people could dress. All these farm labor camps should be relinquished by the Federal Government and turned over to the local people so any receipts could be used to improve and maintain something you and I would call at least shelter, because they are not that now.

I would like to have you submit for this record this particular resolution. It refers, of course, to House bill 4211, introduced by Congressman John Moss, of California. It points up this problem of farm labor camps, and I hope you will give consideration to legislation which will provide for the relinquishment of these farm labor camps. (The material referred to follows:)

A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING RELINQUISHMENT OF FARM LABOR CENTERS TO LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES

Whereas there exists a continued need for farm labor centers for the housing of migrant and permanent agricultural labor; and

Whereas these labor centers are leased under a 20-year purchase and sale contract between the Public Housing Administration and local housing authorities; and

Whereas it is the local housing authorities' responsibility to underwrite any and all deficits, but must submit all net proceeds to the Public Housing Administration; and

Whereas local housing authorities are prohibited by law to rehabilitate and/or change the designation of shelter units by replacement, such as replacing tent platforms and the like with adequate shelter units, so as to make them habitable for human occupancy: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Pacific Southwest Regional Council of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, That the Congress of the United States of America be petitioned to consider relinquishment of farm labor centers to local housing authorities now operating farm labor centers, or who contemplate taking over the operation of farm labor centers, thereby insuring a realistic operation, with a view to the agricultural interests of this country, and for habitable housing units for migrant and permanent farm labor; be it further Resolved, That the Congress of the United States of America give serious con-sideration to H. R. 4211, introduced by Congressman John E. Moss, of California.. ROBERT D. LEE,

President, Pacific Southwest Regional Council of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials.

Mr. MILLS. I see our time is running rather short. The rest of my testimony is somewhat in detail. In several instances we have offered specific language for improvement of the legislation to improve the administration and the operation of it.

Senator, there is one thing I would like to point out, if I may, that we of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials are particularly concerned. We realize that the original concept of this program was that this was a local program for local communities. We are greatly alarmed by the inroads of Federal direction and dictation which have come to us in administering these pro-grams, the cumbersome procedures, unrealistic procedures. As your committee goes on with its investigation for the balance of the year,. I certainly hope we will have another opportunity to come before you and help you analyze that situation, because realizing some of the problems that we face we are most anxious, as the entire Congress of the United States, that this remain a local program.

Senator SPARKMAN. I might call your attention to the fact that Mr. Carter is the staff director of the subcommittee to make that study, and I am sure he would welcome an opporunity to work with you.

Mr. MILLS. I am delighted to know that and we do want to work with him throughout the year, Senator. May I thank you again for allowing us to appear, and I appreciate it very much.

Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you very much.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Mills follows:)

TESTIMONY OF WALTER B. MILLS, JR., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT OFFICIALS

My name is Walter B. Mills, Jr., and I am appearing as president of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. I am also the executive director of the Greater Gadsden Housing Authority of Gadsden, Ala. Mr. William L. Slayton, assistant director of our organization, is appearing with me to answer questions pertaining to the urban renewal program. The National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials is a nonprofit, professional association of citizens and local public officials interested in furthering good public administration in the fields of housing and urban redevelopment. The members of our organization, are by and large, those who are administering the public housing and urban renewal programs in cities throughout the United States. We have a real interest in the legislation, therefore, for we are anxious that it provide the best possible tools to enable us to assist in carrying out its objectives.

PUBLIC HOUSING

In our analysis of the current public housing scene, five basic issues arise in considering S. 1800, S. 1412, and S. 1642:

(1) The relationship of this program to the overall urban renewal program.

(2) The number of units that the program should cover.

(3) The number of years allowed for planning.

(4) How to adapt the public housing program to meet the special, and growing, needs of the aged.

(5) How to adapt the public housing program to meet the special needs of single person families, with no reference to age.

In the comments that follow, we shall indicate our position on all five points in commenting on the specific wording of the three bills.

Purpose of program (relation to urban renewal)

An official analysis of S. 1800 says that the provisions on public housing are geared to "maintain the basic purpose of meeting the relocation needs of families of low income displaced by slum clearance and urban renewal projects ***" Under the new concept of "urban renewal", public housing programing should certainly be geared to the displacement plans of code enforcement agencies, private enterprise, redevelopment projects, and such public programs as highway construction, school building, etc.—all of which will entail clearance and rebuilding. At this very early stage in the urban renewal program, however, we are convinced that public housing should be encouraged to move forward as quickly as possible in order to develop an adequate relocation housing resource for the time when the renewal program really begins to take hold and roll.

Specifically, we would like to see some further modification than that proposed in S. 1800 of the limitations on the public housing program carried in the 1954 Housing Act. In that act, it will be recalled, no public housing could be authorized except in communities in which a federally aided title I redevelopment project was being carried out. That limitation has been liberalized in S. 1800 by (1) permitting public housing in communities without such projects in process but (2) requiring that the workable-program requirement of the 1954 Housing Act be met, and (3) waiving the workable program requirement for communities where title I projects were being carried out prior to passage of the Housing Act of 1954.

