quota of the veterans' housing program within the range of prices which the veteran can afford to pay.

(8) Fix policy for the administration of orders limiting nonessential and deferrable construction and direct changes when required.

(9) Secure effective local action to parallel and supplement the Federal program.

I would like to say again that, I feel, is one of the most important parts in the entire program.

(10) Secure maximum utilization of the existing housing supply through a promotion campaign for preference to veterans in filling existing housing as it becomes available. That is the promotion of a program in cooperation with the local communities for providing of homes for veterans until sufficient houses can be built.

(11) Report continuously on progress in meeting housing-production goals.

The combined responsibilities of Housing Expediter and National Housing Administrator require a total of 1,400 employees-approximately 900 above the present approved ceiling-almost half of whom will be in the field.

That is the conclusion of the general statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CANNON. We will insert in the record at this point the tables transmitted with the statement.

(The matter above referred to is as follows:)

TABLE II.-Requests and assignments of veterans, housing under re-use program as of Feb. 21, 1946

TABLE III.-Statement of condition of veterans' housing funds (title V, Lanham Act), Feb. 28, 1946

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Wyatt, your program deals largely with panelization. This committee has previously made a study of panelization. Mr. WYATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. And you, of course, are familiar with it, and evidently you have given it your blessing, I judge from this submission here.

Mr. WYATT. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANNON. You think that is the best course to pursue?

Mr. WYATT. Mr. Chairman, I do at the present time, for the reason it is best that we be economical with our materials and with our labor and that we produce the greatest possible speed in housing veterans where there is this tremendous urgency need. If it were a time when we had ample materials and ample labor, I would say no; but this is an expediency; it is a stopgap and not part of the permanent program and, of course, later it must be removed.

But I would like to emphasize in that connection particularly the need for it in connection with educational institutions. Commissioner Klutznick can correct me if I am in error on this figure, but I think approximately one-third of the original 100,000 units provided by the House and Senate were allotted to colleges and universities. In the present 100,000 units authorized in the Senate bill and approved by the House committee and which is up today for vote, it is proposed that there be an allocation of approximately one-half of those to colleges and universities.

Mr. CANNON. I am glad to note that program. My own university, the University of Missouri, is woefully deficient in housing. They need by September 2,000 units. I suppose the same situation obtains in most of the schools of the country.

Mr. WYATT. Largely all over the country. And without being able to supply housing rapidly, the GI bill of rights in its educational provisions tends to become a scrap of paper rather than a reality. It is particularly important, since it may become a nonrecurring opportunity to the veteran. If he cannot get housing and cannot attend school at the present time, whether he would resume that endeavor a year from now is very doubtful in most cases.

DISCUSSION OF COST OF PROGRAM

Mr. CANNON. The thing that concerned this committee at the time we took it up before was the exorbitant cost. We had no fault to find with the program in view of the fact it was a stopgap to deal with situations which must be met immediately, but members of this committee had visited installations of this housing which it is proposed to panelize, move, and reerect, and I think the committee was unanimously impressed with and shocked by the cost of panelization and reerection, especially in view of the fact that after it was moved to another place and reerected at a cost of course, all costs are abnormal now--but at a cost which no businessman would ever for a minute consider in connection with his own business, you had a shack there that was temporary, in 2 years would be junk and have to be thrown out. The cost appeared to us to be an unreasonable expense which in normal times-of course, there are not normal times-ought to buy entirely. new material. You had an old building made out of salvaged material which could not be expected to be used for more than a temporary period and for the same money you ought to have been ableand will some day be able-to build a permanent house of real value. Now, I was astonished to find when you came in this time, notwithstanding the exorbitant cost you submitted to us before, you increased the cost by $100 a unit.

Mr. WYATT. From $2,400 to $2,500 on barracks to be converted and moved.

Mr. CANNON. I really do not see how you can spend the money. As a result of our study of this before, this committee recommended, I think unanimously, that the matter be further studied, but when we went on the floor the House overruled the committee. The committee thought then, and I am convinced the committee thinks now, that the cost you presented the last time before this committee was out of all reason. And increasing it by $100 a unit now is still more out of line.

I cannot understand, Mr. Wyatt, why this matter cannot be handled on a business basis and these units erected at much less cost, as any private contractor would handle it. As I said, this committee visited installations where it looked to us as if this stuff could be panelized and moved at a fraction of the cost which you proposed to spend for it.

Mr. WYATT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two or three general observations about that.

Mr. CANNON. We found many houses up on stilts where all you had to do was to knock out the stilts, take them down, throw them

on a truck, and move them. It ought to be done by two or three men in a very little while; still the cost of it exceeded the cost of new construction in normal times.

Mr. WYATT. I would like to make two or three general observations in regard to that, and then ask Commissioner Klutznick to respond more specifically on the question of cost.

In the first place, as the chairman knows, this is done by private contractors employed by the Government rather than by the Government doing the work direct.

Mr. CANNON. Those contractors must have made pretty good

money.

Mr. TABER. The greatest trouble is, Mr. Chairman, they have no experience with this. Their total expenditures, as shown in these tables they are presenting to us, have only been $62,000 out of $191,000,000.

Mr. CANNON. They just seem to have taken the figures out of the air.

Mr. WYATT. The second general observation I would like to make is that although it is admittedly a stopgap and cannot be presented as anything other than that, it is part of the emergency, and all emergency situations, unfortunately, cost out of all proportion to normal, sound business procedures. But unless the emergency situation can be taken care of, particularly at colleges and universities and, for that matter, in extreme cases at the colleges, we are going to be in a perfectly terrific situation.

Another thing I would like to say with regard to the universities, and it applies to some extent to the communities, but particularly to the universities. A great many of them are going to have simply a temporary need for these units, and by "temporary" I mean from 2 to 5 years. If that can be handled by temporary housing, it therefore would represent a net economy, even as expensive as it is, as against building a permanent type of structures for the colleges and universities, and then finding, as we will find a few years from now, that they are no longer necessary in that volume. In other words when the GI bill of rights is no longer needed in as great a volume for the eductional training of demobilized veterans, the number of people in attendance at those universities will not be as large. Therefore, there is a negative advantage in the temporary program, in that it coincides with a temporary need.

In regard to the actual cost experience, I would like, with your permission, to turn that over to Commissioner Klutznick who is with me, and can speak directly on that point.

Mr. CANNON. I might say right there that this committee is interested in only two features of this. Primarily it is interested in providing housing as expeditiously and adequately as possible for the veterans. That is our first care and interest. Second, we want to be reasonable in our charge on the Treasury and that is involved in the first consideration, because the cheaper we can do this, the more units. we can provide.

Mr. WYATT. Right.

Mr. CANNON. And the more veterans we can take care of.

Mr. WYATT. Right.

Mr. CANNON. The more exorbitant you make the cost of these units the fewer veterans you will be able to house.