3. Action should be taken as soon as possible, because the continuance of debate and discussion in Congress does nothing except prevent affirmative action on the local level where there are agencies and communities anxious to go ahead to better their cities for a brighter tomorrow. While debate goes on we of the council continue to receive phone calls at 2 a. m. from people who can't sleep because of the chemical and industrial fumes.

4. We sincerely urge the adoption of the bill and congressional action on an air-pollution-control program to go hand in hand with urban renewal.

Let me interpolate here just for a moment and add this statement: As perfect as this bill seems to have been written for the people of my area, there is a very strong possibility that the bill will fail to solve the problem if an air-pollution-control provision is not written in the bill. I am not a statistician nor professional economist; I didn't recite statistics today, nor did I try to quote voluminous figures. I merely tried to bring to you the story of the little fellow, his need for this legislation with an air-pollution clause, and his anxiety for its speedy passage.

I would like to have the opportunity to come back sometime at a future date to be more specific on the air-pollution-control problem, if the committee so desires.

Thank you again for your time. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Senator ROBERTSON. I am sure the permanent chairman of this committee, Senator Capehart, would appreciate your reference to his interests in city beautification and improvement.

Do you know that fish like pure air just like human beings?
Mr. PERK. Yes, sir.

Senator ROBERTSON. You know they breathe oxygen. Do you know that the pollution in the streams destroys the oxygen and that is what kills the fish, when he can't get pure air?

Mr. PERK. May I add something to that, Mr. Chairman?
Senator ROBERTSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. PERK. The industries use the streams a great deal, particularly the steel mills, to quench their coke and quench their slag as it goes through the operations and that particularly pollutes the stream. Then, too, the steam goes out of the high chimney and covers the entire area, and that is why stream pollution is also so very important in this program.

Senator ROBERTSON. We have spent much money on stream pollution. In the past, we had the stream-pollution bill known as the Taft-Barkley Act, to bring about cooperation between Ohio and Kentucky in cleaning up the pollution in the Ohio River, because many of you people up there drink that water.

The cancer experts say that smog can cause cancer, but whether it causes cancer or not, it can certainly make a dirty house.

Mr. PERK. It certainly can.

Senator ROBERTSON. Have you ever visited Lisbon in Portgual? Mr. PERK. No, I haven't.

Senator ROBERTSON. Well, that is the prettiest city I have ever seen. Every house there is painted white, and they have a law that every homeowner has to paint his house at least once in every 7 years.

Through pride, if the house gets dirty, they will paint it oftener than once in 7 years, and certainly that man is not going to throw a lot of filth out in the street and have a lot of dust and dirt come back on the white paint on his house that he has to keep clean.

Did you know that the biggest single source of revenue in Switzerland is the tourist trade?

Mr. PERK. I would think it is not an industrial community.

Senator ROBERTSON. Coal costs $50 a ton in Switzerland, and they don't burn much of it. They use hydroelectric power.

Did you know in Berne that they have a city law that requires everybody who has a window ledge to have flowers? If they don't have money for seeds, the Government will give it to them. Did you know they have to raise flowers in Switzerland?

Mr. PERK. Mr. Chairman, in my area, with the air-pollution problem the way it is, it is almost impossible to do that.

Senator ROBERTSON. You couldn't have a law requiring them to keep the houses painted white?

Mr. PERK. No.

Senator ROBERTSON. Why couldn't they raise flowers in the windows?

Mr. PERK. The chemical fumes let out by the chemical companies, mostly at night, will burn holes right in the leaves of the flowers. Senator ROBERTSON. Well, you do have a problem.

Mr. PERK. We really do.

Senator ROBERTSON. I am not too sure that that is a problem connected with financing home building. It certainly relates to the man who is going to live in the house.

Mr. PERK. May I interrupt just a moment again? The reason I believe it is so important in the housing act is, you cannot possibly ask a homeowner who is living from pay to pay to paint his house and to spend $400 or $500 or $600 to do that job, when 2 or 3 months later his house will be black from the industrial nuisances, the sulfur fumes that unite with the lead in the paint and the dampness of the atmosphere.

