from obtaining shelter in available low-rent housing projects because of the present restrictions governing eligibility for public housing. I believe that enactment of this bill will facilitate the provision of proper shelter for disaster victims while at the same time guard against abuse of the privilege by requiring certification of need by the Red Cross.

Mr. Chairman, the loss of life and property caused by the devastating floods which occurred in New England and other northeastern areas in 1955 points up the need for taking every possible step, not only to try to prevent such destruction in the future by means of floodcontrol measures, but to provide immediate help and assistance to disaster victims. Enactment of these bills will do much to alleviate the suffering of those made homeless my major disasters which may occur in the future. I respectfully urge your committee's favorable consideration of this legislation, which is of such vital importance to those of us who have experienced one of the worst major disasters. in recent history.

That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROWN. We are delighted to have your testimony. You have made a very good statement.

Mr. Clerk, call the next witness.

The CLERK. The next witness, Mr. Chairman, is the Honorable Joel T. Broyhill, of Virginia.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOEL T. BROYHILL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, I understand the features of H. R. 7526 have been included in the national-housing bill, H. R. 10157, and I would like to thank the chairman and committee members for this action. I hope you will be able to continue your favorable treatment, for it is of benefit to the citizens of Alexandria, Va., and to the Federal Government.

This legislation involves housing project No. VA 44131, administered by the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and situated in the heart of the city of Alexandria, Va. The purpose of the legislation is to authorize the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency to sell this project, at fair market value, to the city of Alexandria, Va., or to the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority.

The Housing and Home Finance Agency, acting through the Public Housing Administration, in whom title to the project is vested, and the Bureau of the Budget have approved this legislation.

The city of Alexandria, Va., and/or the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, which represents the city in housing matters, desire to purchase the property in order to assure its administration in coordination with the other housing projects now being operated by the authority within the community.

It is the plan of the city and the housing authority, if permitted to purchase this project, to continue to operate it throughout its useful life. At the end of the period of usefulness of the project the city and the housing authority desire to be in a position to determine the future utilization of the land involved in conformance with the city's master plan, whereas it now stands in violation of the zoning regula

tions. When this time arrives it is the intention to dispose of the property at its then fair market value to private enterprise for proper development in accordance with the master plan of the city.

Therefore, the adoption of this legislation, will permit the city of Alexandria to purchase and plan for the orderly use and disposition of this temporary housing project compatible with the best interests of the community.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that is all I have.

Mr. BROWN. Your views will be considered by the committee in executive session.

Are there any questions, gentlemen? If not, you may stand aside. Call the next witness, Mr. Clerk.

The CLERK. The next witness is the Honorable Arthur G. Klein, of New York.

STATEMENT OF HON. ARTHUR G. KLEIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, the Housing Amendments of 1956, embodied in H. R. 10157, make provisions for many important housing matters. Liberalization of home improvement loans and financing of multifamily housing projects; clarification and strengthening of the provisions for cooperative housing; expansion of financing provisions for local community development; the addition of 50,000 public housing units each year; increased funds for financing college housing and the provisions for adequate housing of elderly members of our population, all are noteworthy.

I do not believe, however, that we have discharged our responsibility for providing public housing under the measure as it now stands. Fifty-thousand units of public housing in 1957 and 1958 will not meet the needs of the ill-housed families and those displaced by slum clearance and redevelopment. Data from the 1950 census indicate that not less than 5 mililon units of American housing must be demolished, because of their dilapidated condition; and experts have estimated that we must provide upwards of 2 million new housing units per year in order to meet the needs of our rapidly growing population. If authorization for an adequate number of public housing units is not provided, we are handicapping community redevelopment as well as failing to provide adequate housing for the lower income groups in our population. Contrary to the belief of some members of the housing industry, and Congress, this would not interfere with private enterprise. The renewal of our urban centers, and the adequate housing of all of our population must be a cooperative job between industry and Government, if we are to achieve our goals.

It is my hope that out of these hearings will come the full realization of our responsibility to provide sufficient public housing; and adequate credit vehicles to permit the housing industry to do its job.

I have myself introduced a bill to amend the United States Housing Act of 1937 to authorize the admission of single persons to federally assisted low-rent housing projects.

I have submitted this bill because with the changing age group, there is a steady increase in the number of aged widows and widowers and other single people.

To deprive them of an opportunity to live in the public housing that takes the place of the slum buildings from which they have to remove is to confront them with special problems of readjustment and to add still another burden to the already heavy existing burdens that accompany old age. In many cases their difficulty in finding a lodging in the federally assisted low-rent housing projects means that they must live with a member of their family and add to already difficult home conditions.

