as well as amending certain sections of the Lanham Act so as to include the Korean veterans.

But through some unfortunate oversight we did not get in the necessary amendment to title V of the Lanham Act, and this section 2 (b) (6) of the bill now before you is to correct that oversight.

Mr. BOGGS. Does this apply to Korean veterans only, this extension of authority?

Mr. AMIS. Yes. Not in the sense that they have to be actually at the scene of hostilities in the Korean area, but they would be members of the Armed Forces during the period since June 26, 1950, until such date as the President might determine.

Mr. BOGGS. But you have the authority already for all other veterans' preferences?

Mr. AMIS. Veterans of World War II only. That is for admission to this Lanham Act housing.

Mr. BOGGS. That is a controversial point, I think, because up in my own particular district, around Wilmington, Del., we have some temporary war housing. We have a housing problem, generally speaking, and we are trying to get rid of some of the so-called slum areas in the city. When you try to get rid of the slum areas, you have to have some place for the folks to live until we get another place built for them.

All of the accommodations in the temporary housing there are not taken, as I understand.

Mr. AMIS. In some cases.

Mr. BOGGS. But a person who is not a veteran of World War II cannot get in there. Is that not right?

Mr. AMIS. He would not be eligible for admission to these temporary houses; that is correct.

Mr. BOGGS. And a lot of those doors are closed and barred up, with a housing shortage in the community. Is that not a fact? And the two Senators from Delaware and myself and others have been trying to get just a temporary authority to let somebody go in there for a little while until you get by this squeeze period, and that has been through your regional office. I know I have written, I think, letters here in Washington: and I do not know what all has been done about it, and I do not believe they ever did reach a decision about it. I imagine that you have that situation all over the country; do you not? Mr. AMIS. We have it in a number of cases, Mr. Boggs.

Mr. Boggs. It does seem ridiculous, as a matter of fact, to have accommodations barred up and nobody can get in there, and you have families living in a coalyard or some place.

Mr. AMIS. As we construe the law, the only real authority we have to continue the use of the temporary war housing is, first, for defense workers; and then for veterans of World War II. Now, when World War II ends, then we could continue to make it available to veterans of that war, but veterans or servicemen who could not tie their service into the period of the war, World War II, would not be eligible, and this is to give them that eligibility.

Mr. BOGGS. I understand that. But, for example, up in my district, at least at the present time-I do not know how many there will be at the time the show is over-there really are not too many veterans of the Korean war. Not very many of them have gotten out. Quite a

few have gotten in, I will admit. But there is not any way to permit the use of these facilities without hurting the veterans' right there if there are not veterans to take them.

In other words, you just bar them up; close them up. It is a ri diculous situation. It seems to me somebody could make some exception along the line to take care of these hardship cases, and I assure you they are just of a temporary nature.

Mr. AMIS. There may be a way, Mr. Boggs.

Mr. BOGGS. I would hate to see this authority continued unless there is some kind of exception put in there to meet this situation and use facilities that are available in many of these communities.

Mr. AMIS. Let me give you what may work out in that respect, because I would hate to have you deny this amendment, because we are not making these temporary houses available to others than veterans and servicemen.

Under Public Law 475, approved on April 20, 1950, we were authorized to give away these temporary houses if the locality would request them that is, the city or county-provided they would buy the land from us on which they were located at the cost to the Government. In July 1950, because of the Korean conflict, the President put a freeze order on that give-away, and we have not lifted that yet, although we are in negotiations with the Defense Department to get their clearance on the entire inventory of temporary housing so that we may proceed with that method of relinquishment or give-away to the localities. We hope to do that sometime in the near future.

Mr. BOGGS. I appreciate that, and that is good, I think, if something can be worked out there. But in many of these instances, where you have this temporary housing, the land is not owned by the Federal Government. The land is leased from a private person for the duration.

Mr. AMIS. That is the next subject matter.

Mr. BOGGS. At least for the duration it has entailed all this time, and sometime or other they have got to go into Federal court and have a jury assess the claims and damages to see how much the Government is going to owe them for all this time.

