cleared, and it would be sold or leased to builders who would erect low-cost multiple housing units which would comply with city specifications. This is precisely where such legislation as that which is now being considered by this committee is needed, because without such legislation the project would be financially unattractive to private builders.

One group of Americans with which I am especially concerned and which has suffered greatly from the housing shortage is our veterans of World War II. Because they are the ones who, more than any other group, have insured the continuance of our Republic and our democratic form of government, I believe that they are entitled to raise their families in a healthy, decent environment.

The housing director of the St. Louis Veterans' Service Center has provided me with some interesting information. The Veterans' Service Center of St. Louis was established on January 1, 1946. Since that date, a total of 14,297 applications from World War II veterans have been received. During the same period, only 8,847 units have been registered with this office, and the vast majority of these accommodations are mere rooms or light housekeeping quarters. Of 126 listings received during last month, only 35 would accept children. Of this total, 119 units were furnished rooms. There has not been a single listing in more than 5 months which contained a private bath. In other words, the housing director of the veterans' service center has been unable to provide a single veteran with an apartment or a flat during 1948.

Information obtained from the housing director shows that with regard to newly constructed apartments and flats, the practice in St. Louis is to demand a 2-year lease, with the last 6 months' rental paid in advance. In many instances, landlords require the tenants' employers to act as cosigners of the lease, thereby making the employer liable in the event the tenant is unable to fulfill the requirements of the lease. The situation is growing worse rather than better with regard to veterans. In St. Louis, GI evictions under the new rent control act are 20 percent higher than they were at this time last year.

I am authorized by the Honorable Aloys P. Kauffman, mayor of the city of St. Louis, to state on his behalf that he has made a detailed study of the housing situation, and that he is unequivocally in favor of passage of S. 866 in its present form.

In conclusion, may I state that I appreciate having had the opportunity of testifying before this committee. Once again, may I urge with all the vigor of which I am capable, that the committee take favorable action on this bill.

Mr. BLAKEWELL. Frankly, gentlemen, I am not concerned with the arguments which state that this is socialism. I think we have a realistic condition in this country which we should face, and that is a critical housing shortage.

Why do we have this housing shortage? It is obvious that for about 10 years prior to the war we were suffering from a very severe depression, during which time there was a very low level of construction. Thereafter we had war years in which there was virtually no private home dwelling construction, and, since the termination of the war, it is obvious that private industry has not been able to meet this critical shortage, this critical demand for housing.

In a situation such as this I think the Federal Government should very definitely meet with private industry in a happy participation of Government and private industry to alleviate a critical condition.

I am particularly impressed by the report of the Joint Committee on Housing, with which all of you gentlemen are familiar, and I will therefore not allude to the particular items of it. However, it is my deduction, after reading the conclusions of that Joint Congressional Committee on Housing, that it showed, on its face, that private industry, unaided by Government assistance, could not solve the slum clearance problem and the problem of substandard housing.

The reason is obvious. With the cost of materials, labor, and transportation charges as high as they are today, no private industry or corporation can undertake to erect a large multiple housing unit

and still obtain a fair return on the investment except by charging rentals which are far in excess of the ability to pay by persons living in those areas.

I think this situation puts the young veteran, who has a modest income, in a difficult situation. The only thing that venture capital is attracted to today is construction from which it will get a substantially large yield. It is not going to get that from the multipledwelling units which will provide accommodations for the persons with modest income.

Investment capital, naturally, goes to the more costly housing units, where, as a result of high rents, it can be expected that the original indebtedness will be paid off and a fair return can be given to investors.

I think it was particularly significant that in this report of the Joint Congressional Committee on Housing more than half of the leaders in the private home building and financing field responded to a questionnaire concurring in the belief that private industry alone could not meet this need.

May I allude for a few minutes to the situation which exists in St. Louis, where my district is located. A United States Public Health survey found that 24.8 percent of St. Louis housholds had more than one person per room. Conditions, of course, are growing worse. Between 1940 and 1946 only 6,170 new dwelling units were built in St. Louis, and, in the same period, 3,203 units were razed, making a net gain of only 2,967 new homes.

