going to help my State?" Do you think that this legislation has universal appeal or is it aimed strictly at the metropolitan centers of the country?

Mr. DINGER. I certainly think it does have a universal appeal. Any community that is large enough to organize a cooperative will be able to benefit considerably by this legislation. I do believe that the need for this type of legislation is greater in the larger metropolitan areas. Mr. RAINS. That was true of public housing. Naturally, that is

true.

Mr. DINGER. But in your smaller communities where there is a need, this bill is certainly equipped to be of assistance to those areas, just as favorably as it would to a large metropolitan area.

I think that the members of this committee will recall that in previous testimony the city of Baton Rouge, La., through the efforts of Nicholson Post of the American Legion entered into quite a large veterans' housing cooperative.

They ran into some difficulties because they didn't have the benefits that we are trying to make available through this legislation.

Mr. RAINS. I happen to know, also, of cities like Atlanta, Birmingham, and cities of that kind who have expressed great interest, the American Legion posts have, in legislation of this type, but I was wondering if the smaller towns in the country have likewise expressed any interest in it?

Mr. DINGER. I can get you some information on that, Congressman. We have numerous inquiries from American Legion posts and from department housing committees and department adjutants as to what sort of Government assistance and guidance is available to them, if they do have a group that would like to organize and form a cooperative development.

Mr. RAINS. Does your information with the American Legion show that there is still a great housing shortage and that there is a great need for this type of legislation to meet that housing shortage?

Mr. DINGER. Yes; it would. Especially in the lower middle-income group. The national housing committee of the American Legion has just for the purpose of discussing this problem among themselves, set an average salary of veterans at something around $47 a week. With very few exceptions is there any housing, either rental or purchase housing, being made available in this country that would allow that income veteran to acquire adequate housing, adequate, livable housing?

There are a lot of efforts being made to reach this objective but it is a slow process and we are beginning to realize that instead of actually reducing costs or reducing expenses, what we are actually doing is reducing quality, so that there is very definitely a need for the type of housing at prices which this bill proposed to make available.

Mr. RAINS. Going back once more to my question of interest, I have heard a great many Members of Congress, who represent agricultural districts, say, "I can't see why I should vote for this bill, and give 3-percent interest rates to cooperatives which I know will be erected in cities and towns, when the farmers, veterans alike, must pay 4 percent for theirs under the bill which we passed last year"; so, you can see the point I am driving at and the difficulty I think we are

going to encounter in presenting it. So, I would like, if you think it wise, that you consider whether or not it would be feasible either to pull down the interest rates on those that we have already put out or to pull this one up at least to a comparable status.

Mr. DINGER. I certainly would be glad to give that consideration. I think that we may be a little premature in our thinking or insistence that this is going to be a 3-percent interest rate loan.

Mr. RAINS. We may be; that is true.

Mr. DINGER. That hasn't been definitely established, and of course that will come out of a formula.

Mr. RAINS. No one knows. It may be under and it is likely to be

over.

Mr. DINGER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Are not the veterans, probably, more interested in housing legislation than any other people because of the fact that the veterans were away and could make no provision for themselves during the hostilities. They came back and a few of them could make adequate provision for housing; and as a class are they not more interested than any other class of American people in adequate housing?

Mr. DINGER. I think they are, because when they returned from military service they found that all of the available apartments and housing units that were priced within their income limitations were already taken and they have had to look toward whatever substandard housing they can get instead or whatever new housing is being produced through Government assistance by private industry.

The CHAIRMAN. During the war they were not engaged in private enterprise. They were engaged in defending their country and, because of that reason, it seems to me that they are at this disadvantage yet, and because of that is it not true that the great number of veterans who are in the middle-income group will be the beneficiaries of this legislation?

Mr. DINGER. We estimate that approximately 67 percent of the veterans of World War II are within the middle-income group. By that, we mean over the eligibility figure for public housing and under the ability to purchase the private housing which is being constructed at the present time.

The CHAIRMAN. So, the veterans will not be prejudiced by this law if it accomplishes what it intends to do, but it will probably be the class most benefited by it; do you not think?

