the large number of houses already at advanced stages of construction and because of the increased concentration of resources which will result from the gradual reduction in the number of houses under construction at any one time. The program for the building of new houses is at present undermanned for the number of houses now under construction, but this obstacle to rapid progress will be removed as the monthly rate of completion of houses in excess of the number started during the month reduced the number under construction.

9. The situation will be reviewed in the summer of 1948. If the amount of timber to be imported in 1948 is no more than sufficient for the completion of 140,000 houses during 1949, the reduction in the number of houses under construction will continue until a figure of 140,000 houses under construction has been attained by the middle of 1949. Even on this basis it is expected that the original target of 750,000 additional homes will be reached early in 1949: if the amount of timber obtained in 1948 proves to be more than now appears possible, an upward adjustment of the program for 1949 will be considered in the light of the circumstances prevailing at the time.

A-2. NEW TOWNS

10. The Ministry of Town and Country Planning and the Department of Health for Scotland are responsible for the establishment and financing of the new town corporations, but the building and civil engineering requirements of the new towns are included in the labor forces allocated to the departments responsible for water supply and sewerage, housing, industrial building, education, and so forth.

11. There are so far two types of new towns: towns intended to take industry and population from overcrowded large cities as an alternative to their continuous unplanned expansion outward which is wholly uneconomic, and towns intended to provide for immediate industrial needs or for mining areas. Of the new towns so far proposed in England, Stevenage, Crawley, Hemel Hempstead, and Harlow fall into the first category; Aycliffe and Easington into the second; in Scotland, East Kilbride is designed to meet immediate industrial needs, and the other proposed new towns are required to meet the needs of new or expanding coal fields.

12. The industrial and mining towns will go ahead within the limits of the housing program. They will provide some of the housing required for miners and other key groups.

13. The "overspill" towns have not the same urgency. But their purpose is to insure that the surplus population is rehoused at a distance from the overcrowded, overlarge cities, and that green belts are maintained around these cities. Already the Government has reluctantly had to agree to the location in London's green belt of a number of big housing estates for over 100,000, and if the new towns beyond the belt cannot be gotten ready to take houses and factories when more new building is possible, this outward expansion of London may well continue. 14. To get them into a state of readiness, the new towns require in varying degrees preparatory work on the provision of water, sewerage, roads, and rail transport. They are necessarily sited in areas where civil engineering and building labor is scarce. Nevertheless, if they are not allowed to make a start they will always be at a disadvantage and their purpose may be defeated. Fortunately, in order to make a start the new towns need a comparatively small labor force for their essential preliminary site-preparation work. In no circumstances could any of them usefully have employed a very large labor force during 1948, and given a small force during the next 12 to 18 months they can make a start which will enable them to take some houses and factories in 1949 if the general state of the building program makes that feasible. 15. The Government has accordingly decided:

(1) New towns designed to serve immediate industrial needs or mining areas should go ahead within the limits of the housing program.

(2) Work on new towns designed to provide for industry and population decentralized from overcrowded cities should be in general limited during 1949 to starting the provision of water and sewerage and roads and should use not more than an average of 300 workers. Provision will be made for the essential preliminary development work, and the detailed arrangements to secure this end will be worked out between the planning and health departments.

Mr. TALLE. Now, I should like to make three points.

First, this document shows that since the middle of 1945-and please remember, VE-day was the 8th of May 1945, and the middle of 1945 was awfully close to VJ-day-since the middle of 1945, 149,000 permanent houses have been started and finished. Please note that figure-149,000.

Point 2: At the present time, according to this document, 260,000 new permanent houses are under construction. How does that square with your statement about a "very bold and far-sighted program"? Point 3: Great Britain expects to complete 140,000 of these units by the middle of 1949.

Those are three points which I think we should take into account. And I would like to add that when private enterprise did get a chance, last year, after the 30th of June, when controls were taken off and private enterprise proceeded to operate fairly freely, we established in our country a record of something over 860,000 housing units, which is a pretty good record as against Great Britain's when you consider our late start. Not since 1925 had so many units been built in any one year.

So much for that.

Now, one other question. Are you familiar with the heating apparatus in British homes?

