Chairman Sparkman, members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen,

my name is Anthony Henry. I am Director of the National Tenants

Information Service and am speaking this morning on behalf of National
NTO is a federation of over 450 local tenant

Tenants Organization.

councils across this nation, many of them in subsidized housing.

In light of the President's proposed bill, I can only say that it will serve to function as genocide for the very people it purports it will assist. Contrary to commitments to aid the poor, it has merely continued the moratorium by suggesting an additional study by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development requiring an additional 18 months for study in preparation for an already existing pilot program on the cash assistance program. This moratorium has continued on everything but Section 23 pertaining to leasing. The proposal purports to continue experimenting with housing assistance, again, something which has been in progress for 3 years.

There is a further restriction of the proposal that being requirement of community approval for Section 23.

That which the Administration will allow to survive in the form of existing housing programs proposes alterations which would further exclude the poor from the benefits of such programs.

It can be inferred that the President's proposal to halt construction of new family public housing will also be the elimination of all public housing programs.

This would also, in fact, continue "to produce a concentration of families living in subsidized housing and to deprive them of the enjoyment of the benefits of federal housing

While public houing has had many problems in the past, public housing was dealing with problems such as: new form of public housing-- which included scattered sites, rehabilitation, leasing, and potential homeownership,

which provides the means for transforming the public housing programs into
a more responsive one. Passage of legislation limiting rents to 25% of
income was a step toward enabling public housing to serve poor people,
as was the accompanying provision of operating subsidy.

Inclusion of tenants

on the boards of housing authorities unheard of until the late 1960's, has resulted in more responsive development and management policies. Public housing is only a failure when compared to middle-income housing. Yet when compared to what the poor can obtain in private housing at a similar cost, it is enormously successful.

The public housing program is the oldest and most successful housing program for low-income and poor people. And local housing authorities have had valuable experience in meeting the needs of the people. It must not འ now be legislated away or killed.

The President proposes that we continue the present national experiment in housing allowances and commits himself to implementing such a program in a couple of years on a limited basis. While a valuable experiment, we are concerned about the President's premature commitment to implement such a program especially since it appears that the Adminstration wishes to

use the housing allowance as a means of abandoning its responsibility to serve and protect the interest of the low-income and poor people. The proposal would abandon. the protection by and through the lease for tenants achieved under the public housing Lease and Grievance Procedure. It is apparent that the proposal does not yet understand that the best way to protect consumers is to give them the tools and power to protect themselves. The housing assistance program would, in fact, leave the individual with no choice as he has no choice in the matter of legislation presented here before us. His "movement", would become so stagnant that problems that no longer existed would again appear.

The proposal would abandon social services such as: family counselling, drug referrals, and health related services.

Further, it is rather ironic that the Administration proposes to begin the housing assistance program with those for whom the program has been least helpful, the elderly.

The existing public houding program for the elderly has been the most successful of all the housing programs. The housing assistance program would not meet the special needs of the elderly for special and more protective construction and services.

Further, if the housing assistance experiment should continue, it should be with a broadening of the responsibilities of the government to the people.

Further, that should another experiment in the form of a study

be necessitated that such study should be paid for not out of proposed or existing monies for housing.

It is sinful for the Administration to again make promises to the

people that will not be kept.

While the Administration argues that is supports a little housing for every one rather than the present system of good housing for a few, the fact is that this administration is unlikely to offer or get a universal housing program for all the poor people in this country, or even for the elderly, given the high cost of such a program.

While improving what we have even by using the existing 6 million housing units "to the fullest extent feasible" (and I do not fully understand the intent of "feasible") that is not to say this existing stock is not in dire need of rehabilation and/or reconstruction.

The Administration proposes to repeal the heart of the Brooke Amendment of the Housing Act by establishing minimum rents to the 40% of the operating costs of public housing units.

Such minimum rents would be devasting to the poorest families in public housing as well as those people who have relied upon the Brooke Amendment for survival. If Congress merely wishes to eliminate zero rents in public housing, the best way would be to increase the incomes of public housing tenants, not to increase rents, e.g., there are no cases of zero ren tenants in Boston public housing because welfare payments are adequate. This is the correct approach. There are many cases of zero rent tenants in New Orleans because welfare payments are so inadequate families rarely meet daily minimum standards of living.

It would be criminal to now require families of four receiving $1,000 per year who eat infrequently to suddenly pay $20 per month for rent.

Although many local public housing officials would have at one time believed that there is much tenant discontent with zero rents, there is sufficient evidence to bear out the point that this is not the case. Our member tenant organizations have repeatedly defended the Brooke Amendment, and we have even gone further as to ascertain tenant attitudes. Surveys we have conducted and are conducting of the attitudes of rural tenants in Monroe, Georgia; Anna, Illinois; Graceville, Florida; Goldsboro, North Carolina, and Punxatawney, Pennsylvania have shown no one opposed to free rents for persons with sub-standard incomes. Even where tenants on free rent have desired to make voluntary contributions to their rent accounts, they have only paid $5 per month, far less than the $20 to $60 per month being proposed by the Administration. It is unfair to make those least able to pay, responsible for paying a higher proportion of their income for rent than those who are able to pay. This bias against the poor is typical of a problem which has plagued America for years, i.e., "The poorer the tenant, the greater is his or her housing expense as a proportion of income. In 1970 more than 90% of tenant families with incomes below $2,000 paid 35% of their income for rent, but 93% of those families with incomes over $25,000 paid less than 15% of their income for rent. The median rent paid by households with incomes below $2,000 was $79 monthly or 47% of their income. The median rent paid by people with incomes above $25,000 was $202, less than 10% of their income.

Let us preserve the rent ceilings for welfare recipients as in the Brooke Amendment, and present the frequent discrimination against families receiving public aid. Recipients should not be discriminated against because of their source of income.

22-877 O 73 13