Mr. DINGER. I certainly do. I think it is the first great effort that has been made so far to bring housing costs within the veterans' ability to pay.

The CHAIRMAN. We cannot consider benefits by comparing them with the benefits that other people might receive. I think each one of these acts should stand on its own merits; and, if this bill is beneficial to the veteran, and it is to the benefit of middle-income groups, I think it should be considered independently of what we have done for other classes. Do you not think so?

Mr. DINGER. Yes, sir. I pointed out in my statement that insofar as the housing units constructed under this bill for rent, with the veterans' preference provision that has been written into this bill, with the exception of displaced persons from slum clearance in urban redevelopment priority, veterans are going to be given the next priority

and, among those, disabled veterans first, very similar to the way it was spelled out in the public housing bill; so that I doubt in the large metropolitan areas, where the veterans are anxious to move into these rental units, there will be very many, if any, nonveterans, except those that are displaced from some slum clearance in the development project.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Dinger, having in mind that the 4-percent interest rate would increase the gross monthly rental charge for these units from $3.50 per month, depending on the cost of the unit, the $3.50 increase being on the $7,000 unit and about $4.02 on an $8,000 unit and $4.50 on a $9,000 unit, do you think that that would be a deterrent to veterans or others taking advantage of this bill, if the project is set up and required 4-percent interest rates rather than 3?

Mr. DINGER. I don't believe there is any need for it. I think we have to consider here whether it is necessary for this mixed-ownership corporation to make an additional 1-percent profit. That certainly isn't

Mr. MULTER. You don't get any profit whether the interest is going to be 3 percent instead of 4 percent. There will be no profit under this bill in any event. It will require payment of an additional sum per month per unit of $3 to $4.50, depending on the cost of the unit if the interest rate is 4 percent instead of 3 percent. Would that deter the veterans or others from taking advantage of this bill?

In other words, instead of going into a $7,000 unit at $59.81 as the gross rental charge, he would be required to pay $62.83. Do you think that that would keep him out?

Mr. DINGER. I think it certainly would interfere with the very objective of this proposal and that is to reduce monthly costs in every conceivable way possible.

Mr. MULTER. You know there is nothing in this bill, nor in the one that was reported out by the Senate committee, which says that the interest rate will be 3 percent?

Mr. DINGER. That is right. They suggest it will be 3 percent.

Mr. MULTER. The figures submitted to us by Mr. Foley show the charge on the basis of 3-percent interest, 314-percent interest, and 31⁄2percent interest. I have projected the figures on the basis of 4-percent interest. I am wondering whether in your opinion it is going to make any material difference in the number of persons who will take advantage of this bill if the rate had to be set up as 4 percent?

Mr. DINGER. I think it certainly would.

Mr. MULTER. I notice in your statement that you say the American Legion is in favor of S. 2246. You do not use the number, but you say "The bill as favorably reported by the Senate Banking and Currency Committee." I assume you refer to Senate bill 2246.

Mr. DINGER. That is correct.

Mr. MULTER. The one reported out has the same provisions as H. R. 6618 that we have been considering here?

Mr. DINGER. No. That was amended by Senator Maybank. The original title III was amended. The Senate committee has been holding hearings on that amendment, and I think they are in executive session now in the process of reporting it out.

Mr. MULTER. I would like to have you clarify for us just what you were referring to on the first page of your statement when you say that you want to make clear that "By action of our thirty-first annual national convention, held in Philadelphia, Pa., August 29 through September 1, 1949, the national legislative committee has been directed to exert every possible effort to secure the speedy enactment of the middle-income housing bill as favorably reported by the Senate Banking and Currency Committee. S. 2246 containing Senator Maybank's amendment, has been reported favorably by the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to the Senate, and Senator Lucas has stated that that bill will be called up before the Senate shortly. Is that the bill you are referring to which, as amended, sets up the cooperative organization which is called for in H. R. 6618? Senator Maybank's amendment to S. 2246 is the same as our bill 6618 that we are considering now.

Mr. DINGER. That is right.

Mr. MULTER. Is that what you are supporting or is it the original S. 2246 which didn't have the Maybank amendment?

