Senator SPARKMAN. I thought you said you had recommended it and it was carried in the bill. Mr. KANE. No. Senator SPARKMAN. That is an additional recommendation? Mr. KANE. That is an additional recommendation. Mr. NEWMAN. For your information, Mr. Chairman, the administration is still considering our recommendations even though they are not in the legislation. They have not definitely rejected them. They are studying them further. Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. KANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator SPARKMAN. Before the committee recesses, I should like to insert in the record a letter that came to me from a gentleman who has had considerable connection it appears with Wherry projects. I think it is appropriate relating to S. 1501. Without objection, we will insert that in the record. (The letter referred to follows:) Military housing Senator JOHN J. SPARKMAN, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. FORT WORTH, TEX., May 2, 1955. DEAR SENATOR: Senate bill No. 1501 by Capehart and H. R. 5329 threaten confiscation of hundreds of millions of dollars invested by private capital at the solicitations of the United States Government, especially the Armed Forces, in Wherry housing, to accommodate military personnel on or near military establishments. The proposed legislation gives no protection whatever to owners whose property was built for, and is restricted to military personnel. It would permit and invite commanders and/or housing officers at bases to assign housing and personnel in a way that would increase vacancy ratios in Wherry housing and would be destructive of such investments. It would be competitive and uneconomic in many cases. Entire discretion as to need for such proposed additional Government-owned housing is placed with the Defense Department and that decision is really made locally by officers who sometimes seek more and bigger commands and more and larger installations without perfect understanding for public need and private rights. Not all people connected with Wherry are crooks and profiteers. Some, like the writer who voluntarily appeared before the Capehart committee, lost money in construction and they can only recoup it over the long pull with low vacancy factors but today approximately 40 of our 600 units at Carswell Air Force Base are vacant. Some tenants are even now frequently moved to recently provided Government-owned quarters. Competition would result not only from a surplus of homes, but also from rates which Government can reduce because maintenance, management, and other costs are absorbed in whole or in part with tax money which private owners do not have. No decent citizen protests adequate and desirable homes for our military people because they are ourselves, our sons and daughters, but let's be fair before we are overgenerous in spending money. Let's protect the proper potential of housing investments and give proper consideration to occupancies therein, If FHA is guaranteeing mortgages under this proposal, it should have authority to underwrite it consistent with the existing facilities. With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely, RAYMOND E. BUCK. Senator SPARKMAN. I should like to make an announcement because some inquiries have been directed to me as to how long these hearings would continue. On May 3, if I recall correctly, we announced in the Congressional Record that the hearings would be held this week and next week. At that time we listed, as I recall, 8 days of scheduled hearings. Since that time we have added 1 day to it to make 9, but still to conclude on Friday, May 20. In spite of requests from different persons who would like to be added to the list of witnesses, I feel that we must conclude the hearings on May 20, because it leaves us very little time in which to hold executive sessions and complete the marking up of the bill until we start on other legislation. Therefore, I want to make the announcement now that the hearings will definitely conclude on Friday, May 20. We have hearings scheduled for tomorrow and for all 5 days of next week. The hearings are scheduled only for the morning because if the Senate is in session we can sit in the afternoon only by special permission. If there is important legislation on the floor, that permission is not forthcoming. Therefore, I do not think it is safe to schedule afternoon hearings. Statements from interested witnesses who have not heretofore made their request to be heard but who now would like to be included will be welcomed and will be made a part of the record just the same as if such witnesses testified. Military housing Mr. KANE. Mr. Chairman, since I did mention during the testimony some figures that we have on the Wherry housing, the appropriatedfund housing, and S. 1501, would the Chair wish to entertain putting that in the record? Senator SPARKMAN. I think it would be very good to have it in the record, and without objection they will be included. Mr. KANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The figures referred to follow :) COMPARATIVE DATA OF PRESENT WHERRY HOUSING AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT S. 1501 WITH APPROPRIATED FUND HOUSING Mr. Harlow W. Harvey, Jr., statistician, Office of the Secretary of Defense (Properties and Installations), furnished information concerning the cost to the Government in acquiring and operating a unit of Wherry housing and appropriated fund housing over a 50-year period (I-18963). The proposed amendment S. 1501 provides that the mortgage shall be amortized over a 25-year period with payments by the military limited to an average living unit of $90 per month. Quarters allowance of military personnel occupying housing constructed under S. 1501 will be used to make amortization payments by the military. The data furnished by Mr. Harvey was used as a basis for making a comparison of estimated cost of S. 1501 with appropriated fund housing based on a 25-year period. The data furnished by Mr. Harvey on a 50-year period and comparison of S. 1501 on a 25-year period with appropriated fund housing for a unit follows: 1 Based on $17 million expenditure for 227 projects containing 86,697 units (total program; actually aided: 25,032 units in 80 projects) as of Mar. 18, 1954. 2 Average cost authorized by Public Law 765/83. Based on actual service experience of 33 cents per square foot per year: assumes 1,050 square feet average floor area. 4 Based on average of $90 per month and $1,080 per year. 5 Based on average of $90 per month which includes amortization payments of principal and interest. Based on initial cost for entire 50-year period. 7 Based on repetitive computation with annual increments of $346. Based on repetitive computation with annual increments of $1,080. Senator SPARKMAN. The committee stands in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning in this room. (Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 10 a. m. the following day, Friday, May 13, 1955.) HOUSING ACT OF 1955 FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1955 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING, The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, in room 301, Senate Office Building, at 10: 45 a. m., Senator A. S. Mike Monroney presiding. Present: Senators Monroney, Capehart, and Payne. Senator MONRONEY. The Housing Subcommittee will be in order. We will have testimony today from the Mortgage Bankers Association, represented by James W. Rouse, president of the James W. Rouse Co., Baltimore, Md. We are glad to have you with us and we appreciate your appearing. You may just testify in your own way. STATEMENT OF JAMES W. ROUSE, MEMBER, BOARD OF GOVERNORS, ACCOMPANIED BY SAMUEL E. NEEL, GENERAL COUNSEL, MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Mr. ROUSE. Thank you, sir. I have no prepared statement and I will just talk a few minutes from notes, if I may. My name is James Rouse, and I am president of the James W. Rouse Co. of Baltimore. I am a member of the board of governors of the Mortgage Bankers Association of America, which organization I assume you are all familiar with, because we have been here a number of times before. We represent some 2,000 mortgage originators, lifeinsurance companies and savings banks in the mortgage business. I would like to cover briefly and quickly a number of the bills which are less important to us and deal primarily with S. 1800, the one which would change certain aspects of the public-housing program. Housing for elderly and single persons The first bill, S. 1412, would liberalize the public-housing program to permit people of over 65 years of age, which seems to us to be a perfectly reasonable relaxation, and there is no reason why they should be excluded. A low-income individual over 65 should be as eligible as a low-income couple, it seems to us. Senator MONRONEY. That is the prohibition now in the law against single occupancy? Mr. ROUSE. That is right. This would free it to single people over 65. On the other hand, there is another bill, S. 1642, which would set up a special program for housing for people over 65. We would speak |