We are pleased with the first provision, since it opens the way for public housing assistance to communities that are carrying on either city, State, or privately aided redevelopment and renewal projects. The second provision, however, does-in our view-require some temporary (and we emphasize the word) softening. Many of the elements of a workable program require many months to initiate-and years to achieve. For example, a community without a housing standards code may well take 2 years to get such a code drawn, adopted, and installed. In that interval, a public housing program can be put underway

and an inventory of low-rental units can become available just when the first code displacement families need relocation housing.

Also, it is not hard to anticipate that there will be many communities in which there is an urgent, immediate need for low-rental housing where none of the components of a workable program have been given attention. It seems to us that this community should be given financial assistance for a low-rental program and, concurrently, encouraged to begin work on a workable program. The law could carry a stipulation that such a community would not be given assistance for additional projects-and assistance might be halted short of the actual contributions contract-if evidence were not available within a year, or 2 years, that work had been started to qualify the community under workable program standards.

In short, it seems to us that many communities can be completely discouraged from doing an urban renewal job if they can see no immediate help coming to them to meet their key problem in removing substandard housing and in relieving overcrowding; that is, the provision of an additional housing supply for families of low income. As PHA Commissioner Slusser has already pointed out to this committee, it takes 12 to 18 months to plan and acquire land for a public housing project—and an equal period to complete it for occupancy. Any delay in starting a community on this 2- to 3-year job is a delay in the entire renewal process. Specifically, then, we should like to see S. 1800 provide that a community may qualify for Federal assistance for public housing under the criteria of need developed in the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Housing Act of 1949, provided that it simultaneously begins to develop a workable program for the community. Administrative latitude should be given HHFA for determining a reasonable time limit by which such a program should be submitted and, further, it should be within the province of HHFA to refuse additional public housing assistance if no progress on the workable program has been made. Size of program and planning

There is no lack of evidence as to the extent of need for a public-housing program. Perhaps the best statement comes from the report of the President's Advisory Committee on Government Housing Policies and Programs, which estimates that something like 10 million families may have to move if we are to do an adequate urban renewal job. It is further estimated that half of these families will qualify, incomewise, for public housing. In the face of this need, an annual public-housing program of 35,000 units for the next 2 years is a totally inadequate program. Further, to allow the program only a 2-year life span is totally unrealistic. Again, as PHA Commissioner Slusser has already testified, no agency-Federal or local-can adequately staff itself or plan its program without some "fixed and definite goals *** toward which it could work at a uniform rate over a period of several years." We should like to revert to the terms of the Housing Act of 1949; a 6-year program, with the President to exercise authority to vary the volume between the 200,000 and 50,000 annual rate scaled to fit into the economic picture as of any one year.

Under this heading of program size, we should like to refer to Senator Sparkman's bill S. 1642—the proposed annual program of 50,000 public-housing units for aged families over the next 5 years. With the 35,000 units proposed in S. 1800, and with the new 2-year deadline for getting units under contract, we have as an annual program of 85,000 units with 1958 and 1960 as terminal dates. This combined picture is, of course, a decided improvement over the provisions of S. 1800 alone. However, we should like to comment more extensively on the Sparkman bill under the specialized heading of—

Housing for the aged

This association takes some pride in the pioneering efforts that public housing has already exerted in this field. Local housing authorities have long recognized the pathetic, often tragic, needs of aged couples and single persons for housing. They have tried to meet these needs in spite of the limitations of the present public-housing law. In New York and Massachusetts, State help has been available. In other instances-in Chicago, Cleveland, Memphis, Providence, St. Louis, San Francisco-housing authorities have exerted considerable ingenuity in adapting their federally aided programs to assist aged families. They have built, or are planning to build, units especially designed for older people; they have worked with community service agencies to develop programs that bring health, housekeeping, social, and financial assistance to such families. Housing authorities, however, see a tremendously growing set of problems in this area of

special assistance and, of course, they see a continuously expanding need for the housing itself for aging families, to meet the mounting proportion of our population in the "over 65" category.

Therefore, the association expresses real appreciation for both Senator Sparkman's bill and for Senator Magnuson's S. 1412-a bill that would qualify single aged persons for occupancy in the present public-housing program, thus solving one of the very special and very unfortunate problems of the existing program. The association's position on these bills can be stated as follows:

(1) The provision of housing for the aged is inextricably interwoven in the whole question of the economic and social needs of the aged, and it is our hope that any long-range public-housing program would be developed as a part of a program focused on the entire area of need. Meanwhile, however, public housing should certainly be serving these families without the restraints of present legislation.

(2) Rather than have a supplementary program we should like to see the public housing program increased in size with a certain percentage allocated to aged families. In the New York State program 6 percent of all housing built by an authority is allocated for the aged and for certain types of invalided persons. For the time being we would accept this percentage as workable, pending the time when the general problem is more clearly understood and a general program is developed.

(3) We should like to have the basic legislation amended to give occupancy preference to the aged on 6 percent of all vacancies in existing units.

(4) We should like to have the basic legislation amended along the lines of S. 1412 to permit single aged persons to be accepted for occupancy and continued residence in public housing.

