visions appearing in this bill due to the violence and chaos the old common law concept created. Such a provision in a Federal housing act sets a precedent that can throw us back at least 100 years in landlord-tenant relations and sets the stage for violent confrontations between the housing authorities and tenants. Thus section 6(h) as well as the other provisions mentioned should be deleted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most importantly, I would like to discuss the figures of both the Senate and House bills. Since the housing act was first adopted in 1937, public housing has been made available solely for low-income families. Low-income families have always been defined as a family in the lowest income group. The new requirements of the Senate-passed bill would drastically change the purpose of the public housing programs to provide housing for the lowest income groups. Public housing would no longer be available solely to the very poor but would serve a new class of potential tenants-low income and very low income. As will be seen, "low income" really means little "middle income" and "very low income" is synonymous with the present tenants of public housing. In Washington, D.C., for example, the present adjusted admission limits for a family of five is $5,400. Under the Senate bill two provisions would raise this limit to approximately $9,600. First, the 20-percent gap requirement is eliminated. At present this requirement means that the top income which a poor family can have and still be admitted to public housing must be at least 20-percent lower than the income of a family that size would need to pay the lowest rents at which a substantial supply of decent, safe, and sanitary housing is being provided by private sources, unaided by public subsidy. The CHAIRMAN. Your time has expired. You may insert the balance of your statement in the record. You had finished your original statement, I believe? Mrs. WYLIE. Yes, sir. I would like to say we have other parts. The CHAIRMAN. Insert that, if you will, please, and you will be questioned about it later on. Mrs. WYLIE. Thank you very much. (The balance of Mrs. Wylie's statement follows:) ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF ROSE WYLIE, NATIONAL CHAIRWOMAN, NATIONAL TENANTS ORGANIZATION, INC. This would enable families with income of $6,750 to be eligible for public housing. Second, the Senate bill defines low-income families to mean "families of low-income who cannot afford to pay enough to cause private enterprise in their locality or metropolitan area to build an adequate supply of decent, safe and sanitary dwelling for their use," as opposed to "very low-income families" which will be defined by the Secretary. Thus, in Washington, D.C. where the going rent of unassisted housing for a 3-bedroom apartment is $200 per month, a family with an income of $9,600 would be eligible for public housing. This income is above the 1970 census median income for Washington, D.C. which as $9,583. Accordingly, public housing will no longer be housing for the very poor but housing for the middle-income as well. The economic mix provisions of the House bill coupled with the so-called 20% minimum provision of the Senate bill will further work, to eliminate truly low income people from public housing. The language of the House Subcommittee requirement sets forth the true purpose of the economic mix requirement— which is to avoid "concentrations of very low-income and socially-deprived problem families." Another way of saying public housing will not be available for welfare and other very poor families. The 20% minimum provision contained in the Senate bill requires that 20% of new projects must be occupied by the "very low income. However, history shows with respect to the poor, minimums have a way of becoming maximums. This is especially true in this case given the purpose of the economic mix provision. Paragraphs (3) of this section provides for the establishment of effective tenant management relationships to assure that satisfactory behavior is required of "tenants." In the interest of successful operation of projects, the requirement of satisfactory behavior should not be limited to tenants. This paragraph also adds vague and inconsistent criteria to an area already effectively covered under Section 6 (h) (2) which deals with rules, regulations, and standards which are promulgated as a result of local housing agencies consultation with the tenants. We urge that it be deleted. These provisions, obnoxious as they are standing by themselves, when coupled with the above financial requirements demonstrate a clear pattern to fundamentally alter the purpose of public housing. In five years, one could predict that of the million units now under management in public housing only 20% will be occupied by the truly poor. The saddest aspect of the proposed Housing Act of 1972 is that Senate liberals, are supporting such legislation, when they should instead be pushing for further expansion of the positive developments in the last three years. Through a new definition of admission income limits, minimum rents, a required economic mix of tenants, and a "national eviction law," Congress is attempting to alter the original fundamental purpose of subsidized housing— housing for the very poor-and is returning to the law of regressive and repressive landlord-tenant management relations that existed before 1969. Instead of blaming tenants for the present state of subsidized housing, Congress should take a hard look at present management policies and practices of local housing authorities, provide money for tenants to form their own security forces, pass legislation which would assure full and complete tenant participation, including a requirement of Tenant Commissioners and codify by statute the standards contained in the HUD circulars concerning lease and grievance procedures issued in February of 1971. The time has come for these needed changes in subsidized housing which will benefit not only the poor tenants, but the program itself. The CHAIRMAN. We have next Mrs. Perry from the National Welfare Rights Organization. STATEMENT OF MARIE RATAGICK ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION; ACCOMPANIED BY STEPHEN ALTMAN, LEGAL INTERN Mrs. RATAGICK. Mrs. Perry couldn't be here today, Mr. Chairman. My name is Marie Ratagick and I am a member of the National Welfare Rights Organization. I am a welfare recipient and I am speaking in Mrs. Perry's place. The CHAIRMAN. Are you with Mrs. Perry? Mrs. RATAGICK. Yes, I am taking her place. She could not be here today. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have copies of your statement? Mrs. RATAGICK. We have a statement that we are submitting. It is not the statement that I am going to make. The statement that I am going to make is very short, and the statement that our lawyers have prepared will be submitted. The CHAIRMAN. You will insert that in the record? The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Mrs. RATAGICK. I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you on behalf of the National Welfare Rights Organization. Since we are directly involved in the concerns of a large, but often neglected segment of the population, we fear that title III of the housing and urban development bill now before you discriminates against the very poor and welfare recipients, and in a manner which can only perpetuate our plight and cost the Federal Government and the American public an unconscionable amount of money, human resources, and dignity. Our lawyers are submitting a written statement which explains how the provisions in title III amount to an unconstitutional and unjustifiable violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, as well as denying the due process guarantee to all citizens. I would like to use this opportunity to show this committee that this bill does not further the goal of adequate shelter for all American families but acts to continue a system which tries to take both dignity and opportunity from a large segment of the population, and I ask that the committee consider the questions I raise when reading the statement and acting on the bill. The recently passed Brooke amendment aided all people in public housing. When the spirit of the first Brooke amendment was not carried out by HUD and the benefits were given unevenly to the intended recipients, depending upon their economic status, Congress stepped in to assure that everyone benefited from its provisions. The bill now before you would nullify the financial gains of the Brooke amendment by exempting the very poor from the 25 percent of income limitation for rent by instituting a minimal rental figure. It would further take away needed emotional stimuli such as were incurred in having the responsibility for our own finances, our control over our own housing in any way by allowing the welfare agencies to pay the rent directly. Furthermore, it would require that all tenants relinquish legal rights before they could live in public housing. Worst of all, it would act to prevent those who need the housing the most from obtaining it. All this would be at the ever-rising financial costs of the U.S. Government that the people must bear. What is the justification for retreating from the gains of the Brooke amendment or for again denying the poor the respect which we have never had and the opportunities we have lost as individuals. What is the justification for continuing to pay lip service to housing for all while there is action for only some? The justification is not that the Brooke amendment is a burden on housing projects-it is not-nor is the justification that many projects have not been successful. Although many have not, failures are the result of many reasons, none of which call for destroying the very purpose of low-cost housing. There is no justification but there is a reason. The reason is couched in old and dangerous reactive myths about welfare and the poor. In this bill, this myth can be seen implicitly and explicitly. This bill states that the need for direct payment by the welfare agencies must be determined prior to initial occupancy. Upon what can this determination be made but an imagined belief that the future tenants cannot manage money because they are on welfare. Another example is the paring of the very low-income group and problem families in a provision which would exclude both at the whim of the local authority. What is a problem family? Is it a family headed by a woman or is it a low-income family? If so, then the terminology is redundant and the solution is not the one that this bill offers. No guidelines are set down because those who wrote the bill believed that the local people probably adhere to the same myths about what constitutes a problem family and, therefore, they do not need guidance. This ignores the proven factors of gross overcrowding and overburdening support facilities, such as schools, which overburdening has caused many past failures. Income and environmental problems should be addressed, not family structure, the morals of which are to be determined by outsiders. There is insufficient housing in the United States today to insure that everyone has adequate shelter. Therefore, some people must be left out. To select one group without proper justification is unlawful, but to select the group that needs housing the most and then require them to pay the most is criminal. The present welfare system is a cruel hoax that has perpetuated the misery of poor people and guarantees that the children forced to rely on it will never have a chance to live. This bill in its present form continues this system. It keeps those that housing is meant for from obtaining it without first trading the necessary rights and dignity which are important in helping the poor get into the position where they can share in the rewards of the wealthiest country in the world. Some people say that wealth was obtained at the expense of one group of people in this society and that the poor must exist to perpetuate that wealth. This may or may not be true. Those people also say that there is a struggle in our society. I