Senator ROBERTSON. Where does the Governor of Ohio live?

Mr. PERK. When he is not in Columbus, I imagine he lives in Cleveland.

Senator ROBERTSON. Did you ever take him out to your area and show him what is happening out there?

Mr. PERK. I certainly did. When he was mayor of Cleveland, we took him out there, in 1943, I believe it was, and made him spend a half a day out there, breathing in the fumes.

Senator ROBERTSON. Has he ever made any effort in the Ohio Legislature to get some local laws to help this pollution problem?

Mr. PERK. There are zoning laws, Mr. Chairman, but the zoning laws are so written that the industrial valley is zoned for heavy industry, and, therefore, the people do not have any protection from those laws in that particular area, because heavy industry, according to the law, can

Senator ROBERTSON. You have brought up an interesting problem. I think it is just as important as trying to clean up stream pollution. Well, maybe drinking water, recreational facilities, and promotion of better fishing, but this affects everybody, their homes, and their

708

lungs. I think something ought to be done about it, but it seems to me that it would be a mighty good idea to start these programs at home and then if we find it is beyond home control, ask Congress to do something.

Mr. PERK. Mr. Chairman, the cost of air-pollution-control equipment is so extreme, and inasmuch as it is not productive equipment, it almost prohibits companies from installing the equipment, unless the Federal Government will, in some measure, assist them through a tax-reduction program.

Senator ROBERTSON. You have a very fine and able member of the Senate from Cleveland, now, Mr. Tom Burke. Did you ever mention this matter to him?

Mr. PERK. I am sure that Tom Burke understands the problem. I was not a member of the city council when Tom Burke was the mayor.

Senator ROBERTSON. He is a fine man, though, isn't he?

Mr. PERK. He is.

Senator SPARKMAN. Talking about the effect of this air pollution, you know, you have been hearing a good bit recently about smokers'

cancer.

Mr. PERK. Yes, I have.

Senator SPARKMAN. I understand a research professor in Johns Hopkins, in working on that, came up with the idea that smog and air pollution were probably a strong contributor to cancerous conditions. Have you heard that?

Mr. PERK. Yes, I have.

Senator SPARKMAN. As Senator Robertson has said, Senator Capehard feels rather strongly about this. He has said he is going to place in this bill an air-pollution section, so I know he will read your statement with great interest.

Mr. PERK. I have had opportunity to discuss the matter with Senator Capehart in the past, and I know he is very sympathetic toward the problem.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ROBERTSON. Are there any further questions?

We thank you, sir.

Now, the last witness is Mr. R. G. Hughes, representing the National Association of Home Builders. I believe you served on the President's Advisory Committee on Housing, have you not?

STATEMENTS OF R. G. HUGHES, PRESIDENT; HERBERT S. COLTON,
GENERAL COUNSEL; AND JOHN M. DICKERMAN, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS OF THE
UNITED STATES

Mr. HUGHES. Yes, sir; I had the privilege of being appointed to that committee.

Senator SPARKMAN. You were chairman of one of the subcommittees; were you not?

Mr. HUGHES. No.

Senator ROBERTSON. Incidentally, I see one of your charts over there and I will be happy to hear you explain it, but it interested me very much, being from a State very much interested in agriculture. Con

sumers have increased their relative expenditures for automobiles in the past 20 years 46 percent. They only increased what they are spending for food 15 percent, between 1929 and 1953, and yet you hear a lot of talk about how farmers have been getting rich. That is not true in Virginia. It may be down in Oklahoma and Texas where you operate.

Mr. HUGHES. It isn't true down there, either.

If I may proceed with my statement, these charts will be explained. My name is Dick Hughes, of Pampa, Tex. I build homes in several towns and cities in Texas and in Oklahma. I am privileged to appear before you today as president of the National Association of Home Builders-the trade association of the builders of America's homes. It has a membership of 29,000, organized in 215 affiliated local associations.

You have heard a great deal of discussion about the contents of the bill before you. I do not intend to go over all that ground again. I would, however, like to give you first, our concept of the housing problems which confront the Nation; second, our opinion of what should be done about solving these problems; and third, how this billwith certain amendments-can help.

