(The following was later submitted for the record :)

The number of Wherry units and percent vacancy of Wherry units

Number of Wherry units in SAC_

Number of vacancies in Wherry housing (1 percent)

Number of units occupied by civilians___

14, 865

141

215

97

Number of units occupied by Government civilian employees---

There are five bases at which offbase housing is comparable to but rents for less than Wherry housing. The Wherry housing at these bases constitutes 23.3 percent of all such housing in SAC.

There is no offbase housing at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Tucson, Ariz., comparable to Wherry housing that rents for less than Wherry. However, of the 997 title IX housing units in the area, 209 are vacant.

HOUSING ACT OF 1956

FRIDAY, MAY 25, 1956

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY,

Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Paul Brown presiding. Present: Messrs. Brown, Rains, Wolcott, Talle, Kilburn, and Hiestand.

Mr. BROWN. The committee will come to order.

We have with us this morning the Honorable Robert Jones from the State of Alabama, one of our most outstanding Members of Congress, and he is here to discuss the farm-housing program. He has done more in this field than any man I know.

We are delighted to have you, Mr. Jones.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here this morning to testify in behalf of the extension of title V, the rural housing section of the general housing bill. This section was first included in the Housing Act of 1949. Since its operation, Mr. Chairman, I don't know of any program that has been more successful or that has been better received by the peeople than the Rural Housing Act, which is attested by the fact that the repayment schedule is higher than that of any other lending operation of the Federal Government.

I think at the present time the ratio of repayment, is approximately 106 percent.

For the last 2 years, Mr. Chairman, there have not been funds made available for the rural housing program.

Mr. BROWN. Why is that, Mr. Jones?

Mr. JONES. For one thing, the FHA or the Farmers' Home Administration, has urged upon the committee the transfer of their activities under title V to the Bankhead-Jones law, and therefore, the reports which have been submitted to the committees, both House and Senate, have come after the appropriation bills have been passed, and immediately before the expiration of the extension of title V. So it has been in the twilight zone, and therefore, Mr. Chairman, subsequently I want to discuss some changes that could be made to insure the continuation and the orderly processing of this program.

Mr. Chairman, there is one item of tremendous importance in the testimony of the Farmers' Home Administration before this com

mittee. As I understand the testimony of Mr. McLeaish before this committee, he recommended that the rural housing activities of the Farmers' Home Administration be carried out under the BankheadJones Act. I think that would be a terrible calamity to the hopes and aspirations of those of us who want to see a substantial and a progressive rural housing program undertaken by the Federal Govern

ment.

In the first place, it would leave this committee without jurisdiction, and by leaving out title V, would then be incumbent upon the Farmers' Home Administration to get further authorization and expansion under the Bankhead-Jones Act.

Mr. RAINS. That is before the Agriculture Committee?

Mr. JONES. Yes, sir, that is right. Therefore, I think that this committee, in estimating the overall need of housing, should not have taken from it the consideration of rural housing, because I am sure the committee, due to its long experience, its sympathy with, and its knowledge of, the housing program, would be divested of one of their firm and great responsibilities.

There is a relationship between rural housing and the overall housing program, and I am afraid that another committee not dealing with the subject would soon lose sight of it.

Now, I am not being derogatory of the great Committee on Agriculture. But this is the proper forum, in my opinion, in which housing of all types should be considered, because, whether we realie it or not, when we fail to make provisions for rural housing, we are going to actually pay for housing for the rural people whether we like it or not. Because we have seen the mass exodus of people from our farms, and going to urban communities, and there they are creating housing needs, which this Government and this committee is endeavoring to provide, for these transients moving from the farms to the city.

I can think of no more compelling reason than just the fact that we are losing people from the farms. I don't blame the farm people for leaving the farms. Their leaving is due to low income, lack of proper housing, and in this day and age, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the farm people are going to suffer by remaining on the farm if conditions are not conducive to a cultural and social order that would be in keeping with what they see in urban communities. Mr. Chairman, this program has worked successfully. As far as I know it has not failed in any respect.

Mr. BROWN. Have there been any losses under this program? Mr. JONES. My recollection is, Mr. Chairman, that there have been less than one-half of 1 percent of losses, and that the repayment schedule is 106 percent. As I said earlier in my testimony, the repayment schedule on rural housing, under title V of this act, is higher than that of any lending operation of the Federal Government. So it has proven successful and it has proven its worthiness, and I think that that, within itself, is a justification for the extension of title V.

I would like to make this recommendation, since we have experienced the 2 years in which there has been no building under title V, that the act be extended for a 5-year period, in order that the Appropriations Committee and the Administration can make longrange plans in expectation of what will happen from year to year.

I do not believe that time is excessive, and I think it would bring about an orderly program.

Mr. RAINS. It is my information that the Senate yesterday passed such an amendment in the housing bill. Is that correct, or do you know?