Mr. DINGER. I understand your question. Our national convention meets once a year, and when they met on the 29th through the 1st of September 1949, S. 2246 had been favorably reported and was on the Senate calendar. That was the first opportunity that the convention had an opportunity to look at the bill as a whole and say, "We are for it or we are against it." By action of a resolution during that convention, which I have here and will be glad to insert into the record, the national legislative committee has been directed to exert every possible effort to speed its enactment.

In the next paragraph of my statement here I point out that in view of this mandate we have made a study of the amendment, the Maybank amendment, which is the same as H. R. 6618 being considered here.

It is our considered opinion that the benefits contained in the original or in the title of S. 2246 are substantially implemented by providing a system whereby private capital can be utilized and thus eliminating the objections to direct Government loans. We think that this amendment will have the same desirable effect as the previous title did, which called for a 100-percent direct loan. Basically, we are for that, but we believe that this will accomplish the same desirable

results.

Mr. MULTER. There was a hot fight-was there not?-inspired by certain interests in order to get the convention on record against the cooperative feature of the bill.

Mr. DINGER. Not to my knowledge. There were some fiery arguments in the veterans' housing committee, but not on this issue, not on the question of cooperatives, to my knowledge.

Mr. MULTER. You can say that the Legion is committed to the idea of cooperative housing?

Mr. DINGER. Very definitely.

Mr. MULTER. Has the question of interest rate been discussed at all? Mr. DINGER. Only in respect to GI loans, where we insisted that that remain at 4 percent. I will be glad to read this resolution.

Mr. MULTER. Didn't the discussion revolve around the fact that by cooperative housing you could lower the cost both of building and maintenance; is not that so?

Mr. DINGER. Yes. As an example, in the Baton Rouge project, which is several years old now, where their only purpose was to make the initial saving which testimony on this bill so far hasn't involved, that being the acquisition of land and the use of on-site construction, and self-help, and proper land planning and elimination of speculative practices produced about a $1,000 savings in Baton Rouge on a $7,700 project, $7,700 house. That is one of the things which has not been testified to in this bill as a potential saving.

Mr. MULTER. The Baton Rouge project, was that one of singlefamily dwelling or multidwelling?

Mr. DINGER. Single-family dwellings.

Mr. MULTER. Single-family dwellings?
Mr. DINGER. That is right.

I would like to also make this a part of the record with our statement. I think it would be to the interest of the committee to look this over. [Indicating.]

Mr. MULTER. Is it the considered opinion of you and your associates that this can be taken advantage of for those who want single-family dwellings, as well as those who wish to live in a multifamily dwelling? Mr. DINGER. Yes, sir; there is no question about it. I think that way it will be more attractive in the lesser-populated area.

Mr. RAINS. Is that contemplated, do you think, in the legislation itself that it can operate with single, individual family units and not in one building, so to speak?

Mr. DINGER. Yes; I believe that that is provided for in this legislation.

Mr. RAINS. That, of course, would make it have more popular appeal in smaller areas, in areas of small towns, areas of that kind; would it not?

Mr. DINGER. Yes. This thing differs slightly from our original Veterans' Homestead Act approach to it, in that there would be no permanent financing on individual, single-family units. The association or the corporation, nonprofit corporation, would remain in existence for the full term of the corporation's loan.

Mr. RAINS. You see, in the big metropolitan areas of the country, land is a big problem, expensive; and that is, of course, one of the reasons why they build these tremendous apartments and in the other areas of the country. In my section of the South, land is of no problem. They would not buy them if they were close together; they would not have them. So, if you can develop in this legislation the same kind of financing for individual units, you are going to get a lot more people interested in it.

Mr. DINGER. That has been our approach to the thing all along: that the cooperative principal could be used for acquiring individual housing units at prices that the average income veteran could afford to pay. We have several other ways that it can be done, but this is the first real approach to bring the cost down within the range of the average income veteran.

Mr. RAINS Thank you.

Mr. MULTER. I request unanimous consent that literature and the resolution that Mr. Dinger referred to be printed in full in this record.