Mr. AMIS. They have generally been on that temporary use, Mr. Boggs. We have been paying annually a rental on that.

Mr. Boggs. In at least one instance in Wilmington it is the other way around.

Mr. AMIS. They have doubtless there condemned the fee title and just have not got around to a final hearing in the courts on it.

Mr. BOGGS. I know that it is involved some way or other there, so that it would take quite a period of time no doubt to get it straightened out, and then the owner of the property from whom the Government leased it or condemned it under this condemnation proceeding wants to get the area back, for example, and tear down this temporary housing, which is certainly only temporary, and build a low-cost housing settlement in the area.

He has been trying to do that for the past 2 or 3 years, and he cannot do that. There are a couple of very able attorneys in Wilmington, Del., who have been trying to get the thing straightened out for him.

I am just mentioning these questions because I happen to be familiar with that situation that exists there, and it probably exists in other

places in the United States. I am just wondering if we are trying to make our facilities go as far as they will go in trying to get some of these things to a conclusion where we can start out on a somewhat substantial basis.

Mr. AMIS. We have, of course, Mr. Boggs, some problems of that kind. I will not say that they are not numerous, nor I do not want to minimize them. But I do not believe that they are involved in this particular matter here. This is only to accord to certain veterans and servicemen rights which we have granted them in respect to all other housing in which the Government is interested, either as owner or operator or as banker.

Mr. BOGGS. I am in complete accord with giving the veteran a preference. There is no question about that. But I do not believe I have ever met a veteran who thinks that the preference should continue to such an extent or a period where the veteran has had a chance to look it over and decide he does not need it, that everybody else should be excluded.

That is my main point, and that is what happens in these cases; is it not?

Mr. AMIS. Yes. ·

Mr. BURRUS. Mr. Boggs, as I understand it, this situation that you describe, which is the nonuse of these facilities, would actually be helped if only to a very small extent, by the continuation of this act. If we did not continue this provision, you would probably be in a little worse position.

Mr. BOGGS. This would enlarge the number of people who could go in there.

Mr. BURRUS. It is a very small help, but I just wanted to point out not passing it would not help you.

Mr. PICKETT. You mentioned Public Law 214 of the Eighty-second Congress, made effective October 26, 1951; and in that connection I understood you to say that the legislation then effective took care of the rights of these people in every respect except under title V of the Lanham Act; is that correct?

Mr. AMIS. That is my understanding of it, that we granted by Public Law 214 to the Korean veterans all of the rights in respect to housing legislation that were granted to veterans of World War II, except the right to occupy this Lanham Act housing.

I frankly admit that was a pure oversight, and we are now wanting to correct it.

Mr. PICKETT. We are dealing, then, in this subject here only with title V of the Lanham Act with regard to Lanham Act housing, is that right?

Mr. AMIS. Yes, sir; that is right.

Mr. PICKETT. And the reason we are having to deal with it at all is that there was some oversight in writing Public Law 214 that did not include that in it?

Mr. AMIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. How many units are involved?

Mr. AMIS. Let me make it clear, Mr. Pickett, when we say title V housing, we use that in probably two senses, which I had better distinguish here. In one sense we refer to title V housing as being the housing that was built after VJ-day out of an appropriation, I

believe, of $442,000,000 made by the Congress in two or three bites in the latter part of 1945 and the early part of 1946.

Most of that housing has already been transferred to the local governmental agencies under Public Law 475 of the Eighty-first Congress, and also transferred to educational institutions under what we know as the McGregor Act, which I believe was passed in 1949. Because most of that was on land owned or controlled by the local communities or educational institutions, that is not involved. But title V of the Lanham Act also made veterans of World War II eligible for occupancy in the housing constructed by the Government under title I of the Lanham Act, both permanent and temporary housing; and now the total involved in that is this.

These figures are as of December 31

Mr. PICKETT. In other words, it is under item 2 you just referred to then that we are affected by this provision we are dealing with? Mr. AMIS. In the main, yes. It is eligibility in the housing constructed under title I of the Lanham Act, but the eligibility is granted by title V.

We had as of December 31, 1951, 155,432 units of temporary Lanham housing; and 116,226 units of permanent housing. So that is the amount of housing involved.

