I think everything possible ought to be done to encourage private capital.

Mr. COLE. But my question is: Has everything been done?

Monsignor O'GRADY. No, not everything. But how far it would cover the field, that is another story entirely. This Baltimore situation, as I understand it—and I get this second-hand and I want to see it because my interest in this thing is so intense that when I hear of anything like that I want to go around and see it--but from what I have learned, in the Baltimore situation there are some real problems. Some improvements undoubtedly have been made. And I think we ought to encourage that all we can.

Mr. COLE. Not only encourage it. Do you not think we should insist that it be done locally, if it can be done?

Monsignor O'GRADY. As a part of this program, yes. I think that might very well be done. I know there is a tendency to discount that. There are elements, of course, such as the question of rent. When you take a house, as I understand it, which has been used for many years, and abused, and the landlord has been receiving fairly good rent, with the house in fairly poor condition, the city comes along and bears down on him and says, "Something must be done about this condition." Then, of course, he can get a loan from the Federal Housing Administration. That loan has to be liquidated pretty quickly, because of the condition of the property, the basic condition of the property. Then, there is the question of what the rents are, and I understand that these rents in Baltimore now are pretty high, that they run up into the high forties per month. There is a question again as to how far they meet the needs of these low-income groups.

Mr. COLE. The thing that concerns me, Monsignor, is this: I can well understand how the mayor of a large city, faced with this problem, would rather, perhaps, come to the Federal Government and ask for help, because it is an easier way to do it. It is a difficult thing to do this locally, but I am not sure that it cannot be done locally. I can well understand how there would be pressure upon the mayor to come to Washington, but I am not sure that they have done locally everything that can be done, and that is what I am concerned with.

Monsignor O'GRADY. Really, from what I can see of the general picture, and from what I gather about the other responsibilities of the cities, the hugeness of the task-I know there is that repair program, and that repair program has been studied very, very carefully. Something has been done in studying the costs of it, and what it needs in terms of larger rents. If we could make these repairs and still control rents, that would be another story. But I think there is a question of how far you can go. You are going to have to tear down, inevitably, a lot of these slums. I do not think that any repair program is going to be sufficient to rehouse our slum population, nor do I believe-and I still have to be frank about it-that we have any evidence, except wishful thinking. If the real estate group are willing to present us concrete evidence, not wishful thinking, that might be all right. They have been telling us what we can do for 10 years. But they have never done anything about it. This Rochester plan, I think, is fine for middle-income groups, I think possibly it is fine for the clothing workers in Rochester, for the tailors making $60 a week. I think it is fine for that middle-income group.

But how are you going to reach the lowest group? That is the question we have to keep before us. I think we ought to do everything possible to encourage every type of local initiative, provided we are realistic about it, and provided we are able to get concrete evidence that it can be done in that way. This is a great national problem, as I see it now. To say that the Federal Government can wash its hands of it is not right. All our thinking has shifted.

Mr. COLE. Even the Socialists say that Government should not take over private industry until private industry has failed. The point I am making is: Should we not set up a barrier? It is not that we wash our hands of it, but should we not set up a barrier until we are sure that these localities cannot do the job, and that they have done everything they can do?

Monsignor O'GRADY. Is this not implicit in the program, and can it not be made more implicit still, if it is not sufficiently clear in the program now-and I am quite sure that it is clear-I would say they should come in after having made a careful study, showing what has been done with regard to repair of these properties. Here is what they have done. Here is how they have tapped the other city resources; here is what they have done; here is what they have been able to do on the repair program, on cleaning up the slums, through the use of local resources, and here is what needs to be done. As I understand it, that is the kind of thing we are supposed to get from them in their plans. It is supposed to be approved by the city council. And it is not merely sufficient that it be approved by the housing authority. It has to be approved by the city council. It seems to me that if the Congress accepts the principle, if this committee accepts the principle that this is a problem, that is the first step.

The second thing is that there is a national interest, which the Federal Government cannot ignore.

Before you make a plan, towards reaching an agreement with a locality, then, you can very well insist that the mayor and the city council have made certain that their own resources have been used to the limit, that they have done everything they could in the way of a repair program, that they have done everything they could in the way of improved city ordinances. I think that is clear. But to simply say that they can do it now, and to say that we have evidence that they can take care of this problem-I do not see where that evidence is. I do not see that it is possible at this time to present a clear case. I think the cities are making a fairly good case. I know the tendencies of the mayors, and I do not want to see that thing any more than anybody else does. I do not want to see these folks coming here looking for Federal funds for everything under the sun.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further questions of Monsignor O'Grady? (No response.)

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Monsignor O'Grady. We are very happy to have had you with us.

At this point we will have inserted in the record the statement presented by the National Council of Jewish Women referred to by Monsignor O'Grady.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, NEW YORK, N. Y.

The National Council of Jewish Women, which was organized in 1893 and now has a membership of 70,000 in 300 senior and junior chapters throughout the United States, has been concerned with housing for many years. As early as 1911 the delegates to our convention, recognizing that slums and poor housing tend to breed disease and ill health and that adequate sanitary housing should be available for all persons regardless of economic status, passed a resolution in support of a public-housing program. At each succeeding triennial convention, housing resolutions have been adopted. The following resolution was unanimously agreed to by our delegates at our last triennial convention held in November 1946:

Whereas, slums and poor housing breed disease and ill health, and cause disruption of family life; and

Whereas, good housing should be available to every person, regardless of race, color, creed and economic status;

Therefore be it resolved, that the National Council of Jewish Women urge the extension of national, State, and local housing programs in urban and rural areas;

Be it further resolved, that the National Council of Jewish Women support continuation of controls on rents and building materials as long as the housing shortage exists.