(5) We should like to have the basic legislation amended to overcome a very special eligibility problem of aged families. The present law requires that, to be eligible for public housing, a family must not only meet the income requirements. of an authority but must come (except in the case of veterans) from substandard housing. Local housing authorities in all parts of the country find that aged families are frequently living in standard dwellings-family homes where they have lived for many years. Such homes are frequently too large for the family's needs and economically too expensive for them to maintain. Further, as the families grow older, the upkeep of the property is completely beyond their abilities. Hence it is proposed that for aged families the substandard housing requirement be waived and that special eligibility criteria relating to the physical and economic capacity of a family to continue living in its present housing be developed.

(6) Senator Sparkman's bill proposes a $3 million annual subsidy for his 50,000-unit annual program, or a per unit subsidy of $60. Experience is still too limited in this field to know whether or not this figure is realistic, in view of special equipment and special design advocated for units for the aged in view of the special management problems that may develop, and in view of what may be the rent-to-income ratio of most such families. Hence, again, it would be our preference that the basic provisions of the existing law apply to housing built for the aged until a substantial period of operating experience can be developed and evaluated.

(7) The association endorses the provision of the Sparkman bill that would make it possible to provide housing for the aged in remodeled existing housing as well as in new or existing projects. There is nothing in the basic law that prevents local authorities from rehabilitating properties for public housing use, but there has been a strong administrative bias against it on the grounds of economic infeasibility. With the smaller units required for aged families and with the special management problems that such housing may pose, it is quite possible that a remodeling and rehabilitation program for such families might well prove to be economically sound. Therefore we should like to see the law amended so that local authorities would be encouraged to give such an approach careful, analytical attention when they plan a program for the aged.

Single person occupancy

As more and more urban renewal programs get underway, more and more special relocation housing problems develop. One such problem is providing relocation housing for single-person families other than aged persons. For example, in Sacramento, the redevelopment area includes an employment center for migrant laborers: Most of them single men of varying ages and most of them in the low-income category. In New York City, under the State program,

the first public housing to go into the Chinatown area is being built to accommodate, in part, the many single-person families characteristic of the area. Chinatown has traditionally been home to an overwhelming number of single males. The New York City Housing Authority plans a high-rise building with a high density for its pioneering project, on the theory that community space needs for such families are radically different from those of families with children. The federally aided public housing program should not discriminate against such persons but should make it possible for local housing authorities to accommodate single persons whenever special local situations require that they do so.

In closing our testimony of public housing, we should like to comment briefly on the following special aspects of the program.

Self-liquidating provision

The present provisions of the Housing Act of 1954 are designed to make the public-housing program self-liquidating. They provide that after the bonds, for which annual contributions are pledged, are paid in full, receipts in excess of necessary expenses of administration of the project, and of reasonable reserves therefor, must be paid to the Federal Government, and to local public bodies which have contributed to the project in the form of tax exemption or otherwise in proportion to the aggregate contributions which the Government and such local bodies have made to the project. These provisions imply Federal control over local operations for a very long period of years following full payment of the bonds, somewhere between the 30th and 40th year. We understand that some State statutes do not permit any residual receipts after the bonds are paid in full since such receipts are to be applied to the reduction of rents. It would appear to be in the best interest of the Federal Government and the local communities to terminate all contractual obligations at the time the indebtedness is paid in full and annual contributions no longer required of the Federal Government.

Rural nonfarm housing

The Housing Act of 1949 provided for a rural nonfarm housing program for families of low income. Present legislation does not permit this. It is recommended that consideration be given to restoring this program so that the rural nonfarm communities, as well as large communities, may also meet their housing needs with Federal assistance.

Local responsibility

Legislative history indicates that Congress intended the public housing, slum clearance, and urban redevelopment and urban renewal programs to be locally initiated, planned, developed, carried out, and operated with a minimum of Federal control and supervision. This association has long been concerned with the tendency toward an increased and an unwarranted degree of Federal control and supervision as reflected in contractual arrangements and in administrative determinations on policies and procedures under which local agencies operate. It is hoped that your Subcommittee on Housing will study and analyze this relationship with a view toward incorporating in proposed legislation such language as will clarify the intent and desires of the Congress. It is recognized that a certain degree of control and supervision is not only necessary but desirable, but it should not be overwhelming to a point where local initiative, judgment, responsibility, and authority are submerged to an inconceivable degree. It is felt that the aims and objectives of the national housing policy can better be achieved through reliance upon local administration and judgment with limited Federal control.

Section 221

The new section 221 program set up under the Housing Act of 1954 has been notable for the almost complete lack of response to it on the part of private builders. Yet the program was aimed at meeting an important and very special need housing for families just above the public housing eligibility level and not within the range for which most private housing is currently being built. The problem of the excess income family leaving a public housing project is a serious one, as is the problem of the displaced family with an income too high for public housing. We urge a restudy of the 1954 act proposals. It should be possible to devise a rent-option plan that would make homeownership possible for these families. We should like to explore with this subcommittee during the course of its general housing investigations later in the year, some ideas we have been