According to the most recent report of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, less and less of the consumer dollar has been spent on housing in recent years. Only 11.4 percent of expenditures went for housing in 1953. That is explained in table 1, chart 1 (see p. 733 for charts), "Consumer Expenditures for Housing, Food, and Autos." This was a decline of over 21 percent from the 14.5 percent that went for housing in 1929. Our industry has provided Americans with more than 8 million new homes since World War II and, for the first time in our history, more people live in homes of their own than those who live in rented quarters. However, owners and tenants are living in these homes at a cost, in relation to their income, far less than in 1929. That is explained in table 2, chart 2, "Cost of Money for Housing, Autos, and Other Consumer Durables."

The construction of over 8 million homes in 8 years-the reduction of 21 percent in the ratio of housing cost to income-the increasing ratio of home ownership-and the industry's important contribution to the economy-could not have been attained had it not been for the assistance which Congress made possible through FHA, VA, and FNMA.

Although we have made definite forward progress, we decided to make a thorough and careful survey of housing in America as it is and then endeavor, to the very best of our ability, to visualize housing in America as it should be. The results of our studies revealed some startling indications of our housing needs. This is explained in table 3, chart 3, Housing Needs to 1960.

1. 6,900,000 additional homes will be needed for net new family formations by 1960.

2. Approximately 7 million units are reported as unfit for habitation, dilapidated, or lacking private bath or toilet. This figure is expected to increase to 9,200,000 by 1960.

3. Nearly half of the houses which are considered habitable are deteriorating through lack of proper maintenance and need substantial repair.

4. Birth rates reached 3 million in 1943, and increased to an alltime high of 4 million in 1953.

5. By the early 1960's, family formations, which largely determine the demand for new homes, will jump from the current 750,000 to an annual rate of about 12 million and, in the following decade, are expected to increase to about 2 million per annum.

These facts have convinced us that the figure of a million homes a year-which has somehow become accepted as the standard of newhome construction volume-is too low. It seems to us self-evident that the home-building industry must be made ready for the longrange task which will soon face it. We must develop a comprehensive housing program to assure the continued production of needed new houses; to conserve the housing which is just beginning to deteriorate; to rehabilitate the slum housing which is structurally sound; to demolish the slum housing which is not structurally sound, and reuse the land to its highest and best use. We have talked about it too long. Now is the time for action.

If, as a nation, we fail-during the next 10 years-to rehabilitate the existing slums, to stop further decay on existing houses in order to prevent the creation of more slums, and at the same time to build the needed new houses, we will be faced with an impossible task when the new family formations reach an alltime high in the 1960's.

Personally, I do not believe it is economically possible to put every American family in a new home. I cannot agree with any philosophy which would destroy structurally sound houses if they can be economically rehabilitated. Furthermore, I do not believe that every family expects to live in a new home any more than they expect to own a new automobile. However, I do believe that every American family deserves and rightfully should have the opportunity to live in a good house. And I believe that industry and Government should include that objective in a new national housing concept.

We heartily support the objectives of this bill because we believe that under its provisions-with our suggested amendments-such a concept can become a reality. Given the assistance which this bill provides-with the amendments outlined in principle on the following pages and detailed in an appendix attached to my statement-we believe that the home-building industry can provide an average of 2 million new or new-conditioned homes each year through a combination of increased production of new homes and the rehabilitation of structurally sound existing houses. We believe it will enable us to attain the 10-year average annual goals set by the National Association of Home Builders at our recent convention in Chicago. This program will not completely solve, but will make rapid inroads on these housing problems. I shall detail the objectives of the program and attempt to explain how the bill would assist in carrying out these goals.

Senator SPARKMAN. You say you believe the home-building industry can provide an average of 2 million new or newly conditioned homes each year. How long would it take you to reach that level! You don't contend that you could do it this year or next year? Mr. HUGHES. No, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. It is to be a gradual increase up to that level; that is what you mean, isn't it?

Mr. HUGHES. That is right. We propose an average of 1,400,000 new housing units annually.