Mr. PICKETT. Is it all occupied?

Mr. AMIS. 88.5 percent of the temporaries were occupied, and 99.3 percent of the permanents were occupied.

Mr. PICKETT. Then approximately 12 percent of the whole total, temporary and permanent, was unoccupied at the date those figures were drawn up.

Mr. AMIS. No, sir; 12 percent of the temporary, which is a little over half of the total, was unoccupied; and less than 1 percent of the permanent was vacant. It would average about 6 percent vacancy over-all, but that is not the measure of the problem, Mr. Pickett, because there is a steady turn-over.

That was the measure of the actual vacancies as of a specific date. I would not undertake to estimate what the rate of turn-over is, but it is considerable.

Mr. PICKETT. What would it take, then, to correct this situation permanently under an amendment to Public Law 214, Eighty-second Congress?

Mr. AMIS. It would simply mean that we would have to go back before another committee. We could amend Public Law 214, but it would accomplish probably only what this present pending legislation would accomplish, because in Public Law 214 we simply defined servicemen and veterans to include not only those who served in World War II, but those who served on or after June 27, 1950, and prior to such date thereafter as shall be determined by the President. I believe that is the language of the pending bill.

Mr. PICKETT. Would the termination date under your Public Law 214, if properly amended, be any sooner or any later than it would be under this provision we are dealing with?

Mr. AMIS. No, sir, that is not the problem. It would be the same date. The only problem is that Public Law 214 does not refer to title V of the Lanham Act.

Mr. PICKETT. That is your oversight, is it not, Mr. Amis?
Mr. AMIS. That was the oversight.

What will it

Mr. PICKETT. That is what I am trying to find out. take to correct the oversight in your permanent legislation?

Mr. AMIS. It would just take an amendment to Public Law 214, and that could be done.

Mr. PICKETT. The termination date would be the same and would apply to the same people either through legislation by this committee or through permanent legislation?

Mr. AMIS. Yes, sir.

Mr. PICKETT. If I understand you, the rights and entitlements of all veterans of World War II as of today are already established. Mr. AMIS. That is already established; yes sir.

Mr. PICKETT. It will not be terminated by the termination of the state of war between the United States and Japan, will it?

Mr. AMIS. Yes, sir, that is our understanding, that as soon as the Japanese Treaty is ratified, becomes effective, that is, World War II is ended, any man who served in the military services subsequent to Pearl Harbor and prior to the ratification of the Japanese Treaty would be eligible to be admitted at a later date, even after the ratification.

Mr. PICKETT. In other words, as long as there is any right for anybody who is a veteran to occupy either the permanent or temporary housing that we are dealing with here, his entitlement has already accrued?

Mr. AMIS. That has already accrued, and this would benefit only some person who entered the service after the ratification of the Japanese Treaty.

Mr. PICKETT. We do not know how many that will be?

Mr. AMIS. We do not know.

Mr. PICKETT. Those already in service today as a result of the Korean conflict have established their entitlement, and when they become veterans they will be entitled to occupy this housing?

Mr. AMIS. That is correct.

Mr. PICKETT. Then we are dealing with an indeterminate number of persons.

Mr. AMIS. Probably a very small number of persons, but a very large number of houses.

Mr. PICKETT. And an indefinite termination date.

Mr. AMIS. Correct.

Mr. PICKETT. What is the effect, Mr. Amis, if we just decline to include this proposal in this legislation? How many people does it affect and hurt or injure, or help; and how many houses does it affect, and what injury or assistance is it to the program if we decline to include this in the bill?

Mr. AMIS. I would say certainly that it is a very indeterminate number because, as you say, those who are already in the service and those who enter the service prior to the termination of the present war by the ratification of the Japanese Treaty will have established their rights; and therefore we do not know how many it would benefit. In respect to Public Law 214, there were other amendments, other statutes amended there, that necessitated that. As an excellent illustration, it amended the United States Housing Act which limited the preferences to veterans there to those who served in World War I and World War II; and it defined World War II for the purpose of that statute as ending on July 26, 1947.