« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
The CHAIRMAN. I wish you and the life-insurance companies and the bankers would get a little closer together on some of the features of this bill.
Mr. Hughes. Well, we disagree with them on some things all right. But we are pretty close to the buyers. We are pretty close to the market.
The CHAIRMAN. But they have the money.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is a very, very fine, and well-documented statement. You have certainly spent a lot of time and intelligent effort on your presentation.
Mr. Hughes. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I don't think we can ask any more questions at the moment. I think we may have to get you gentlemen back in here again, you and the bankers and the life insurance people.
Senator BEALL. I think we ought to have them all together sometime.
Mr. Hughes. I spent 4 months with them on the President's Advisory Committee, Senator. I never did convert them.
The CHAIRMAN. They didn't convert you, either.
Senator BEALL. If we got you all in the same room, and locked you in, we might have something.
The CHAIRMAN. There is considerable controversy on this bill. We are about to end these hearings. We have 3 more days of hearings, unless we extend them. We will if it becomes necessary, if anyone ought to be heard.
But we may hold a couple of days' hearings on smoke control. Have you given any thought to that? Do you think we ought to put something like that in this bill?
Mr. Hughes. Yes, sir. I had someplace in there, in the early part of the statement, that we favored it strongly.
The CHAIRMAN. I frankly don't know just how the Federal Government can help on this matter of smoke control. I know just one thing, and that is that we ought to find some way in the United States to eliminate smoke. It just doesn't make sense to me to go out here and build a beautiful new suburb with big homes, or little homes, anil
a then have them in a couple of years completely ruined with smoke and soot and dirt.
Mr. Hughes. In Borger, Tex., where I built approximately 2,900 houses, it is the center of the carbon-black manufacturing plants, and it was the smokiest town I have ever been in, and that
includes Pittsburgh. But about 6 years ago the citizens got together and went to the manufacturers of the carbon companies and asked them to do something about it. And they have come up with a filtering process now and have done away with the smoke in all the plants, except one.
So, industry itself might give us some answers.
The CHAIRMAN. There isn't any question but what you can eliminate smoke in any plant or any place where you burn coal and make smoke. It can be eliminated. Science knows how to do it. Tech
nology today knows how to do it. It just costs money and takes time and effort, and therein lies the problem.
That brings me up to this point: Should the Federal Government, in this legislation, offer to assist in some way by loaning money, rather making loans guaranteeable under FHÀ, quick amortization, and other ways? Is it of sufficient importance to the health and welfare of the Nation, and as much a part of the slum and blight problem as anything else that ought to go into a piece of legislation like this?
Mr. HUGHES. I don't know the answer to it, but I do believe it is a part of the problem.
The CHAIRMAN. I don't think there is any question but what it is a part of the problem. I don't think you can ever eliminate slums and blighted areas until you eliminate smoke. You can repaint and decorate and build new houses, and if you have a lot of smoke, within
a a year or 2 years or 3 years they will look just like they did before you painted them. You have just temporarily cleaned up the situation.
Mr. HUGHES. In Borger, Tex., the town I was talking about, they changed to complete gray in just a week.
The CHAIRMAN. You say industry did the job themselves?
The CHAIRMAN. Without any legislation or without any help from the Federal Government?
Mr. HUGHES. As far as I know.
The CHAIRMAN. Just because the people objected to it, and decided to do something about it.
Mr. HUGHES. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. It can be done. St. Louis has proven that, and I think Pittsburgh has pretty much proven that at the moment.
You are giving us an example of a small town in Texas. There is no question but what it can be done. It is just a question of whether we have the will to do it or not. We in the Federal Government can do very little unless local communities and the cities themselves want to do it. If they want to do it bad enough, then we possibly ought to help them in some way.
It isn't clear to me, frankly, how to write the amendment. I have been talking about it now for 2 or 3 weeks, and asking a lot of ques- . tions. I sent a member of our staff to St. Louis, and possibly we will send another one to Pittsburgh. We are trying to find a way to do it, because I am thoroughly convinced it ought to be part and parcel of this whole business.
Mr. HUGHES. I would like to see what we can come up with in the next few days.
The CHAIRMAN. We certainly welcome your help. We don't want to do something here that isn't needed, or that is silly or impractical, but we would like to do something to eliminate smoke and soot and dirt in the cities, the big ones as well as the small ones. It won't do us any good, in my opinion, to eliminate slums and blighted areas and not eliminate the causes.
But as to how to write the amendment, we haven't yet found the solution or the formula.
As I said a moment ago, we may have to have you people back here, along with these life insurance companies, and the bankers, to see if we can't bump your heads together.
Mr. HUGHES. I would be glad to meet with them.
The CHAIRMAN. Maybe we can get some agreement here on what we should or should not do. You see, this is a very, very tough bill. It is a long bill and a complicated bill. It isn't easy.
(The prepared material of Mr. Hughes follows:)
COST OF MONEY FOR HOUSING, AND FOR AUTOS AND
OTHER CONSUMER DURABLES
HOUSING NEEDS TO 1960 (MILLIONS)
1950 HOMES USABLE
10.8 NEW ADDITIONAL IF 83 ARE REHAB
NEEDED 6.9 BAD
8.3 REHAB. OR REPLACED
DEPENDENCE ON FNMA BY STATES
U.S. AVERAGE = 1.0
03 03 03 03
02 02 02 02
FLORIDA NEW MEXICO
LESS THAN OI PERCENT