During the same period the population of the city of St. Louis increased about 85,000. To keep pace with the population increase there should have been built 17,000 new dwelling units and even these figures ignore the number of units which, during this period, have slipped from habitable to obsolescent.

I noticed an article in Time magazine just last week to the effect that there were less permits issued for new construction in St. Louis than in any city of over 500,000 population in the country. I can assure you that it is a critical problem in our urban area of Missouri.

As a veteran myself, and a member of the Veterans' Committee, I am particularly concerned with the veterans' problem. The Veterans' Service Center for St. Louis was established on January 1, 1946. Since that date a total of 14,297 applications from World War II veterans have been received. During the same period, only 8,847 units have been registered with this office, and the vast majority of these accommodations are mere rooms or light housekeeping quarters.

This is right up to date. Of 126 listings received during last month, only 35 would accept children, and out of this total, 119 units were furnished rooms. There has not been a single listing in more than 5 months which contained a private bath. In other words, the housing director of the veterans' service center has been unable to provide a single veteran with an apartment or a flat during 1948.

Gentlemen, I think these conditions are compelling.

Information obtained from the housing director shows that, with regard to the newly constructed apartments and flats, the practice in St. Louis is to demand a 2-year lease, with the last 6 months rental paid in advance. In many instances, landlords require the tenants' employers to act as cosigners of the lease, thereby making the employer liable in the event the tenant is unable to fulfill the requirements of

the lease.

The situation, gentlemen, is growing worse rather than better. I am authorized by the mayor of St. Louis, Aloys P. Kauffman, to state, on his behalf, that he has made a detailed study of the housing situation and that he is unequivocably in favor of passage of Senate bill 866 in its present form.

Gentlemen, I appreciate very much the opportunity of appearing before you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bakewell.

Are there any questions of Congressman Bakewell?

If not, thank you very much, Congressman.

Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. Chairman, while we are waiting for the next witness I wonder if I could ask a question with regard to committee plans and procedure on the bill? Could we agree on a date on which we will close the hearings and go into executive session for the consideration of this bill?

In other words, if we have a target date on which we are going to close the hearings, then we can work toward that date and the members can be advised to be on hand when the final bill is being drafted for presentation to the House.

The CHAIRMAN. There will be ample notice to the members as to when we will go into executive session on the bill.

We have to get along here. We are having a terrific time in scheduling witnesses. We are reducing the witnesses to the irreducible wit nesses. There are something like 60 people who wanted to be heard on this bill. There have been no hearings on this bill in the Senate. to speak of. The witnesses have come to me and have come to the clerk and have complained that in the Senate they had no opportunity to be heard, either for or against the bill, and have stated that they wanted an opportunity to be heard on the bill in this committee.

We have cut out all of the cumulative evidence that we possibly could cut out. We have had two mayors. We notified the association of mayors that if they would send a representative down we would be glad to have him. There are a lot of mayors whom we have not been

able to hear.

The veterans' organizations, of course, could not get together-as they do in the cities and counties-as a council, and for that reason we have had to hear all of the veterans' organizations.

As to the women's organizations and other national organizations, we have not heard all of them. We have not been able to hear all of them.

I think there is only one more organization which wants to testify for the bill. But we have got to give the opposition a reasonable length of time. I would suggest that we go ahead for 2 or 3 days and see what we come up with before we set a definite date.

I think both sides should be given an opportunity to be heard on this bill. I do not think that at the present time we can set a definite date for the closing of the hearings and go into executive session. But I will say this: I think we should, in all fairness to the opposition, if we are not going to report out this bill, give them notice soon enough so that those who desire to get a petition to discharge the bill will have a reasonable opportunity to do so.

Mr. MONRONEY. The committee itself, however, will have an opportunity to vote on whether we desire to report a bill or not, in executive

75674-48 45

session, before the time has run out, before it will be impossible to place it on the calendar.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not in a position to state at this moment what the procedure is going to be because I do not know myself.

Mr. SPENCE. How many witnesses have indicated that they would like to be heard in opposition to the bill?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, they are scheduled up through the first week in June.

Mr. MONRONEY. Could we not shorten that by having night sessions? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; and we can meet earlier in the morning, if you wish. We cannot meet while the House is in session. We cannot obtain unanimous consent to meet while the House is in session.