In attempting to implement the mandate of its membership as expressed in the above resolution, the National Council of Jewish Women has consistently supported the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, which establishes a national housing policy and proposes a plan whereby the facilities of the Government will be available to private enterprise so that it can expand its activities to encompass the existing need.

In its provisions for the resumption of the public low-rent housing and slumclearance program, the bill is attempting to provide, in part, for those whose income is so low that private enterprise will be unable to build for them even with the aid provided in the rest of the bill. As an organization with a program which emphasizes the promotion of the welfare of all Americans, we consider this provision of the utmost importance.

We seriously disagree with those who say that if people can get along with second-hand cars, they can also get along with second-hand housing. So far as can be determined, it hasn't been found that the use of a second-hand car, or even the lack of a car altogether, has had any appreciable effect on the physical, emotional, or psychological development of our children or the general welfare of millions of American families, but volumes and volumes of findings have been published which indicate that so-called second-hand housing, or more accurately termed slum housing, is a major contributing factor in the large incidence of disease, juvenile delinquency, and general family maladjustments. Hearings held by various congressional committees, both in Washington and in other parts of the country have, we feel, clearly demonstrated that we are not alone in support of a comprehensive national housing program as embodied in the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill. Testimony presented at these hearings by major religious groups, civic, labor, and professional organiations indicated that the majority of the American people are fully aware of the housing crisis which can best be met by the adoption of the legislation now before your committee. This crisis has now reached such proportions that not only the American people but foreign countries are taking note of it. In this connection, it is worth quoting from an article in the Manchester Guardian of April 29, 1948, entitled "New Caravan Slums in the United States-Shabby Treatment of the Ex-Servicemen," which stated in part:

"Nothing across the American landscape is more shocking to postwar travelers than the failure of the world's wealthiest country to guarantee to its citizens the primitive want of a home."

We agree that our present housing situation is shocking, and we respectfully urge your committee to take immediate and favorable action on this legislation so that the serious efforts for the establishment of a national housing policy can come to a successful conclusion in this session of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mrs. Caroline F. Ware, representing the American Association of University Women.

You may proceed, Mrs. Ware.

Mrs. WARE. I think you have a copy of my brief statement, Mr. Chairman. Since it is brief, I will read it, with your permission.

STATEMENT OF MRS. CAROLINE F. WARE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

Mrs. WARE. My name is Caroline F. Ware. I am a member of the national committee on legislative program of the American Associa tion of University Women. I am here to express to your committee the support of this association for S. 866, the National Housing Commis

sion act.

The American Association of University Women, an organization of approximately 96,000 college graduates in 1,044 communities throughout the United States, has been interested in this legislation for many years. Two and a half years ago, I had the privilege of presenting a statement for the association in support of the predecessor of the present bill, the General Housing Act of 1945, when it was before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee. This statement had been authorized by mail vote of the association's convention delegates in 1945.

At its 1947 convention, the association, by an overwhelming vote, reiterated its support for housing legislation, including "public housing for low-income families for which private industry is unable to provide."

There is no need for me to repeat to you the general evidence of (1) the critical need for housing, or (2) the social costs of inadequate housing. Statistics of illness and death provide dramatic evidence of the cost to individuals and to the community of continuing to allow a large proportion of American families to live under bad housing conditions. A recent report published by the Public Health Federation of Cincinnati, Ohio, under the title, "We Pay With Our Lives," compares the "basin" area of the city, where 82 percent of all dwelling units were reported in the 1940 census to be substandard, with the rest of the city, where 22 percent only were reported as substandard. The following table from that study shows death rates from diseases and accidents associated with bad living conditions in the basin area to be two and three times those in the rest of Cincinnati. In contrast, death rates from diseases not associated with bad living conditions show no significant differences in the two areas.

Death rate per 100,000 from disease and accidents associated with bad living conditions, Cincinnati, 1939–41

Death rates from diseases not associated with bad living conditions

Preventable disease and death are only the most conspicuous and most obviously tragic of the social costs of inadequate housing. The members of the American Association of University Women are especially concerned with the psychological as well as the phyical toll which insufficient and inadequate housing takes among the nation's children. More than 2,000,000 families are now forced to live doubled up with in-laws and grandparents for lack of a home to which parents and their children can move. Though no quantitative, scientific studies of the strains of doubled-up family living have been made, such strains can hardly fail to contribute to the maladjustment of children growing up under these conditions.

I had the privilege of attending the family life conference held here last week, and in the section where I was participating that question was raised. There were doctors, pediatricians, teachers, parents, young people—recently married-all sorts of people. And there was unanimous agreement that the problem of living doubled up was a problem of the greatest seriousness from the point of view of healthy family life and the healthy rearing of children.

For many children, too, lack of housing means actual separation from home and family. A recent study of children in the District of Columbia committed to the Board of Public Welfare because of neglect or dependency found many children who had had to be placed in foster homes or institutions because their own relatives had no decent place where they could care for them. This study found 90 children in a period of a few months whose relatives wanted them and were prepared to give them a home where they would be loved, but for various reasons could not take them. The largest single reason-the only reason reported in more than one-third of the caseswas inadequate housing. For this, the children became public charges. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, in December 1947, published a city. worker's family budget, which attempts to determine what it costs a family of four to maintain a level of adequate living-"To satisfy prevailing standards of what is necessary for health, efficiency, the nurture of children, and for participation in community activities." Standards for housing used in estimating this budget for city families include the standards of privacy, sanitation, heating, lighting, safety, equipment, and accessibility to community facilities set up by the committee on hygiene of housing of the American Public Health Association. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that a budget which would include housing to meet these minimum standards for a family consisting of parents and two school-age children would range in different cities from $2,700 to $3,100 per year. According to the estimates contained in the Economic Report of the President trans