period to 10 years, and by eliminating any requirement for local government approval. The leased housing program is one of the most productive in public housing and NTO strongly supports its continuation in the expanded form proposed by Senator Brooke.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COST LIMITATIONS

For years anyone familiar with the problems of public housing has been aware that the provisions of the 1937 Housing Act controlling construction costs are awkward, unworkable, and unrealistic. And nobody knows this better than the tenants who occupy the units built under these provisions. Consequently, some might expect NTO to applaud HUD's abandonment of these provisions in favor of the administratively determined standards based on local costs of construction which HUD proposes in S. 3639. We do not. The concept appeals to us, but we are outraged by the manner in which it is to be implemented. HUD is proposing to limit the total development costs of public housing units to 110 percent of their construction cost while permitting the development costs of units constructed under sections 401 and 501 of the Mortgage Credit Assistance Act which are designed for moderate and upper income families to be 200 percent of construction cost. It is, thus, seeking to impose a caste system under which public housing can never compete with other housing. Under this proposal public housing will always be badly designed and poorly constructed and located in weak neighborhoods already overcrowded with the poor. This Nation cannot in conscience treat public housing tenants this way. It must give to them the same opportunities for life in clean, comfortable quarters in pleasant surrounding which it gives other human beings.

SUMMARY

In our opinion there are several good bills before you which have been introduced by Senators Brooke, Cranston, and Goodell. If adopted, this legislation would move us in the direction of our national goal of a decent home and adequate living environment for every American citizen. On the other hand, we vigorously oppose passage of the legislation proposed in S. 3639, which would on the whole, increase the misery and hardships of our already downtrodden people throughout this country. We are confident that you will see the issues clearly and choose correctly.

Senator BROOKE. Thank you, Mr. Henry, for your statement on this subject. It is very helpful, and again I want to express my personal appreciation to you for having worked so diligently on development and implementation of the Brooke amendment. Your statement on page 7 that deductions proposed under S. 3639 represent a change from the present policy indicates a serious problem for lowincome people in public housing. Would not the provisions of S. 3639 create a greater inequity than already exists?

Mr. HENRY. It certainly will work a tremendous hardship on people who are presently residing in public housing. We estimate that they will be hit with rent increases varying from $10 to $100 per month whenever this is enacted. For those people who are on the upper end of the public housing income scale, it will mean that they will be paying more for rent in public housing than they would be

charged in private housing, and it would certainly drive them out of public housing at the very time that so many people are talking about trying to get an income mix within public housing.

We feel that it is very unfortunate that HUD proposed this. We cannot figure out how on earth they came up with such a rent to income ratio, except perhaps they once again want the poor to bear the brunt of balancing the national budget.

Senator BROOKE. Do you think that S. 4086 is better suited to fairly deal with this?

Mr. HENRY. I think that 4086 deals with this in a much better fashion. On the local level, most housing authorities have proven to be sensitive to the actual expenses that people have. There are variations in the percentage of income that people pay for rent from locality to locality. It is different in New York than it is in Gulfport, Miss. Thus I am sure that having a national required rent, as opposed to a national ceiling, would not be a good thing, and we certainly support 4086 inasmuch as it returns to the local housing authorities the ability to define income.

Senator BROOKE. You have made quite a case for housing the majority of the tenants. Have you any statistics of the number of housing authorities across the country that have tenant representation at the present time? If so, have you the number of tenants on these authorities?

Mr. HENRY. We do not have accurate statistics on that yet, but we are in the process of gathering them now. We feel that this is a very significant development which has occurred almost totally within the past 2 years. It is a trend that must continue if we are serious about including the poor in the operation of our Nation and in the operation of their housing. We will be glad to provide whatever information we can for the record.

Senator BROOKE. To your knowledge, is this a growing trend in the country?

Mr. HENRY. Absolutely. It has certainly increased even within the past few months.

Senator BROOKE. And you feel it has been successful?

Mr. HENRY. It has been successful everywhere that I am familiar with. The housing authorities who have had experience in having tenants on the board, other Government officials that we have had an opportunity to talk to, all have enthusiastically endorsed this as a means of giving new life and relevancy to housing authorities. It has insured a kind of responsive and responsible management that they have not had in the past, so this is something that we support and the people who have experienced it support. It appears that only in those places where there has not been an opportunity for tenant involvement and participation is there any opposition, and most of this is based on old myths and ignorance.

Senator BROOKE. I was very encouraged by what Mr. Finn had to say about the housing authority in my own city of Boston and the experience that he has had as an administrator. I would be very much interested in having for the record the experience of other authorities across the country where this has been tried. That is a very exciting proposal, and we will certainly look into that proposal which you

You refer to Senate bill 4094, which was introduced by my colleague Senator Goodell, as placing a ceiling of 20 percent of tenant income on all public housing rents. I think I should point out, however, that this bill merely amends section 236 of the National Housing Act, and that the Brooke amendment to the provision which was passed last year, which relates to public housing, would not really be affected by this. However, I do concur with your belief that there should be much thought given to reducing this figure in the Brooke amendment to 20 percent. I would suggest a ceiling of 20 percent. The 25 percent was never intended to be a floor. It was intended to be a ceiling, and I would certainly want to see that if we reduced that, it would still be a ceiling, not a floor. I think that is one of the problems we are having with HUD's interpretation of that amendment today. I trust you concur with that?

Mr. HENRY. Yes, we certainly do. It is our feeling that no one should have to pay more than 15 percent preferably, but many groups are now speaking in terms of 20 percent being the ceiling on the portion of the person's income they would have to pay for rent. We certainly would endorse and support moves in that direction.

Senator BROOKE. We have many other witnesses, but I would like to ask you, as a representative of NATO, whether managementtenant relations are improving, and what you would recommend to bring about this improvement more expeditiously?

Mr. HENRY. They are improving in certain places in the Nation, and I hope that these cities will serve as examples to other cities. One can point to improvements in cities such as Boston, St. Louis, Detroit, and a few other places, where tenants have been appointed to the board of commissioners or where boards or committees have been set up which include elected tenants. These tenants work very closely with the housing authorities in establishing policies, in making decisions. and they also transmit back to other tenants in the projects what is happening, and provide them an opportunity to have a voice and responsibility in the running of the housing authority

Unfortunately, we also have too many cities and localities where there is still a plantation type attitude on the part of the housing authority where they look upon the tenants as their children or their wards rather than as adults with whom they must work in order to make the program succeed. I would say that, unfortunately, this is still the rule rather than the exception. Thus, it has been necessary for tenants in too many cities to organize themselves to fight housing authorities rather than to work together with them, because the housing authorities resist their attempts for responsibility in the operation of the program.

Yet compared to 5 years ago, one would have to say there has certainly been a significant increase in the number of places where there are good tenant-management relations. But the proportion of such places is still much too small, from our point of view.

Senator BROOKE. I do not want to belabor the point, but obviously you see a direct relationship between representation by tenants on the authorities and successful management-tenant relations, is that correct?

Mr. HENRY. Yes, I really do not feel that a housing authority managed predominantly by people over 50, who live on the edge of the

city, who have never lived in public housing themselves, and who are not in daily contact with the poor, can make good decisions affecting the housing of the poor, or understand their problems, the social problems that people face and the social conditions that really exist within their housing. Nor are they able to communicate to the tenants the problems that they are having in trying to operate the authority.

The only people who can do this successfully, I would say, are the residents. In a sense, this is the meaning of the concept of democracy; that the people who live in a nation or a State or a city are the people who should make the decisions because they are the ones who are closest to the problems and are the ones who suffer if the management is irresponsible. This is certainly the case in public housing, and unless we find ways of getting tenants on to the boards of commissioners and in policymaking positions, I feel that we will containue to be plagued with irresponsible management and with hostile tenant-management relations.

