" provisions in the bill could make special mortgage purchasing authority available, if needed, for housing to serve a defense purpose. It would appear there is currently sufficient leeway in military and defense production planning so that no defense activity need be handicapped by lad of the authorities of Public Law 139 for the provision of defense housing for defense community facilities. Such limited and spotty use of Public Law 13 authorities in fiscal year 1955 and beyond as might possibly be justified would not warrant the administrative costs that would be entailed in keeping those programs active.

For the reasons given above, the Housing Agency did not recommend continuation beyond June 30, 1954, of the Public Law 139 authorities.

2. Possibility of sudden and large expansion of the defense program.—( course, the facts considered above would be entirely different if a need suddenly arose for new defense expansion. In such event, special defense housing and community facilities assistance would seem essential. If the Congress determines that the possibility of such need warrants a retention of authority on a standby basis for defense housing and community facilities, an extension of Public Law 139 would be appropriate.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, that concludes what I have to say. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness will be Mr. B. E. Grantham of the National Institute of Farm Brokers. Mr. Grantham, you have: prepared statement?

Mr. GRANTHAM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to read my statement, if you don't mind.

The CHAIRMAN. You proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF B. E. GRANTHAM, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FARM BROKERS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS

Mr. GRANTHAM. In my opinion, the farmers and rural people of this country have been discriminated against by Government lending agencies and private lending agencies. Farmers in many areas of this country are denied equality of opportunity with their brothers in the cities, and in some instances is almost denied his livelihood be cause he is unable to secure adequate and long-term financing for his simple needs. No financing for a modern home, no financing for the purchase of a piece of land, no financing for improvements that mean success or failure in his life's work. In other words, the farmer is getting it in the neck, and you of the Congress can cure some of his ills by counting him in on the liberal Eisenhower housing bill.

I am here to speak for the farmers on this matter of housing. I know there are many points of view about the Government taking steps to improve rural housing. I think that I am in a position to know how the farmers feel about many things; I am a farmer and s farm broker. I have to know about a farmer's credit, about his pos sibilities for production, about his chances for making money or going into the hole. I have to know what his chances are for getting the money to enable him to make his crops. I have to know these things because I wouldn't last long as a farm broker if I didn't. As one fairly well informed on the problems of the farmer, I again want to tell you that the greatest problem faced by the American farmer today is the almost complete absence of sources of credit in many sections