Mr. JONES. It was carried in the bill reported. Now, whether or not there was an amendment to the bill, I do not know, Mr. Rains. Mr. RAINS. I think it was. But certainly it would eliminate the pitfalls that we have suffered in the years 1953 and 1954, in not having appropriations. Under the Bankhead-Jones Act-I would like to point this out to the committee-in a 5-year period, there were only approximately $17 million worth of loans made for housing. In less than 60 days, after the passage of title V, in the 1949 act, we loaned more money during that period than was loaned during the entire 5-year period under the Bankhead-Jones Act.

So it seems to me that if we are going to be wedded to the objectives first set out in that act; namely, to create not only a desire on the part of the farmer to improve his housing conditions, but we would also stimulate those people who live on the farm, who are in a financial position to build better houses for themselves. So if we let this program lapse, if we do not have a firm commitment for the administration of the program, with some expectation there will be, from year to year, a going and a dynamic housing program for rural people, I don't think that we can expect the success of the program that we had hoped for.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Wolcott, do you have any questions?

Mr. WOLCOTT. No, but I want to express my appreciation of what you had to say about the bill, Mr. Rains.

Mr. KILBURN. I want to say that I am delighted Mr. Jones came here to make his statement. He is a Member of Congress from the other side, for whom I have a great deal of respect and I am glad to have his views.

Mr. JONES. Thank you very much.

Mr. RAINS. I appreciate your coming here, Mr. Jones. Everybody knows of your active interest in this program, and I share with other gentlemen the feeling that you have done a good job in this field.

I would like to point out, if I may, to the members of the committee, and ask them if they get a chance, to read the hearings of the subcommittee held in the city of Birmingham, on the subject of rural housing. To my mind-in fact, I know-it is the only serious effort made by any committee to really portray the problem as it is, and to try to find some of the answers to the problems. Appearing before that committee were Congressman Jones, Senator Sparkman, and other Alabama Congressmen, rural housing people from Auburn, which is the land-grant college, and other agricultural leaders who pointed up the sad fact that housing on the farms in America is actually worse than housing in the crowded cities of this country. I am talking about the general overall picture now. And the further fact that Mr. Jones knows so well that the farmer, in the housing legislation and I say this as one who is interested in housing, as the other members of the committee are-has been neglected.

Somehow or other, I don't know where we will get the answer, but we need, Mr. Jones, to do something even bigger than envisaged by

title V in order to help the needs of the people on the farms for housing.

Do you agree with that?

Mr. JONES. Yes, Mr. Rains, I certainly do agree with you, because it is certainly going to take some dramatic action to bring about a realization, on the part of the people, of the real slums that exist on our farms, and unless we give some thought and some action to the program to demonstrate to the farm people that the Congress is sympathetic not only to their agricultural problems, but to our way of life, then the farmer, through neglect of the Congress to do that, is going to get little warmth or satisfaction from expectations from some future help, and he is going to move from the farms, because unless we go about this farm problem and do something about it, we are going to wind up, before too long, in factory farms, and the economy of the farm today is such that we ought to make it as attractive as we possibly can for the small farmer.

The loss of farm income, the losses of people from the farm due to mechanization, are some of the principal factors, but coupled with those principal factors is that a man living on a farm is not entitled to the same consideration that he would have if he moved to town, because he would immediately be able to get an FHA loan or a GI loan, and build a house which is comfortable and in which he could take some pride in ownership. Or we will move him to a public housing project.

We must take this housing program and give it universal application, and see to it that the farm people get help as well as anybody else. I don't think there is anything about the rural housing problem that money won't cure, and one of the things to do is to make it available in sufficient amounts to get a sufficient program in every geographical area in this country.

Mr. RAINS. Testifying in this hearing in Birmingham were experts in the rural housing field from the land-grant college. I recall Dr. Fred Kummer, who is operating under some kind of a small research grant on rural housing, told the committee the story of being able to build truly good and comfortable houses on farms for the sum of $6,500 to $7,000.

Do you think that, in addition to the funds which go into the program which you are talking about, that we need to carry forward a little more research by some of the colleges, perhaps, operating in the field of farm housing?

Mr. JONES. As you recall, Mr. Rains, the first hearing that we had on title V, I recall the committee took great interest

Mr. RAINS. That was in 1949?

Mr. JONES. Yes, in 1949, took great interest in seeing to it that there was a provision written into the law which would authorize the Farmers' Home Administration to make allocations of funds to landgrant colleges for experiments and research in farm housing. You will recall that Mr. Gamble, of New York, took considerable interest in that program, and I pointed out to the committee at that time that there were only two universities or colleges in the entire United States that had made any study whatsoever of the rural housing programCornell and the University of New York. And there had been some meager research work done by the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama.