a tenant's market, in other words, then the landowners would want to attract the best tenants by having the best improvements. Mr. JONES. A tenant would be eligible for a loan under the provisions of this bill. Mr. PATMAN. I did not understand it that way. Mr. JONES. Provided, of course, that the owner of the farm would enter into the agreement with the tenant. So we make it attractive to the farm owner, and give him an incentive to borrow in the interest of his tenant. Certainly he would be entitled to the grant. Mr. PATMAN. Entitled to the grant? Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. PATMAN. How much of a grant is involved? I understood you to answer Congressman Brown's question awhile ago to the effect that no grants were involved. That is very interesting. You might have something there. What is the amount of the grant? Mr. JONES. Well, under the bill here we have doubled the amount of the grant. It is $500 under the provisions of this bill. Mr. PATMAN. Each tenant or home owner? Mr. JONES. Yes. Mr. RAINS. Did the Senate change that figure? Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. Mr. RAINS. It doubled it; did it not? Mr. JONES. Yes, sir; Senator Langer introduced an amendment. Mr. PATMAN. You might get something done under that provision. There might be some inducement there. Some farm units coming within the definitions of the bill are so situated as to be so unproductive that there is no possibility of enlarging them or developing them into self-sustained units. Dwellings and other buildings on such farms often constitute a severe hazard to the safety and health of the occupant, his family, and the community. Mr. JONES. The bill would also authorize the Secretary to make grants or combinations of loans and grants with respect to such farms to cover the cost of improvement or additions, such as structural supports, repairing roof, providing toilet facilities, convenient and sanitary water supply, screens or other similar types of improvements. The amount of financial assistance on such dwellings would be limited to $1,000. Mr. PATMAN. That is under the Langer amendment? Mr. JONES. No, sir. Mr. PATMAN. That is under the original bill? Mr. JONES. That is under the original bill. Mr. PATMAN. Well, where is the part affected by the Langer amendment? Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will turn to pages 65, 66, and 67, the Langer amendment raised that to $2,000,000, $5,000,000, $8,000,000, and $10,000,000. Mr. PATMAN. But where is the specific part about the $1,000 and $500? Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will turn to page 56, lines 23 and 24, he will see it there. The amount of financial assistance on such farm units would be limited to $1,000 for farms having a single dwelling or a total of $2,000 to any one farmer. The grant portion of the assistance with respect to such farms would be limited to $500 for any one farm unit or dwelling. Mr. PATMAN. That is where the Langer amendment doubles it, is it not, from $500 to $1,000? Mr. JONES. Will you repeat your question? Mr. PATMAN. I am trying to locate the Langer amendment. I understood it to double the $500. Mr. JONES. No, sir. It only doubles the total amount of money that will be available under this provision. It does not change this figure of $1,000 or $2,000. In other words, as to the total amount appropriated, the Langer amendment doubles that amount. Mr. PATMAN. And it does not cover specific cases or farms? Mr. JONES. That is right; it just makes twice as much money available for the program. The bill would also require that all buildings constructed or improved by means of financial assistance under the bill be substantially constructed in accordance with such building plans and specifications as the Secretary might require. The construction and repair of such buildings so financed would be supervised and inspected to the extent required by the Secretary. In addition to such services, the Secretary, under this authority, would also be authorized to furnish to other persons, with or without charge, building plans, specifications, and construction supervision and inspection regarding farm dwellings and other farm buildings. Mr. PATMAN. That is very important. Mr. JONES. It certainly is. This provision would also authorize the Secretary to conduct research and technical studies in the field of farm housing and other buildings, including the development, demonstration, and promotion of construction of adequate farm dwellings and other buildings, and other research studies designed to reduce the costs and make for more efficient farm use. I was afraid I overlooked the fact that, under the provisions of this bill, it applies to all rural homes and appurtenances belonging to the farm. Because this bill is integrated with the farm program that is now in operation, we would certainly want to take into account the fact that we want to improve the farmer's lot; and, therefore, if we can provide him with adequate housing, outbuildings, tool sheds, cribs, grain-storage bins, and