cels as in Wilmington, where we have the use of the land and Tom Herlihy up there has been working with us, we will have to base the rental price on today's value rather than being able to continue on with the valuations established in 1940.

Out of the 10,000 parcels, I would say that 9,500 of the people are perfectly agreeable to continuing; but, if we go back to them and tell them we have to start all over again because our tenure has stopped, then they are going to say "Give us more.

There is nothing the substantive committee can do that will save that because in this particular case we have leased a piece of property or have condemned the use, and our term is determined by the ending of the emergency, just like you take a life estate in property; your term ends when you die. Nothing that a committee can do will save it.

What we are trying to do is to say that this emergency is continuing to exist. We have got the courts to recognize it in two recent cases. Thereby we continue and save the condemnation proceedings now in existence without going back and starting all over again.

Mr. BOGGS. I understand that, and I thank you for bringing it out that way. But now this man that owns property who is stuck with the 1940 standard, and everything else has gone up, has a big argument there, too.

Mr. GROVE. Congress has already taken care of that, Mr. Boggs, twice. In Public Law 475 it authorized us to voluntarily increase the amount of compensation in those awards to base it on 6 percent of the 1940 appraisal. The old awards usually went on 4 percent, with

taxes.

In Public Law 139, Senator Sparkman of his own volition, as I recall it, introduced an amendment on the floor or in committee which increased the awards in those cases on a voluntary basis upon request by the owner to double the 6 percent, or 12 percent on the 1940 valuation, plus taxes; so that we have taken care of those.

And, as the requests come in to the Department of Justice, it has become a routine matter. They are getting 12 percent on their old awards, and we are having no problems. We want to keep that, and we do not want to start them over again.

Mr. AMIS. Let me interject one more point here, Mr. Boggs. There would be no advantage in going back to the substantive committee because Public Law 475 already gives us full power to institute new condemnations, if that is all we wanted. But to do that on 10,143 parcels that we have temporarily for use, and 625 parcels that are still pending on condemnations of the fee, or 10,700 parcels, the administrative expense of dismissing the pending suits and filing new ones and making new title searches down to the present would just run into millions of dollars of just wasted money for red tape, just writing a lot of papers that there is no occasion for.

Mr. BOGGS. I can see that problem, sir. If I may say just this: When that new authority was given to you to start new proceedings, it was contemplated at that time that all of these we are envisioning in our mind were going to be ended. Is that right?

Mr. AMIS. Yes, and the new authority was requested primarily for the purpose of enabling us to convert some of these temporary uses to condemnations of the fee, because under the terms of the temporary uses we are required to restore the land to its original condition when we turn it back; and in many cases that is going to cost us more than

bill to give preference in the occupancy of temporary Lanham Act housing to veterans of World War I, and alternative language which would extend this preference also to veterans of the Spanish-American War. The subcommittee also requested this Agency's comments and recommendations with regard to the extension of eligibility to veterans beyond those of World War II and the Korean conflict, as the present draft of the bill proposes.

In compliance with that request, I am submitting herewith a list of the Lanham Act housing projects which have been reactivated, the list giving the location of the project, the defense installation to be served by the reactivated project, and the cost of the reactivation. It is to be noted that in a number of instances the cost is indicated as nominal. This means that any repair or maintenance work which was required to be done could be and was taken care of out of the annual operating budget as a normal and ordinary maintenance and operational cost.

I am also enclosing a draft of alternative language requested which would, if enacted, extend eligibility to veterans other than those of World War II and the Korean conflict. This Agency would not recommend the enactment of such legislation. The temporary housing involved, under the terms of the basic legislation, is required to be removed and disposed of when its need for defense purposes and to care for the veteran of World War II is ended. The Congress, in passing Public Law 475 of the Eighty-first Congress, has established a complete pattern of disposition, and in this pattern we concurred and had, until the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, made every effort to carry out the requirements of the law. The coming of the Korean conflict, of course, made it necessary that we reexamine the defense-housing needs of the country to the end that the Federal Government not have to expend additional funds to replace those facilities which it had just disposed of. As the veterans of the Korean conflict will, like those of World War II, have to reestablish themselves in civilian life, and as they and their families will be urgently in need of accommodations, we believe it appropriate that during any continuance of this temporary housing these veterans be made eligible.

So far as the veterans of World War I or previous wars are concerned, it has been our position that they have already established their homes and have not recently undergone the same disruption as have the more recent members of the Armed Forces. If eligibility in this temporary housing is extended beyond the present-day veterans, it will become more difficult for the Federal Government to ever rid itself of its obligation in regard to this housing or to remove it as required by the law in those instances where the municipalities fail or refuse to take it over.

We have in the past few months attempted to firm up with the Armed Forces their future needs in regard to this temporary housing to the end that we may again proceed with disposition in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 475. When and as this disposition takes place, the several localities acquiring it can through local determinations extend the privileges of occupancy to other than World War II or Korean veterans where vacancies remain after complying with the priority extended to these veterans.

Much of this temporary housing which was below normal city standards when constructed has deteriorated to the extent that it is most necessary that its use be terminated at the earliest possible date. This is an addiional reason for our reluctance to see any extension of its use beyond that necessary to meet defense needs or the hardship cases of recently returned veterans. If, however, it is the considered judgment of the Congress that these other classes of veterans should be made eligible, the language submitted will accomplish the intended purpose.

In view of your subcommittee's request for an early reply, this letter is being sent to you prior to clearance with the Bureau of the Budget.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures.

RAYMOND M. FOLEY,

Administrator.

