the cost of any items which are manufactured or produced and should be borne by industry, just as they bear the other costs of production. If this is true, credit should be available from private sources for such equipment and installations. Further, some of the problem at least can be controlled by proper regulation by local governments. In the event your committee should decide to report this bill favorably, I would appreciate the opportunity to submit, at a later date, technical or other amendments to the bill. Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Capehart. Senator CAPEHART. I have no questions, excepting that I would suggest we have Mrs. Hobby testify as to what she is doing in respect to this matter. Is Mrs. Hobby coming up to testify on this bill? Mr. YINGLING. We have not scheduled anybody from that Depart ment. Senator CAPEHART. I would suggest inasmuch as she says she is doing something about it that she come up and tell us what she is doing. You understand this bill has a lot more to it than what you cover here. Primarily the bill is no good, of course, unless the citiesand it so states-adopt a plan to eliminate smoke. Then if they do adopt a plan to eliminate smoke, you move in and cooperate with them. Otherwise you do not move in at all. If they do move in and pass city ordinances requiring that manufacturers, processors, and so forth, eliminate smoke, and require them to do it by law as they did in St. Louis, then you might well find some little manufacturers or processors who would simply not have the money or the credit to make the proper installations. That is when this bill would come into effect. It would work under those circumstances. I have no other questions. Senator SPARKMAN. Senator Payne. Any questions of Mr. Slusser, who is still here, or Mr. Mason, or Mr. Follin's representative? They represent the heads of all the various agencies. Do you have any questions of any one of them before we conclude this part of the hearings? Housing for elderly and single persons Senator PAYNE. The only thing I have, Mr. Chairman, is I was interested in having somebody give us a little more of their opinion with reference to this housing for elderly persons of low income. Whether or not there is time this morning to get into it at any length I would not know, but it seems to me that particularly the legislation the chairman has introduced relating to this subject is important legislation because it is an important subject. I have had a chance to observe it over several years and I think it is a very important subject to consider. Mr. HUNTER. Senator, Commissioner Slusser of Public Housing Administration is here if you wish him to comment on that. Senator PAYNE. The only question I raise is, if there is sufficient time this morning to be able to get into it. Senator SPARKMAN. I will say this, since Senator Payne made that statement, I know he has been interested in this subject and I do think it is an important field. I make this comment to Mr. Slusser and then invite any comment he may wish to make. I do think it is a field we ought to be greatly interested in. I first became impressed with it, I think it was in England in 1949, on seeing some of the special housing they were building for their elderly people. It was specially constructed housing so as to make it easy for them to get around, with no stairs to climb, and things of that kind. Then later on, I was in Holland in the same year, and by the way it was a subcommittee of this committee which went over in regard to housing. We studied housing there. I saw the housing there that was built and made available for the old people, retired from work. I have never felt we have done very much in this country about that. Of course, we have public housing, but we make no particular plans for that as a part of it, as I understand it. It seems to me we would work out a real program on that. Would you care to comment, Mr. Slusser? Mr. SLUSSER. Mr. Chairman and Senators. There are some cities that are making special plans for it. At the present moment, San Francisco has asked for approval of special plans in which they plan to build a certain number of buildings within one program, where they will put in all of the special amenities for the elderly people, such as wider doors on the lower floor, where those who are handicapped can roll their chairs in and out. Also such things as special handrails around the bathtub and nonslip floors. In some sections there have been buildings erected with that in mind. I have been to some that had entirely no steps but, rather, a ramp approach. They were three stories row houses with a ramp approach and other special amenities for older folks. There are a number of cities that have made special efforts in that direction. Senator SPARKMAN. They are encouraged? Mr. SLUSSER. Yes. I know from talking to some of the State directors, that they have gone quite a ways in developing life on lower levels for people who cannot get outside, and things like that. . Senator CAPEHART. I presume we have always handled that sort of thing in the past, I have always thought, maybe not as well as we should, through the counties and the townships. Is that true in Alabama? Senator SPARKMAN. No; ours is ordinarily handled by cities. Senator CAPEHART. In Indiana we handle it by counties. How is it handled in Maine, Governor? Senator PAYNE. They are handled by the towns. Senator SPARKMAN. You mean the care of elderly people? Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. We ordinarily handle that by counties. Mr. SLUSSER. What you have reference to here I think is the elderly citizens, as we refer to them now, who have pension income and desire to live separately but do not have the means. Senator PAYNE. You have a great many who receive old-age assistance and may come under the category of such assistance as old-age and survivors insurance, whose income is absolutely insufficient for them to be able to enjoy any decent standard under normal circumstances of living. And I say that sincerely. Let us take the maximum of $50 to $55 a month. Where do you find the people receiving that? You find them thrown up into a third or fourth story, in a little room, where the person who operates the place takes practically the entire amount they are given. They have virtually no modern conveniences and have difficulty in getting to and from the building. It is just an unsatisfactory condition. It is that type of person, I think, for whom there is a very, very real need in this country to provide for, and that is the type of person Senator Sparkman covers under the provisions of his bill. Senator CAPEHART. Is there anything in the bill that might set up an organization, or require that the Federal Government cooperate and work with the counties in planning houses that they might build themselves; and educating the counties on the need for handling these people in a certain way? Is there anything like that? Senator PAYNE. If I may say so, you have your Conference on the Aged that has undertaken some study in this direction to see how they can build a pattern under which these people can be handled. I do not know what the final results are from that conference and what it has come up with, but certainly it is one of the most important things, in my opinion. These problems that confront these elderly people are important I know, because I have had the opportunity to observe them both at the city level, serving as mayor, and I have had a chance to observe it at the State level serving as governor. I have continued to observe it, and realize how great a problem it is. I just do not think we are going at it strongly enough yet to be able to take care of this situation. I think there are many features of Senator Sparkman's bill that do go to the root of the thing. Senator SPARKMAN. The time is arriving when we will have to stop, but there are a couple of questions I should like to pose before we leave. It may be well to ask that the answers be given to us in writing. Military housing Mr. Mason, I would like to ask you a couple of questions. One relates to this military housing program. I think you, of course, were here when we had the discussion with Mr. Cole. Mr. MASON. Yes, sir. Senator SPARKMAN. Naturally you were here, because you were at the table with Mr. Cole. I think it was a very helpful and interesting discussion, but I think it would be quite helpful to this committee if you could start off with the premise which I believe the committee would agree on, that is, that we do need a better military housing program than we now have, and give us your idea as to how FHA would fit into a program that we might devise. Mr. MASON. You would like me to do this in writing for the record later? Senator SPARKMAN. Yes; if you will. Mr. MASON. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, on this matter of the need, because I served for a great many years on a draft board and I put a lot of people into the service and know the problems they had with their families while they were in the service. I will be very happy to do it. 62736-55- -9 Senator SPARKMAN. I think it would be well to have a statement, if you will, and also if you will let the members of your staff work with the members of our staff in trying to devise this, that would be helpful. Mr. MASON. We will be very happy to do that also. Senator CAPEHART. For example, the minimum and maximum authority that you think you ought to have if we are going to make you the insuring agent rather than the military the insuring agency. Mr. MASON. Yes, sir. Senator CAPEHART. As I gathered from Mr. Cole, the chief objection he has to the bill is that you do not have as much authority as you think you ought to have commensurate with the responsibility. Mr. MASON. Mr. Cole and I think we either ought to be in or out. Yes, sir. Senator CAPEHART. If you could, tell us the minimum and maximum authority you think you need properly to handle this. Mr. MASON. We are sure that much of the redtape can be eliminated, as much of this redtape results from arriving at rental figures, and that sort of problem, which would not exist under this new proposed legislation. (The information requested follows:) HON. JOHN SPARKMAN, FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION Chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, May 18, 1955. Room 303, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: In reply to your recent inquiry concerning the Federal Housing Administration's role in any military housing legislation, we advise as follows: 1. In case FHA insurance features are not to be included in the new military housing bill, the bill should provide adequate protection to existing military housing insured under title VIII, section 803 of the National Housing Act, as amended. It should also provide for consultation with FHA to utilize our market analyses in order to determine the effect, if any, additional Military housing would have on the housing market in the immediate area. 2. In the event FHA insurance is to be utilized, we suggest the bill, in order to protect the contingent liability of the FHA and the Government, provide the following: (a) That any proposed projects be subject to the established FHA underwriting procedures. (b) That the proposed site, plans and specifications be subject to prior FHA review and approval. (c) That all construction be inspected by FHA before insurance. (d) That provision be made for the payment of fees, in addition to the mortgage insurance, to cover the cost of processing and inspection. (e) That the contractor and mortgagor be subject to prior FHA approval, and that only contractors approved by FHA be permitted to bid. (f) That control of mortgagor corporation either be under FHA or the military, but not under both agencies. (g) That a determination be made as to whether or not the projects are to be subject to local and State real estate taxes. (h) That a determination be made as to whether or not the projects are to be subject to prevailing wages under the Housing Act, or other laws relative thereto. As you requested, members of our staff are working with the committee staff in devising a military housing bill. Sincerely, NORMAN P. MASON, Commissioner. Mortgage insurance authorization MORTGAGE INSURANCE AUTHORIZATION Senator SPARKMAN. Another thing, Mr. Mason, going back to this additional FHA authorization of $4 billion that was presented yesterday. I do not believe we asked any question on it at the time. Do you think that is sufficient? Mr. MASON. I have been asked this question by industry as well as by you, sir. We feel it is sufficient. We felt we should not ask for more than we felt we were going to need just to have a big cushion and to be safe. There is not much cushion in this figure but we believe, based on our past experience, and based on what we see ahead— our estimates if you will that this is just about the amount that will be required additionally beyond the amounts that would be available by reason of payments. We would be very happy to have a cushion introduced by your committee. Senator SPARKMAN. This would carry you how far? Mr. MASON. This will carry us for the fiscal year. Mr. MASON. Yes, sir. Senator SPARKMAN. How closely are you figuring? Senator SPARKMAN. Of course, I suppose there is one saving feature. That is that Congres comes back in session on January 3, so if you find you have figured it too closely we would have another chance at it. Mr. MASON. The trouble, of course, if we should get into trouble, would not occur until next spring. Senator SPARKMAN. That is what I say. Mr. MASON. And Congress would be in session just as we came this year to you and asked to have this increased. Senator SPARKMAN. All right, sir. Now, Mr. Slusser, I would like to ask you one question. In fact there are a good many questions I would like to ask you along this line, but our time is running short. Mr. MASON. Mr. Chairman, might Í be excused? Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, indeed. Mr. MASON. I have a little talk to make this morning. Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Mason. Thank you very much. Also any of the rest of you, as far as I am concerned, can leave. I am only going to propound one question. Senator CAPEHART. Is there a Mr. Ponder in the room? Mr. Chairman, might I interject this? Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. Military housing Senator CAPEHART. I would like to ask unanimous consent to place in the record at this point a letter written by Mr. Ponder, president of the Wherry Housing Association on April 21, 1955, which was sent out to all of the members of that association. I would like to make the statement that all of the fears that he points out in this letter are groundless. The things he fears, I want to point out, will never happen. We are going to see that they do not happen, not only in writing this vital legislation, but likewise in the report and in the |