Mr. MONRONEY. How about starting at 9 o'clock in the morning? The CHAIRMAN. If you would be here I would be here. But we usually have to wait around until a quarter of 10 until we have a quorum. As to these afternoon sessions, I will be very honest with you: I am getting very tired of the fact of having these afternoon sessions and staying here until 5 or 5:30. Most of the members leave around 4 o'clock to sign their mail. It leaves about three of us here all afternoon. I just do not intend to do it any more. If the committee wants afternoon sessions, or early morning sessions, we are going to insist that there be a quorum present because I do not think it is fair to those of us who think we have to be here to sit as a sort of a subcommittee and listen to this testimony.

There will be no more afternoon sessions scheduled which will extend beyond 4 o'clock, unless there are enough members here to make it look as though the committee is in session. Twice now we have had afternoon sessions where three of us have stayed around until after 5 o'clock.

Mr. MONRONEY. How many witnesses do we have to be heard? I understand a great many of the proponents who were scheduled as witnesses have yielded their time and have merely submitted

statements.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. We have reduced our schedule to an irreducible minimum. We have two and a half weeks on these hearings up to this time and we have not yet had any opposition testimony. But we have to give the associations which are vitally interested in this bill an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, with regard to meeting at 9 o'clock in the morning and having night sessions I want to say that I work 16 hours a day. From my observation of the interest which has been shown in this bill and in these hearings, it seems to me that there would be no occasion for holding night sessions or for meeting early in the morning.

We are coming to the point when the House is going to be in session probably at 10 o'clock in the morning-certainly some days of the week. I think we have a duty and responsibility to be on the floor when the House is in session.

Therefore, I feel that the time we have already given to this subject, and the additional time which we will give to it, under the ordinary procedure of the committee, should be sufficient.

The CHAIRMAN. Here is a list of the witnesses. There were 69 on the list. We have had testimony and statements from 17, not including those heard of this morning.

We have on the list the Disabled Veterans; we have the Emergency Committee on Rent and Housing; we have the National Committee on Housing. Those, I assume would still be for the bill. They have been insisting that we give them an opportunity to be heard. The American Institute of Architects is for the bill and insists on being heard. The Progressive Citizens of America, likewise.

I think some of these we will not be able to hear. We cannot continue for ever to hear proponents for the bill. We have not had any testimony, as yet, from anybody on the rural provisions of the bill. The Grange, I understand, wishes to appear in opposition to the bill. The Farm Bureau Federation has already filed a statement in opposition to the bill. The American Bankers Association, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the National Plumber Manufacturers Association, the United States Savings and Loan League, the National Apartment Owners Association, the Prefabricated Homes Manufacturers Institute, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Real Estate Boards, the National Association of Home Builders, the Pacific Coast Building Association, the National Economic Council want to be heard. The Real Estate Board of Kansas City, also, but if the National Association of Real Estate Boards testifies, I do not think we should schedule any hearings for affiliated members.

A suggestion has also been made that we study the Baltimore plan. The Baltimore people want to be heard.

We have not had any testimony with respect to the changing of the interest rate on GI loans from the Veterans' Administration. We should have that.

We have not had anybody from the Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, with respect to what I consider a very important question.

I have made the statement that I thought this committee would have to determine, as a matter of basic policy, before we went anywhere on this bill, whether it was the primary responsibility of the Federal Government or of the States and municipalities to do this job. We should have some testimony on that feature.

If you can suggest where we can cut this list without being too arbitrary about it, I would be glad to have your suggestions.

Mr. MONRONEY. That is why I think you are going to have to increase the amount of hearing time that you have, if you are going to hope to get this out by next December.

The CHAIRMAN. We were up against a dead line on the Decontrol Act, and I thought we would set aside 1 day last week. As it turned out, we were on that for 3 days. We finally got that out of the way. Otherwise we could have continued these hearings last week.

There are one or two other bills that we have to report out before we adjourn.

Mr. SPENCE. Has the leadership set a definite date for adjournment?

The CHAIRMAN. Not officially. Of course the drive is to adjourn or recess on the 18th or 19th of June.

Mr. MONRONEY. Would not an orderly procedure be to fix a date for the closing of these hearings and allow the proponents and opponents of the bill to merge their testimony somewhat against the