appurtenances of that nature, it will be of great assistance to him. Mr. PATMAN. I notice that you merge this with the existing pro gram. Mr. JONES. It is contemplated that the committees already appointed, already functioning, in the respective counties and parishes throughout the United States, would undertake to serve under this program. We feel that that is very important, Mr. Patman, for the simple reason that there have been charges of bureaucracy aimed at such a program at times, and as long as we have local supervision, with the authority to make these investigations and value the projects, then, we feel that we are in more secure hands. Mr. PATMAN. Those local committees are the same committees that screen the applicants for farm-tenant loans under the BankheadJones Act; are they not? Mr. JONES. And that is one reason that the administration of the Farmers' Home Administration has been successful. Mr. PATMAN. I think that there is one provision, which is the Case law, which makes these loans available through the local banks, which has been too little known. It appears to me that, with land values as they are, there should be a wonderful opportunity now for any number of people to make farm-home owners who have not had that opportunity in the past. And it is permanent legislation and does not need anything further to implement it. They can get their loans processed through the local banks. And the local banks can get all their money back from the Government, if they want to. If they want to sell these loans, almost any insurance company would be glad to have them. Mr. RAINS. That is, for the purchase of farms. Mr. PATMAN. Yes; that is one of the most liberal acts that this Congress has passed in the last generation, bar none, and very little has been known about it because land values have been so high. But, with declining land values, it is an important consideration. Mr. JONES. That is one of the factors considered in this bill. We have, wherever we could, warned the farmer of America not to make excessive land purchases, and that he should not approach the purchase of additional properties without confronting the hazards that confront him at the present time. Mr. PATMAN. That is the reason, if we could have this program geared to the farm family, it would not be long before most of our farmers would be home owners. Mr. JONES. And we cannot overlook the fact that such a program as this, which will set a standard in a given community, will encourage those who have the money to make their private investment in better homes, which would automatically bring about a better rural America. Mr. PATMAN. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Is the necessity for improvement in farm housing general throughout the United States? Mr. JONES. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. In just a few moments, I will be glad to give you some figures as to the character of the American rural home. Before you leave this, I would like to stress the importance of this technical service. Due to poor structures, poor plans, poor workmanship, or the lack of an over-all scheme for house improvement over the years, the remodeled or modernized house is not always convenient or comfortable. Improved plans and planning service, and education to the construction methods and elements of good planning, are very essential and are positively needed. Mr. RAINS. I would like to interrupt you there, Mr. Jones, to say, Mr. Chairman, that throughout the South one of the common terms with reference to homes is that it is a "shotgun house." The real crux .of the matter has been the lack of plans and lack of education in construction of homes economically and efficiently. I believe the research and teaching the farmers with lack of know-how will enable them to come up with much better homes for less cost; do you agree with that? Mr. JONES. I certainly do. Mr. DEANE. Mr. Jones, I am impressed with the approach that is being made to this rural housing problem. I am thinking about the young people in our rural areas. These young people are leaving the farms and going into the urban communities. They are leaving in so many cases because of the lack of proper housing. Many of these young people go to college, they gain a new inspiration, they visit in the homes in the cities, and they refuse to live in homes with a SearsRoebuck privy, if I may use the term. The time has come, it seems to me, for us to come to grips with this subject. I know they will be hesitant to change their old ancestral home; but, when they see their neighbors begin to think in terms of progress, you are going to see many, many small communities go forward, in support. To give you one example, a great submarginal area was purchased in my county, and the Farm Security Administration at that time went in and built modern homes, small inexpensive cribs, and later this property was sold for twice what the Government paid, to individuals who now own the property. I think it is a wonderful approach. The only thing I am concerned