Mr. PICKETT. Have you concluded the reactivation of any of these heretofore closed-up projects since July 1, 1950?

Mr. AMIS. I think yes.

Mr. PICKETT. How many?

Mr. AMIS. Probably that six or eight Mr. Grove mentioned.
Mr. PICKETT. You have already reactivated them?

Mr. GROVE. That is right.

Mr. PICKETT. Then do you have in the process now of reactivation any that you have not already completed reactivation on since July 1, 1950?

Mr. GROVE. There are some that the Army, Navy, and Air Force have requested. I do not believe there are any actually where there are physical changes presently being made.

Mr. PICKETT. Would you furnish the figures for the purpose of the record as to how many, then, have been requested and, if you have initiated the reactivation of any of them, just how many of them.

(NOTE. This information shown at conclusion of oral testimony of Mr. Amis.) Mr. PICKETT. Can you tell me at this time what has been the cost to the Federal Government of the reactivation of the six or eight that you have already completed the work on, and the estimated cost of any of those that you are in the process of reactivating or your estimated cost of any of those that you have been requested to reactivate?

I presume that would include, also, gentlemen, not only repairs to the actual building structure but, in view of the "community facilities" feature of it, it would be a renovation of sewer lines, water lines, and other service lines that are required.

Mr. AMIS. Anything that constitutes an essential part of the project. Mr. GROVE. As I understand it, Mr. Pickett, there have been none in the community services that was merely a stand-by program in order to allow them to pick up easements and other items that might have been expired while these facilities were continuing to be used. That is really the big problem that confronts us: that we have 155,000 actual units in use today, approximately, where we do not own the underlying lands.

If those leases terminate at the present time while the buildings are there and occupied, there will be chaos in trying to straighten it out. We have already had two law suits where properties have been returned to owners by courts inadvertently where we had to go back in and have the order set aside in order to preserve the Government's interest.

That is the thing I work with every day, and I am very much concerned about because I get the burden of it.

(The following information submitted for the record :)

HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE AGENCY,
Washington, D. C., April 1, 1952.

Re House Joint Resolution 386, Eighty-second Congress.

Hon. MICHAEL FEIGHAN,

Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, House Judiciary Committee,
House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN FEIGHAN: At the hearings held in connection with House Joint Resolution 386 on March 12, members of your subcommittee requested that this Agency furnish certain information concerning the reactivation of Lanham Act housing projects and language which could be included in the

bill to give preference in the occupancy of temporary Lanham Act housing to veterans of World War I, and alternative language which would extend this preference also to veterans of the Spanish-American War. The subcommittee also requested this Agency's comments and recommendations with regard to the extension of eligibility to veterans beyond those of World War II and the Korean conflict, as the present draft of the bill proposes.

In compliance with that request, I am submitting herewith a list of the Lanham Act housing projects which have been reactivated, the list giving the location of the project, the defense installation to be served by the reactivated project, and the cost of the reactivation. It is to be noted that in a number of instances the cost is indicated as nominal. This means that any repair or maintenance work which was required to be done could be and was taken care of out of the annual operating budget as a normal and ordinary maintenance and operational cost.

I am also enclosing a draft of alternative language requested which would, if enacted, extend eligibility to veterans other than those of World War II and the Korean conflict. This Agency would not recommend the enactment of such legislation. The temporary housing involved, under the terms of the basic legislation, is required to be removed and disposed of when its need for defense purposes and to care for the veteran of World War II is ended. The Congress, in passing Public Law 475 of the Eighty-first Congress, has established a complete pattern of disposition, and in this pattern we concurred and had, until the outbreak of hostilities in Korea, made every effort to carry out the requirements of the law. The coming of the Korean conflict, of course, made it necessary that we reexamine the defense-housing needs of the country to the end that the Federal Government not have to expend additional funds to replace those facilities which it had just disposed of. As the veterans of the Korean conflict will, like those of World War II, have to reestablish themselves in civilian life, and as they and their families will be urgently in need of accommodations, we believe it appropriate that during any continuance of this temporary housing these veterans be made eligible.

So far as the veterans of World War I or previous wars are concerned, it has been our position that they have already established their homes and have not recently undergone the same disruption as have the more recent members of the Armed Forces. If eligibility in this temporary housing is extended beyond the present-day veterans, it will become more difficult for the Federal Government to ever rid itself of its obligation in regard to this housing or to remove it as required by the law in those instances where the municipalities fail or refuse to take it over.

We have in the past few months attempted to firm up with the Armed Forces their future needs in regard to this temporary housing to the end that we may again proceed with disposition in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 475. When and as this disposition takes place, the several localities acquiring it can through local determinations extend the privileges of occupancy to other than World War II or Korean veterans where vacancies remain after complying with the priority extended to these veterans.

Much of this temporary housing which was below normal city standards when constructed has deteriorated to the extent that it is most necessary that its use be terminated at the earliest possible date. This is an addiional reason for our reluctance to see any extension of its use beyond that necessary to meet defense needs or the hardship cases of recently returned veterans. If, however, it is the considered judgment of the Congress that these other classes of veterans should be made eligible, the language submitted will accomplish the intended purpose.

In view of your subcommittee's request for an early reply, this letter is being sent to you prior to clearance with the Bureau of the Budget.

Sincerely yours,

Enclosures.

RAYMOND M. FOLEY,

Administrator.

98207-52-18

VA-44250, Portsmouth.

project

vated

Lanham Act projects reactivated and programed under Public Law 139

1 Nominal; less than $50 per unit. Work done as part of regular maintenance and included as part of annual budget.