fense or his designee deems it necessary for the purpose of this title, he may acquire by purchase, donation, condemnation, or other means of transfer, any land or (with the approval of the Federal Housing Commissioner) (1) any housing financed with mortgages insured under title VIII of the National Housing Act as in effect prior to August 11, 1955, or (2) any housing situated adjacent to a military installation which was (A) completed prior to July 1, 1952; (B) certified by the Department of Defense, prior to construction, as being necessary to meet an existing military family housing need and considered as military housing by the Federal Housing Commissioner, and (C) financed with mortgages insured under section 207 of the National Housing Act." (b) Section 404 (b) of the Housing Amendments of 1955 is amended by striking out "constructed under the mortgage insurance provisions of title VIII of the National Housing Act (as in effect prior to the enactment of the Housing Amendments of 1955)", and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "described in clause (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of this section." (c) Section 407 (f) of the act entitled "An act to authorize certain construction at military installations, and for other purposes", approved August 30, 1957, is amended to read as follows: "(f) This section shall have no application to any housing described in clause (1) or (2) of section 404 (a) of the Housing Amendments of 1955, as amended." [S. Rept. No. 1732, 85th Cong., 2d sess.] ACQUISITION OF RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS Section 603 would amend section 404 of the Housing Amendment of 1955 to permit the Secretary of Defense to acquire section 207 rental housing projects (FHA insured), if completed prior to July 1, 1952, and if such projects were certified by the Department as necessary for military family housing purposes. This section would also make acquisition of FHA section 207 projects mandatory if housing construction pursuant to section 803 of title VIII (Capehart housing) is built in the area of the section 207 projects covered by this section. The committee's attention has been called to a situation which does not appear to be equitable and which does not appear to be in the best interest of protecting the Federal Government against the liability which might occur through an insurance claim against the FHA. The facts which have been presented to the committee in connection with this matter are briefly as follows: In early 1950 upon inquiry and interest evidenced by the Air Force, a 300-unit FHA section 207 rental housing project was planned adjacent to an Air Force base. These plans were brought to a point where the sponsors of the project were ready to obtain a commitment from the FHA under section 207. Just prior to application for the commitment, a Presidential order imposed a reduction of 5 percent in the amount of the FHA commitments unless such projects were designated by the Secretary of Defense as being a "military necessity." Subsequently, a letter was issued by the Department of Defense to the FHA in which the subject project was declared to be a military housing necessity. Consequently, an FHA section 207 commitment was issued to the sponsors of the subject project. Under existing law, it is mandatory that the Department of Defense acquire Wherry housing projects at or near military installations where title VIII (Capehart) housing is constructed. The law, however, does not provide for permissive or mandatory acquisition of other housing which was constructed on the basis of certifications from the Department of Defense that such housing was military housing and was needed in the interest of national defense. The Department of Defense has scheduled 200 Capehart housing units at the military base adjacent to the area where this FHA section 207 project is located. The owners claim that the Capehart project will provide unfair competition and that occupancy of the section 207 project will be severely curtailed. Since this project was originally constructed on the basis of being military housing, and can be used as such, it is in the best interest of the Government for the Department of Defense to acquire the project. Representatives of the Department of Defense questioned whether the squarefoot area of the units in this private project would meet the minimum space requirements prescribed for military housing. In this connection, section 401 (b) of the act entitled "An act to authorize certain construction at military installations and for other purposes," Public Law 85-241, approved August 30, 1957, exempts Wherry housing acquired by the Department of Defense from being declared substandard solely because such housing does not meet the minimum space requirements prescribed for military housing. Since it appears to the committee that the case described herein is analogous to Wherry housing, this section of the committee bill also applies section 401 (b) of Public Law 85-241 to the PHA 207 projects covered by this section in order to prevent such housing from being declared substandard. HOUSING ACT OF 1958-HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING AND CURRENCY, UNITED