Senator BROOKE. Of course, my first desire would be to have everyone own his own home, but failing that, we have to live in rental housing. It seems to me that certainly if you are able to participate in the policy decisions that affect you, you would take more of an interest in it, and certainly you could improve the quality of living in that unit. It seems to me, further, that enlightened housing authorities with more active participation on the part of tenants would certainly show a decrease in vandalism and generally help the overall maintenance problem that housing authorities are suffering with today.

I was very encouraged by what both Mr. Kane and Mr. Finn had to say about this, and certainly with what you have said about it. Has NTO done anything so far as a survey on recreational facilities and available public housing? I was appalled when I went through several of the housing units or projects and saw absolutely no recreational facilities available for the young children.

We have all been young kids ourselves, and if there is just nothing at all for them, no playground facilities available near them, it is very easy to understand how many of these kids throw stones or break windows or write on the walls or sometimes, unfortunately, damage the elevators. They are kids. In many instances, these kids have got to have certain opportunities and just do not have them. If their activities can be channeled into healthy recreational undertakings, it seems to me it would help the total environment. Has NTO done anything in this direction?

Mr. HENRY. As a young organization, we have not yet been able to conduct that kind of survey, but we certainly can speak from experience to witness the fact that recreational facilities are in very short supply. I think this reflects on who presently is making the decision on what goes into public housing. They are people to whom, when we say: "We must have recreational facilities," it comes as a new idea, rather than a truth from the experience of having nowhere to send their children.

There are similar kinds of problems that grow out of the design of the housing to which I believe residents would be sensitive. For example, not having a restroom on the first floor that is available to children, so that they have to wait for the elevator, get in it, and hope it gets to their floor before they have to go to the bathroom. To people

who do not live there and who have not had that experience, it looks like irresponsible tenant behavior-people are urinating in the elevator-but, in fact, it is not. I believe that if residents had a chance to plan and design projects, they would include recreational facilities, adequate restrooms, and even shopping facilities operated on a cooperative basis within the projects. In too many places, tenants have to walk a mile or more to find the nearest grocery store or cleaners or laundromat. I think that some of the people who will be speaking later today, who live in public housing, can speak to this even more forcefully out of their personal and daily experiences.

Senator BROOKE. Thank you very much. We are very grateful to you and members of NTO staff for appearing before us.

The next witnesses will be a panel representing the council of large housing authorities, Mr. Julius Bernstein, chairman of the Boston Housing Authority, Louise Hall, commissioner of the Cleveland Housing Authority, and Nathan Kabot, assistant executive director for administrative services of the Newark Housing Authority.

STATEMENT OF JULIUS BERNSTEIN, CHAIRMAN, BOSTON
HOUSING AUTHORITY

Mr. BERNSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Julius Bernstein. I am the chairman of the Boston Housing Authority, and I have been asked to deliver testimony which would express the sense of urgency of an ad hoc group which met for the first time this week here in Washington.

We, the heads of large housing authorities which operate one-quarter million dwelling units housing 1 million people of low-income in our Nation have met today out of the conviction that the national public housing program is in danger of being destroyed in our cities.

Congress, in 1937, established a public housing program to provide decent housing for poor families at rents they can afford to pay. This program now is in the throes of a serious national crisis, so severe that for the first time commmissioners and executive directors of the largest housing authorities across the country have convened in Washington to develop a national strategy which will begin to resolve this crisis.

It would be difficult to overestimate its dimensions. Its elements are twofold:

1. Under the pressures of inflationary cost increases, many authorities are on the verge of bankruptcy, and others are actually bankrupt. Two hundred authorities at present cannot meet operating expenses out of rental income without increasing rents beyond the tenants' ability to pay.

Public housing tenants, by and large, have not participated in the general prosperity in the Nation at the same rate as other citizens. Thus, our operating costs have increased two to three times as fast as tenants' incomes.

2. We and our respective communities are not able to build the lowincome housing so desperately needed by the tens of thousands of poor in our cities.

As heads of authorities housing 1 million low-income persons with waiting lists of hundreds of thousands more, we deny emphatically Secretary Romney's recent assertion that we are well on our way to