about is how we are going to get these plans and specifications set up to the point where they are not going to be too costly, involving architects' fees, attorneys' fees, and a great many rules and regulations which are going to submerge the program in excessive costs. Mr. JONES. I would like to say to the gentleman that I do not think he need to fear for technical services, as far as the individual farmer is concerned, being too costly. In the first place, you will recall that most of the farm-dwelling construction is done by the people living on the farm themselves, and with the assistance of their neighbors. This is designed more or less to channel their efforts along the line of an economical construction method than it is to supervise them to death and keep them from actually carrying on the work. I do not know that there will be any attempt to standardize. I doubt if there would be. But I do not think we will be bothered with the situation the gentleman has described. I would like to say, however, that, along the line you have mentioned, at the University of Wisconsin a study was made of 47 newly constructed homes in one county, and an inquiry was made as to the reason why those homes were built. Of the 47, 24 gave as the reason for building these homes the fact that their neighbor had built a good house, and they wanted their children to enjoy the same home life in their home as did their neighbor's children. So you see, if we can get this program under way, it will stimulate and inspire the people who can finance better homes and make improvements in their living conditions, as well as other improvements. Of course, we have to remember that a farm is one economic unit. It is not divisible, such as a home in the urban sections of the country. Now, gentlemen, let us consider for a few minutes what the situation is with respect to the farm home in this country. Let us look at the character of the house and see if there is a need for a program such as contemplated under title IV. There were, in 1940, 7,642,281 farm homes. Of the owner-occupied homes, there were 53.2 percent. The rest were occupied by tenants. Incidentally, I will give you the situation in Alabama. I am reluctant to tell you that Alabama and Mississippi and Arkansas probably have the poorest housing situation of any State in the Union. Mr. RAINS. I think it should be said there, Mr. Jones, that a lot of these members talk about civil rights. And they point a finger at those of us from the South. The people in the South will gain a large measure from this provision, especially the people belonging to the colored race; is that not a fact? Mr. JONES. Yes; it is an economic problem. And the sooner we improve those economies, the less we will have to worry about the other problems. Mr. RAINS. That is correct. Mr. JONES. As I give you these figures, I hope you will keep in mind the total number of farm dwellings in the United States-7,500,000, approximately. Tenant-occupied, 46.8 percent. Now, let us see when these houses were built. In 1930 to 1940, 17.6 percent of these 7,500,000 homes were constructed. In 1920 to 1930, 17.2 percent. From 1910 to 1920, 19.6 percent. From 1890 to 1900, 10.4 percent. Before 1890, there were 17.2 percent of the farm homes constructed that are not in existence. In other words, almost every one out of five homes in rural America was constructed before 1890. Mr. RAINS. Mr. Jones, going back to the question of the $500, if the Langer amendment prevailed on the grant, I was interested in checking to see how many units that would touch. Mr. JONES. That would touch 50,000 units, if it was all utilized, which would be a very good start. Mr. NICHOLSON. Of course, there are 7,500,000 farm houses, and I suppose about a quarter of those are tenant farmers. I assume that that is all this bill would do, would be to help the tenant farmer and not the man who owns the land the house is on. Mr. RAINS. It helps them all. Mr. PATMAN. What security would the tenant have if he went to the trouble of having a house improved with the owner's consent; what security would he have against eviction? Mr. JONES. The loan agreement would be made by the tenant, the landlord, and the Department of Agriculture. So, the lender would be a party to the agreement that was undertaken pursuant to the terms of the act. Mr. PATMAN. You mean the Secretary of Agriculture would have to approve any eviction or change in tenancy? Mr. JONES. Yes, sir. Mr. BROWN. And if the landlord sold, it would be subject to that provision? Mr. JONES. That is right. Mr. DEANE. In that connection, would that not tie up the property to the extent of making it nonnegotiable? Mr. JONES. Well, it would not do anything that is not already there, because it is common practice to sell subject to the conditions of liens, mortgages, or whatever the equity might be. Mr. RAINS. It would not tie it up any more than if he had a loan with the bank. Mr. JONES. That is right. Usually under those conditions you are going to find there is a mortgage in existence, anyhow. |