STATES SENATE [85TH CONG., 2D SESS., ON VARIOUS BILLS TO AMEND THE FEDERAL HOUSING LAWS] [Excerpts from pp. 217-224] UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, May 21, 1958. Hon. JOHN SPARKMAN, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR SPARKMAN: Permit me to acknowledge and thank you for your courtesy in forwarding the transcripts of the testimony recently taken by your committee on S. 3484. I know you will remember that I introduced this bill because evidence presented to the Armed Services Committee indicated that perhaps an injustice would be done if the mandatory acquisition provisions of law pertaining to Wherry housing projects were not expanded to cover certain other projects currently excluded but which were constructed under similar conditions to Wherry housing. I have had the staff of the Armed Services Committee review the testimony in the light of the information contained in the committee's files. As a result of this review, I am of the opinion that the wrong impression may remain in the record unless it includes certain additional information. I am attaching to this letter the full report to me from the Armed Services Committee staff which, I believe, if it meets with your approval, should be included in the record in order to present a complete picture. It appears that the Department of Defense and the Air Force oppose the enactment of S. 3484 for two basic reasons. First: Their statement that most of the units involved contain less than the minimum square feet requirements for twobedroom units; and second, under existing law, the project specifically referred to in the testimony, if acquired, can be declared substandard and then have to be disposed of in 2 years. The inference in the testimony is that S. 3484 is contrary to certain provisions of legislation reported by the Senate Armed Service Committee. The disposal legislation to which defense witnesses referred is contained in section 401 (b) of Public Law 241, 85th Congress. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report, No. 842, on this legislation (H. R. 8240), specifically indicates that the Armed Services Committee's position is contrary to the inference left by Defense witnesses when testifying before you. Another aspect which is important to mention is that the Wherry housing units to be acquired where specifically exempt from the substandard provisions of Public Law 241. If your committee should see fit to act favorably on S. 3484 on the assumption that title 207 cases are parallel to the Wherry problem, it would seem logical that title 207 projects should also be exempt from the substandard provisions of Public Law 241. It is interesting to note that while Department of Defense and Air Force no longer consider the title 207 units affected by this bill as meeting their criteria, they did apparently consider them acceptable at the time of their constructin. This is borne out by the enclosures to the staff report attached. In addition, this report also indicates that the square footage of the units at Turner are 797 square feet and not the 680 referred to by Defense witnesses. I know you will understand if, in your deliberations, you feel that the provisions of S. 3484 are not consistent with the best interests of the Government, that I, of course, would not desire that your committee act favorably. On the other hand, if an inequity exists, it would appear to be the duty of Congress to rectify it. With best wishes, I am, Sincerely, RICHARD RUSSELL. Memorandum for Senator Russell. MAY 22, 1958. Subject: S. 3484, to amend section 404 of the housing amendments of 1955. The staff has reviewed the testimony given on May 13 by Defense witnesses before the Senate Subcommittee on Housing of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency, pertaining to S. 3484. As you know, the position of S. 3484, in effect, authorizes the Secretary of Defense to acquire certain military housing › constructed under section 207 of the National Housing Act and designated by the Federal Housing Administration as "military housing." Even though better than 80,000 units were constructed under section 207, the language of S. 3484, among other things, limits the bill's application to housing situated adjacent to military installations. According to the Comptroller General, -only two installations would be affected. One is a project in Tennessee, consisting of 20 units, and the other at Turner Air Force Base, consisting of 200 uits. The Defense witnesses objected to this legislation on the basis of their statements that: (a) The Turner City project provides only 680 square feet of space, and that this is 70 square feet less than the minimum standards established for enlisted grades; (b) That the units do not meet established criteria in basic design and construction and would, therefore, come under the substandard provisions of law -contained in section 407 (b) of Public Law 241, 85th Congress; (c) That under the provisions of the law, section 407 (b), mentioned above, housing declared substandard, that is units which could not be rehabilitated and would, therefore, have to be disposed of in 2 years. The inference listed by Defense witnesses as shown on page 299 of the testimony