Mr. STERN. I am not familiar with them, but I know the traditional methods in England. They do not heat as well as we do. They are not as fully developed in their methods.

Mr. TALLE. Have you ever been in a British house that had central heating?

Mr. STERN. No; I do not think I ever have.

Mr. TALLE. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Colloms.

STATEMENT OF ALBERT L. COLLOMS, ON BEHALF OF THE WALLACE FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE

Mr. COLLOMS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the following is a statement with a summary of the Wallace for President Committee recommended amendments to the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill as passed by the Senate:

The Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill has been kicking around in Congress since 1945. No affiramative action has been taken by Congress on the bill, the provisions of which were only partially adequate at the time of its original introduction. Since that time the housing crisis has grown and the situation has worsened considerably. The provisions which remain in the low-rent public housing portion of the bill and the farm-aid portion of the bill are pitifully inadequate.

The amendments which the Wallace for President Committee proposes attempt in some measure to correct these inadequacies. Toward achieving this, the committee suggests the following main points designed to strengthen some of the provisions of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill.

Particularly, it is recommended on behalf of the Wallace for President Committee that the amount of public housing provided for in the present bill be increased at least five times. They also recommend that the changed cost limitations in the present bill be revised upward to correspond with currently increased building construction costs. The third major recommendation is that the appropriation for farm construction loans be increased at least three times.

This is

considered necessary because the $250,000,000 provided in the original measure to be loaned over a period of 5 years is inadequate in view of the serious deterioration of a large percentage of farm dwellings. A new section providing for housing for migratory farm workers is recommended.

The fourth recommendation is that there shall be no discrimination, segregation, or limitation in the use of federally aided housing by reason of race, color, creed, political belief, religion or national origin. Attached to this statement are copies of the suggested amendments to accomplish the purposes set forth.

(1) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 866

Annual contributions authorization, section 605 is amended by striking the figure "$32,000,000" wherever it appears in that section, and substituting therefor, "160,000,000" and further amended by striking the clause beginning "Provided" and ending with "Congress." This proposed amendment would increase the annual contributions for subsidies fivefold and would delete all reference to the total number of units to be erected with the assistance of these subsidies.

Such deletion would permit construction of at least five times the amount of housing contemplated in the current bill, and, if economies can be effected, would result in the construction of more than 2,500,000 low-rent units over a period of 5 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Does the Wallace for President Committee recommend that public housing provided under the present bill be increased at least five times?

Mr. COLLOMS. That is correct, sir. We believe that by increasing the annual contributions five times there is a possibility that more than five times the amount of housing may be obtained. The reason for that is that there may be some saving.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any analysis of the public housing and low-rent features of the pending bill and attempting to determine what the Government obligates itself for the construction of 100,000 units per year for the next 5 years?

Mr. COLLOMS. Yes, sir; I have.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand you, you would expand this program to include a total of 2,500,000 units.

Mr. COLLOMS. That is correct-in 5 years. Actually, we believe that is not sufficient, according to the figures shown at the present moment. There are approximately 3,500,000 homes needed to be built in the next 3 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Building Division, and according to any number of reports, both in the Senate Banking and Currency Committee

The CHAIRMAN. In what?

Mr. COLLOMS. In the Senate committee which studied this bill. The CHAIRMAN. Did you appear before that committee?

Mr. COLLOMS. No, I did not, sir-not on this bill. But I have read some of their reports.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you not appear before the committee? Mr. COLLOMS. Well, someone did appear for the Progressive Citizens of America. I did not appear before that committee.

The CHAIRMAN. When did they appear?

Mr. STERN. I do not recall the date, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. They did not appear this year.

Mr. BUCHANAN. The hearings were open only to Government wit

nesses.

The CHAIRMAN. You did not appear this year?

Mr. COLLOMS. No: I did not.

The CHAIRMAN. Why didn't you?

Mr. COLLOMS. In 1945, when the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill came up, I was working for the Federal Government and I do not think I would have been able to get annual leave, and I do not think I would have been proper for me to appear, although I was engaged in housing. The CHAIRMAN. When I say "you" I mean the Wallace for President Committee.

Mr. COLLOMS. The Progressive Citizens of America was before the Senate Committee in 1945, I believe.

