The CHAIRMAN. Then, as I understand it, you take the attitude that the public-housing features of S. 866 would not result in any immediate benefit? Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman, what do you mean by "immediate?" The CHAIRMAN. Well, we have an emergency before us at this time. We are trying to solve this emergency. If we do nothing to interrupt the progress of getting a million houses constructed this year, we are helping the problem. It has been testified that if we enacted this bill, we could not build any units under the public-housing features, or slum-clearance or low-rental housing sections of S. 866 for another year or a year and a half. The Commissioner testified that they thought they could program perhaps something less than a hundred thousand units by December 31, 1949. What we are trying to find out is what assistance there is contained in this bill to help in meeting the present emergency. Mr. CARTER. It is my understanding that the Public Housing Authority said that they could not begin construction or could not con struct The CHAIRMAN. They could not program, as I recall their testimony, more than 90,000 or a hundred thousand units before December 31, 1949. What we are trying to get at is how this program, especially the public-housing features of it, fits into the present program which we might have for meeting this present emergency. Mr. CARTER. Obviously if the Government is going to help the emergency by building houses itself, the program should be begun immediately. The CHAIRMAN. He has testified that it cannot be done immediately. You, of course, do not think that if we pass this bill that we will start building public housing tomorrow? Mr. CARTER. No. The CHAIRMAN. Then, having that in mind, will you comment upon what the immediate result would be of passage of this legislation, what we would be doing to help the present emergency? Mr. CARTER. If they waited 1 year to begin programming, it would not be of any help, naturally. The CHAIRMAN. They would begin programming, but they would not begin construction of these units for a year or a year and a half. Mr. WILLIAMSON. Mr. Chairman, just because the veteran in the slum dwelling has to wait a year or a year and a half to move into a decent dwelling, that is no objection to the program. It is just unfortunate that he is going to have to wait a year or a year and a half. The CHAIRMAN. I thought you might have taken the attitude, from what you have said, that any material and labor which might be used by the Federal Government, or any subsidiary of the Federal Government, or any subsidiary of any State government, for the building of slum clearance and low-rent housing units under this program, might result in a proportionately fewer number of units which could not be built for veteran occupancy. Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an argument that has been going around for some time, that we are presently using all of our resources for house building. In my opinion, that is by no means I think that anyone here could go down to a lumberyard or a bricklayer today and buy lumber or buy bricks, without saying that true. they were going to build houses. There is a lot of building going on in the country now which is not for residential construction. Furthermore, assuming that were true, that we were using all of our available labor and materials at the present time, I do not think that we are making any kind of an all-out effort to build houses. This committee could not even be sitting here if back in 1941 we had said, "We are presently using all of our resources to gear ourselves into a war machine," and did nothing more about it. Instead we went out and built more factories, and built more of the equipment for war. We did not just sit and say that we were presently constructing all that we could possibly construct. We went out and did something about it. And I think that if any of us can assume that this is an emergency program, that we should take emergency measures to meet it. The CHAIRMAN. You do not claim for this bill that it is an emergency program? Mr. CARTER. Yes; I do. The CHAIRMAN. In what respect? I was talking particularly about the public-housing features, but recognize, of course, that there are many things in the bill which have already been passed by the House and Senate which would be helpful. But let us just confine ourselves for the moment to the public-housing features. How, in your opinion, does the enactment of the public-housing features help to meet the present emergency? Mr. CARTER. Nothing in the bill, whether it is public housing or anything else, will help immediately unless we get houses built today or tomorrow. Public housing cannot construct the houses immediately. And, as you say, they will not. But I think they should begin the programming and the building of the houses sooner than 1949. The CHAIRMAN. When Omar Ketchum was before the Joint Committee on Housing last year, speaking for the Veterans of Foreign Wars, among the different things that he advocated was to curb and restrict the export of strategic and short-supply building materials. I assume that your committee made a study of that at that time. Perhaps you have brought yourselves up to date on it. Would you care to discuss the possible effects upon home construction of any present export program with respect to building materials? Mr. CARTER. I have had correspondence with the Snyder subcommittee I believe it is a Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures-I am not sure what committee it is now, but Congressman Snyder, chairman of the subcommittee, is dealing with that problem at the present time, and he has said-I cannot quote it exactly, but the general tenor of the letter is that action has been taken to curb exports, and that at the present time there are a very small percentage of materials that can be used for either war purposes or building purposes, leaving the country. The CHAIRMAN. Does your study show that otherwise there might be sufficient building materials, of almost all kinds, with which this program might be started this year, in order to build something over a million units? Mr. CARTER. Frankly, sir, I am not an authority on the amount of building material in the country at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. You have no up-to-date figures on that? Mr. CARTER. No, sir. But I do not believe that the country is making an all-out effort in this program, or any other program at the present time. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Are there further questions of Mr. Williamson and Mr. Carter? Mr. NICHOLSON. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nicholson. Mr. NICHOLSON. You do not create any new houses under this bill, under the slum-clearance sections of it, do you? You just replace the ones that are torn down. So you do not gain a single housing unit under this slum-clearance program, do you? Mr. CARTER. We are in disagreement there. In our opinion, when you tear down a slum dwelling, and substitute, in its place, a decent dwelling, then, we gain a house. There might be a difference in philosophy there, but we feel we certainly gain in housing when we substitute a decent dwelling for a dwelling that is not fit to keep domestic animals in. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions? Mr. FLETCHER. Reading this particular bill, it seems to me that there is no absolute assurance that we are going to get rid of a slum dwelling. It makes it discretionary. It might have been a sum dwelling which was taken down sometime before or sometime subsequent. There is no absolute assurance such as contained in the Federal Housing Act sometime ago. It is discretionary with the authorities. The things claimed by this bill are that it will take care of the needy and get rid of the slums. When it says "needy," what does that mean? The most needy? It does not do that. This bill does not take care of the most needy. It takes care of a certain number of people who can pay a going rent. It does not take care of the people who are most needy. They have no priority. And it does not clear slums, because that is discretionary. Mr. CARTER. Would that again not be due to the administration of the bill, sir? Mr. FLETCHER. To be sure, but I am getting awfully tired of poor administration. I think these things should be statutory. Mr. CARTER. So are we. Mr. WILLIAMSON. We certainly have no objection to strengthening the bill in that respect. Mr. FLETCHER. This bill is just full of loopholes, broad generalities, platitudes, and there is no place to stop it, when we get started. So many people get houses. The man across the street says, "Why can I not have a house?" and there will be no stopping public housing. There will be public housing for the entire country before we get through, and if that is what this country wants, then, they should have it. But I think they should know the true situation before they get started on a program to which there is no ending. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Williams and Mr. Carter. We have with us this morning Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., representing the American Veterans Committee. Mr. Roosevelt, we are very glad to have you with us and are very glad to have you proceed in any way you see fit. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT, JR., NATIONAL HOUSING CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., and I am the national housing chairman of the American Veterans Committee. I am happy to have the opportunity to present to this committee the views of the American Veterans Committee on what we consider to be one of the two major domestic problems confronting the United States-housing, the other being inflation. The American Veterans Committee is an organization of over 110,000 World War II veterans who have banded together in the belief that the principal interest of World War II veterans is making a successful readjustment to civilian life. In the last 3 years it has become increasingly apparent that the outstanding obstacle to the veteran in making a satisfactory transition from the armed services to community life has been the acute and continuing housing crisis. Veterans coming back from overseas found that the Nation faced the greatest housing shortage in history. And they also found that, as a group, they were being hardest hit by the shortage. The Bureau of Census last year announced a veterans' housing survey which revealed that from 30 to 40 percent of married veterans are living in rented rooms or doubled up with in-laws. In Los Angeles County, Calif., for example, fully 50 percent of the married veterans in that area are without acceptable living quarters. In New York City some 44 percent of married veterans fall into this category. The survey revealed one other significant fact: That veterans cannot afford, as a group, anywhere near. the rental or purchase cost of the housing now being produced. The median weekly income of veterans was shown to be between $40 and $50, and in the majority of cases they cannot afford to pay more than $50 a month rent or buy housing costing over $7,000. Because of the special housing problems faced by veterans as well as the housing crisis which affected all citizens, the American Veterans Committee has been intensely interested in the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill which proposes a comprehensive national housing program. The veteran is only part of our society, although today a very large part. Special veterans' benefits which are harmful to the rest of the Nation are, in the long run, harmful to veterans. But the long-range housing bill, now being considered, benefits all citizens and is especially valuable to veterans who have been most gravely affected by the housing shortage. Today, it does not require extended investigation to discover that veterans are not happy about the current housing picture. A number of the members of this committee took part in the hearings of the Joint Congressional Committee on Housing, and I am sure now have an excellent first-hand picture of the housing situation and the desperate housing needs of the average American. American Veterans Committee chapers and representatives of other veterans' organizations appeared before the joint committee in the various cities where its hearings were held and have presented the housing problems of their own areas. In the face of the housing shortage, veterans have been more than patient. For the last 3 years, they have been keeping their "shirts on" despite the continued refusal of Congress to take the type of action which was demanded. They have been reasonable in their housing demands. They have endured a multitude of extreme hardships in living in substandard housing makeshifts which have threatened their health and that of their families. They have doubled up with in-laws under circumstances which have caused general unhappiness and, in many cases, broken homes. But, gentlemen, their patience is beginning to wear thin. They have recently demonstrated that they have finally united in support of the one bill on the congressional horizon which promises an overall solution to the housing problem. Early in March, this year, close to 2,000 veterans from 39 States and representing seven major veterans' organizations gathered here in Washington to tell their representatives that they wanted the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill-and that they wanted a balanced bill which included all essential features, including public housing. Represented at the conference were delegates from the American Veterans Committee, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Catholic War Veterans, the Jewish War Veterans, the Disabled American Veterans, the American Veterans, and the American Legion. I should point out, in all fairness, that the delegates from the Legion and the American Veterans were not officially accredited by their national organizations, but represented substantial groups in each organization who opposed the views of their national leadership. And I believe there has been a considerable modification since that time of the stand of the American Legion. It is nevertheless significant that the delegates from all these organizations voted unanimously in support of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill and specifically and vigorously opposed suggestions that the public-housing section be removed from the bill. I am sure that most members of this committee had an opportunity to talk to the delegates to the conference from their district and State and therefore are acquainted in detail with the view of the delegates. But I do want to emphasize that the conference was symbolic of the unity of World War II veterans in support of this vital legislation. It is clearly impossible to survey the current housing situation and deny that immediate action is necessary. If this committee refuses to act, it is, in effect, saying to veterans: "We know that you face a housing problem and we are grateful to you for having won the war, but do not bother us with your troubles." The record of the building industry in 1947 shows improvement over 1946, but even with this improvement it was only able to complete in 1947 approximately 835,000 new permanent homes which is more than 50 percent short of our minimum needs-1.5 million new homes. In 1925, the building industry's best. year, only 937,000 new units were completed-still considerably below present minimum requirements. Even more important is the fact that the new housing which does become available is beyond the means of the average veteran needing it most. Costs of building are such that in order to get a fair return, $80 per month must be charged at present for a newly constructed four and a half room apartment. In Washington, D. C., new one-bedroom apartments are renting at an average of $80 per month with two-bedroom apartments demanding even more. |