is to the effect that S. 3484 runs contrary to the provision of law previously reported favorably by the Armed Services Committee. It is true that substandard provisions of Public Law 241 came out of conference between the House and Senate in a manner to stipulate for the disposal of substandard units that cannot be brought up to standard. However, the Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report, No. 842, on this legislation (H. R. 8240), specifically directed itself to the disposal aspects of law as follows: "It has been suggested to the committee that any legislation enacted should be limited to a specific time period and that if units declared substandard were not altered or improved so as to qualify as standard quarters at the end of this time period, they should be demolished or otherwise disposed of. The committee expects the services to bend every effort to improve any such substandard quarters with the goal in mind of eventually eliminating the necessity of assigning personel to substandard units. However, in an era of economy it is not realistic to assume that the services will be allowed the necessary funds required to reach this goal in the immediate future and that it would certainly be impractical to permit the destruction or removal of usable units, especially if no other housing were available." In addition, the report accompanying Public Law 241 indicates specifically that it is the intent of Congress that housing units not be declared substandard by reason of size alone. Another aspect which is important to mention is that the Wherry units to be acquired were specifically exempt from the substandard provision of Public Law 241, and if S. 3484 is to be enacted, in the interest of equity, on the assumption that certain title 207 cases are parallel to the Wherry situation, it would seem logical that S. 3484 should be amended to make such 207 acquisition cases also exempt from the substandard provisions. While Defense witnesses indicate that the Turner City project provides only 680 square feet per unit, our records indicate a square footage of 797. Further, there is attached to this memorandum an architect's certificate just received which indicates 808 square feet. Of course, there may be some difference between Defense criteria now and what it was when the project was originally approved but the record does not show this nor the reasons why. While the Department of Defense and the Air Force apparently no longer consider the title 207 units in question as meeting their current standard criteria, they obviously did at the time of the construction of the units. Attached also to this memorandum is a rather complete brochure of supporting data and background material which occasioned the drafting of S. 3484. This data seems to clearly indicate from documents dating as far back as 1950, that the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Department of Defense as well as the Federal Housing Administration considered the units at Turner City to be military housing; that they met the then existing criteria and were urgently needed (see exhibits A through F, inclusive). Exhibit A, the letter from W. J. McNeill, Assistant Secretary of Defense, dated September 8, 1950, in the penultimate paragraph of his letter, reads as follows: "(h) This project, or a better one, is urgently needed to house military personnel of Turner Air Force Base. The Base Commander, Deputy Commander Second Air Force, and Strategic Air Command have all requested that action be expedited. Since it is understood to be one of those unusual projects near a base which would be insurable on its own merits; since time will be saved by processing it under title II; since no increase in quality is to be expected in this case under title VIII; since the project was in process prior to the July 1, 1950 freeze; and since the sponsor has stated that no project can be built under the freeze limitations, it is recommended that the Commissioner determine such housing to be military housing in view of the justifiable military demand in the area over and above justifiable civilian demand." Turner City is located not across the road from Turner Air Force Base, but immediately adjacent thereto. It is not part of any civilian community. The nearest civilian community is located 5 miles away. Turner City was constructed solely for the use of the military and unless the military use the project it would obviously have very little reason for continued existence. In view of the original certifications of need by the Department of Defense, and in view of the fact that the project is already constructed under the provisions of title 207 and not title VIII (Wherry) in order to provide the housing of military at a quicker date, it still appears that an injustice would be done if the title 207 units affected by S. 3484 were not covered by provisions identical to that covered by Wherry acquisition. HARRY L. WINGATE, Jr., Chief Clerk, Senate Armed Services Committee. J. E. GREINER Co. & ASSOCIATES, INC., References: Turner City housing, Turner Air Force Base, Albany, Ga. Senate Armed Forces Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: At the request of Mr. Tom Malone, one of the cosponsors