know that it is true for I am part of it. I know that one group of people struggle to enjoy this country's wealth while the poor, of which I am a part, struggle to survive. The bill now before you will continue that first struggle when it spends money on public housing, but it will end the second for a few, because those who are closest to losing that struggle for survival will be hurt by this bill. If they are not hurt because they are fortunate to be already in public housing, they will certainly be hurt because the belief that just spending money without recognizing what the true needs are involved in creating real opportunity for the poor, those will be perpetuated. Strides forward have been made in housing. Pride in a home and family can stay with one all of his life, even in a female-headed household. When advances are being made, even when study show how much more is necessary, a step back would rob pride from not only those struggling for survival but from the entire American public. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. You may insert your other statement in the record. (The statement of the National Welfare Rights Organization follows:) STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WELFARE RIGHTS ORGANIZATION CONCERNING TITLE III OF THE HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1972 This statement is being submitted by the NWRO in order to bring to the attention of the Committee, provisions within the housing bill now before it, that discriminates against the very poor and the welfare recipient in a manner which can only perpetuate their plight and cost the Federal Government and the American public an unconscionable amount of money, human resources and dignity. It is intended to supplement and therefore be read in conjunction with the testimony of Ms. Marie Ratagick, given on June 12, 1972. The provisions in Title III of the Housing and Urban Development Bill of 1972 are contra to stated governmental policies, concerning adequate housing for all citizens as stated in the housing acts of 1937 and 1949 and also of public policy which calls for the realization of equal and dignified treatment for all. In the past, housing legislation has come to serve the interests of the middle class majority rather than the poor minority. This bill perpetuates that treatment by making it more difficult for the very poor to obtain housing, making them pay a higher percentage of their income, and making them pay still further by requiring the relinquishment of lawful rights and necessary elements of selfrespect, to such an extent as to be violative of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. In accomplishing this undesired end, the act has drawn upon invidious myths about welfare recipients. Further, it requires a lease contract which could not be enforced by a court of equity, and contains provisions which unjustifiably singles out the very poor as a special category. Section 2 of the Act, the policy statement, says that it is the Act's purpose to promote the general welfare of the nation by employing its funds to remedy the unsafe and unsanitary housing conditions and the acute shortage of decent dwellings for families of low incomes. The authors of the Bill do not state here that they intend to uncategorically insure that every citizen has an adequate home. To the contrary, Sec. 9(c) (1) implies that "very low income" (a term often used to mean welfare) families will be turned away from housing if a concentration of them would occur. Oddly, it is Sec. 8, dealing with the use of private accommodations to promote economy in the program, that the phrase "aid in assuring a decent place to live for every citizen" occurs. However, welfare recipients denied public housing under Sec. 9, will either be unable to find a home in the private market and thus have no place to live, or must require the government to pay exhorbitant sums for this private housing and thus raise the cost of welfare. This means either not every citizen will have a decent place to live, or it will not be economical. Such inconsistencies arising from an unclear policy and insufficient commitment has resulted in a proposed bill which fails the general welfare. This can be seen in that the bill accomplishes the following results which are either against public policy, unconscionable as a matter of law, or inconsistent with existing law, and all of which discriminate against the poor in a manner violative of equal protection: 1. As mentioned above, the very poor can be denied public housing by Sec. 9(c)(1). This Section also makes a special category of “socially deprived problem families." Issues arise as to the legality of such categories, upon which to base admission to public housing. Pairing these two groups (very low income and problem families) without stating even a basic reason for restricting their eligibility, is evidence of the author's preconceived attitude toward the poor, which ignores the true dynamics of the relationship between adequate shelter and settled family life. It is probably the result of the author's belief that past failures of public housing to create "proper middle class" neighborhoods is the fault of the most visible variable, which is the tenant, rather than the documented reasons such as the architecture, absence of sufficient supporting facilities such as police, and inadequate upkeep. The absence of the explicit reason as well as definitions for the term involved. explaining what amounts to a "concentration," when is income "very low income," and what is a “socially deprived problem family" makes the section too vague to be unheld. This is because the local authority does not have sufficient guidelines to enact it. For example, the term "problem families" would invite the local authority to use the type of criteria such as an unwed mother, which the courts have already outlawed, in cases such as Thomas v. Housing Authority (282 F. Supp. 575) because they were in disharmony with the spirit and aim of low rent housing programs and were used to discriminate against the poor. Fur |