The CHAIRMAN. That was not the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, how

ever.

Mr. COLLOMS. That is correct, sir.

(2) THE SECOND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 866

Cost limits, section 603, to be amended as follows:

The first sentence of section 15 (5) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended is hereby amended to read as follows: "No contract for any loan, annual contribution, or capital grant made pursuant to this act shall be entered into by the Authority with respect to any low-rent housing project completed after January 1, 1948, having a cost for construction and equipment (excluding land, demolition, and nondwelling facilities) which exceeds an amount per room arrived at by multiplying the sum of $1,000 by the current index of construction costs as issued by the Department of Labor on the base 1935-39 equals 100 percent. Furthermore, in any city or metropolitan district, as defined by the Bureau of the Census, the population of which exceeds 500,000, and in Alaska, the maximum cost limitation as defined above may be increased by 25 percent (100 percent in the case of Alaska), if, in the opinion of the Authority, such higher cost per room is justified by reason of higher costs of labor and materials and other construction costs. Provided

This change retains the low-cost construction limits contained in the original act, although changing them into terms of percentages. However, it adds a formula which will permit higher building cost limitation in the event that construction costs increase.

The bill as passed by the Senate provided for only a 25 percent increase in construction costs over those permitted in 1937. While this modest increase might have been sufficient in 1945, when the bill was first introduced, it is totally inadequate today when actual construction costs have risen over 100 percent over those prevalent in the 1930's. The CHAIRMAN. Under the Senate bill 100,000 homes for 5 years for a total of 500,000 units obligates the Federal Government for something over $6,000,000,000. You would advocate that that be expanded to something over $30,000,000,000?

Mr. COLLOMS. That is correct, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you also advocate that the American Legion Homestead Act be passed?

Mr. COLLOMS. We have taken the position that the American Legion Homestead Act bill is a good bill and should be used in addition to the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me call your attention to this fact and see if still answer in the affirmative.

75674-48-41

you

The two bills together, according to your suggested plan, and as now written, would involve about $41,000,000,000. Do you advocate that this Congress obligate itself to the extent of $41,000,000,000?

Mr. COLLOMS. Well, there are some features of the homestead bill which we believe are not sound economically or-I cannot say architectually, because the draftsmanship of the bill is all right-but I mean from the point of view of builders. I do not think that bill is a good bill in some parts.

The CHAIRMAN. Regardless of that, you are asking this committee to expand this program so that we would commit ourselves to something over $30,000,000,000?

Mr. COLLOMS. That is correct.

The amount which is now suggested as a limitation-$1,250 per room and $1,500 per room-is grossly inadequate. I do not think you could get one house put up today anywhere in the country at that figure-not from the figures we have seen of cost of construction in this country.

Mr. SMITH. This bill allows another $250.

Mr. COLLOMS. It might. We do not know. As a matter of fact, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that there should be a sudden drop in building costs-for which we all hope. If that were to take place, then you would get a construction cost of less than $1,000 in rural areas and less than $1,500 in New York City and the larger cities of over 500,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Has your committee any program for the reduction of costs with respect to the building of housing units?

Mr. COLLOMS. Yes; we have. We are not proposing it here. I think it is price controls and allocations-price controls and allocations, sir. We are not proposing it at this time, though.

The CHAIRMAN. If you could not get private industry to build houses with price controls and allocations, which was our experience in 1946, how would you take care of the difference in cost-by subsidies?

Mr. COLLOMS. That might be required.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any estimate as to the amount that might be required for subsidies?

Mr. COLLOMS. No, sir; we have not gone into that up to this time. We believe it might be necessary to make such study and to make necessary allocations of funds. But we have not prepared any figures on that at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Proceed.
Mr. COLLOMS:

(3) THE THIRD PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO S. 866

Farm housing and assistance:

Section 702 (a) is amended by striking the words "4 per centum" and substituting in its place one-half per centum more than the Federal going rate of interest, which means the annual rate of interest specified in the most recently issued bonds of the Federal Government having maturity of 20 years or more, determined at the date the loan is made.

Since these loans are made to people who are in need, 4 percent is a high rate of interest for them, and we feel that the Government