of the referenced project, we have today taken field measurements of typical dwelling units in the Turner City project for confirmation of the building area in square feet. For your information, the typical duplex building containing two 2-bedroom apartments is 67 feet 4 inches long by 24 feet deep, or a total of 1,616 square feet per building or 308 square feet per apartment. These dimensions do not include porches or cornice projections but are actual dimensions of the walls of the living unit. Yours very truly, J. E. GREINER Co. & ASSOCIATES, INC. By HARRY A. MACEWEN. SUPPORTING DATA AND BACKGROUND MATERIAL FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 404, PUBLIC LAW 1020, 84TH CONGRESS (S. 3484) Purpose The purpose of this legislation is to authorize the Secretary of Defense to acquire certain military housing units constructed under title 207 of the National Housing Act and designated by the Federal Housing Administration as "military housing." Pertinent data Pertinent data concerning Turner City housing project, immediately adjacent to Turner Air Force Base, is as follows: (a) Location: Off northwest edge of Turner Air Force Base. (b) The sponsors are the Turner City Corp., including W. D. Owens, Tom P. Malone, J. D. Whiting, and Richard Tift. (c) The project is composed of 300 2-bedroom units to rent at $62 per month; rental to include refrigerators, ranges, space heaters, cold water, and ground maintenance. (d) The project is designed for occupancy by military and civilian personnel stationed at Turner Air Force Base, which is a permanent Air Force base. History In the early days of 1950, upon inquiry and interest evidenced by the Air Force, the sponsors began plans to furnish the Air Force 300 2-bedroom housing units adjacent to Turner Air Force Base and identified as Turner City. These plans were brought to a point where the sponsors were ready to file for an FHA commitment under section 207. A few days before this commitment was filed, a Presidential order imposed a restriction of a 5-percent reduction in the amount of the Federal Housing Administration commitment unless such a project was designated by the Secretary of Defense as being a military necessity. was issued July 19, 1950. This order After several conferences between the sponsors, Mr. Franklin Richards, Commissioner of Federal Housing Administration, Gen. Colby Meyers, and Col. John B. Elliott of the United States Air Force, a letter dated September 8, 1950, requesting certification was issued by the military to the Federal Housing Administration, signed by Mr. W. J. McNeil, Assistant Secretary of Defense. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit A." Upon receipt of this letter, the Commissioner determined this project to be "military housing" and a letter was written dated November 7, 1950, to the State director of Federal Housing Administration, Atlanta, Ga., requesting that a commitment be issued to the sponsors of this project. This letter also indicated the designation of this project as a military housing project and was signed by Mr. Clyde L. Powell, Assistant Commissioner. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit B." Construction was begun on the 300 2-bedroom units on a 72-acre tract of land immeditaely adjacent to Turner Air Force Base on December 20, 1950, and completed January 21, 1952. Military occupancy and operation of same From the moment of completion, the project was operated solely for military and civilian personnel located at Turner Air Force Base. As a requirement of prior closure the officers of Turner City Corp., said corporation being the development corporation of Turner City, were required to execute a military preference occupancy priority statement on December 20, 1950. A copy of this statement is attached hereto and marked “Exhibit C." On February 2, 1953, upon agreement of the Chief of Staff, United States Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, a joint utilization agreement was drawn, and the conditions outlined in said agreement were carried out by the officers and management of Turner City housing project. This agreement was, in effect, a request that these units be utilized on a joint basis by Marine Corps personnel and Air Force personnel. The management of Turner City Corp. concurred and carried out this request to the letter. A copy of this utilization agreement is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit D." This project was operated as a military housing project, and even during the time of construction periodic reports were furnished the Department of the Air Force. A typical request for such a report is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit E." After construction and during the period of operation, reports were furnished to the Department of the Air Force as to monthly vacancies and turnover of tenants, as indicated in a copy of a typical request relating to same and attached hereto as "Exhibit F." Reasons for amendment attached hereto In Public Law 1020, the Secretary is authorized and instructed to acquire any Wherry projects located at bases where Capehart projects are to be built. The sponsors of this project feel that since this is a project where title 207 was |