Elementary considerations of human sympathy and decent respect for the difficulties and trials of old age justify prompt congressional passage of more adequate legislation.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Klein, your views are appreciated. Call the next witness, Mr. Clerk.

The CLERK. The next witness, Mr. Chairman is the Honorable Olin E. Teague, of Texas.

STATEMENT OF HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. TEAGUE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate very much being afforded this opportunity to speak in behalf of my bill, H. R. 10962. As you know, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs is concerned with the veterans' loan-guaranty program and there has been considerable discussion as to the impending termination date for the loan-guaranty program for World War II veterans, which is July 25, 1957. There has been a great deal of concern expressed as to the effect which the scheduled expiration date will have on the building and real-estate industries and the Nation's economy.

I would like to read some extracts of statements made by Members of Congress and spokesmen for the building, lending, and real-estate industries regarding the effect of the scheduled termination date for the loan-guaranty program for World War II veterans. [Reading:]

Hon. Albert Rains, chairman, Subcommittee on Housing, House Committee on Banking and Currency, extension of remarks, April 27, 1956:

***the termination of the GI program at this time will have an unusually severe impact on the home-building industry and upon the overall economy. *** ***** "The extent of the blow may be readily seen in the housing figures for 1955, 'Haverstick continued. 'New GI housing accounted for at least 400,000 units, or more than 30 percent of all 1955 starts, for more than $4 billion of our national product, and provided more than 400,000 man-years of employment onsite, and at least an equivalent amount of offsite employment. This is a staggering amount of goods and services to let go down the drain.'"

Hon. Ed Edmondson, chairman, subcommittee on Housing, Veterans' Affairs Committee, Congressional Record, May 7, 1956:

**** It seems to be good business for America to extend this worthwhile program.*

**

*****Extension of the present law will make homeowners of many more American veterans of World War II-and that will make for a stronger Nation and stronger communities throughout the country. * *

Hon. Dante B. Fascell, extension of remarks, April 27, 1956:

**** As well as the good this program has been to our national economy,

***

"*** offsetting the serious impact which the July 1957 cut-off date will have upon our economy;

***

**But it is extremely doubtful that the extensive study necessary to predicate such legislation can be completed this year in sufficient time to be acted on by the Congress. * * *

****It is obvious that a July 1957 abrupt termination will cause a serious setback in our entire economy. Manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers,

of furniture, electrical appliances, builder supplies, and all other household items whose business it is to supply the homeowners are undoubtedly already considering cutback of their production. * * *

*** thereby allowing ample opportunity for us who want to consider an overall housing program, to prepare adequate and effective legislation for this all-important measure."

Hon. Dante B. Fascell, extension of remarks, April 12, 1956:

"*** I am, today, introducing legislation which is extremely important to the overall economy of our great country.* * *

“*** An abrupt termination of the GI home-loan program such as is now provided in the law would have an unhealthy and inflationary effect upon the entire Nation's economy. ***

**However, a simple extension of the program is not the answer.

**This clearly indicates that whether or not the veteran has exercised his right depends on the availability of housing under GI terms; because financing under GI terms has not been so readily available in the smaller towns.

"*** To remove the added stimulus that can be given by the continuing availability of GI benefits at this time will have a more severe effect on the home-building economy than it will have in the years after 1960, and then it might had have had in the earlier years of great housing shortage and consequent high demand. * * *

****To eliminate the GI program at this period is to restrict housing aids at the very time when liberal terms are most needed * * *

"*** any abrupt shift-such as will be occasioned if the law is allowed to terminate on June 25, 1957-will have a very serious impact on the home building as well as the overall national economy * * *

*****Its elimination will make even more difficult the task of providing good private housing for lower and middle income families, and will mean a step backward in the achievement of the goal of providing good housing opportunities for all Americans *

“*** This mass building program has provided financial stability for the building tradesman, kept him steadily employed at the highest income levels he has ever experienced, therefore enabling him and the other millions of middleincome families to purchase numbers of homes never before possible in the history of the country***

*** Although it has been known for some time that the law was scheduled to terminate in mid-1957, it is clear that the full impact of this onrushing date has not been anticipated by individual builders and suppliers in the industry. Few, for example, realize that its effects will begin to be felt in the early fall of 1956, since the July 25, 1957, cutoff date applies to the guaranty, not the housing start. Thus, if the termination date stands, it will be an abrupt shock for the private home-building industry, one which will create a substantial amount of dislocation, and eventually of severe economic difficulties for many builders and suppliers and related industry groups, their millions of employees, and the veterans and nonveterans alike, since it comes at a time when homes started under the VA program amount to from 25 to 30 percent of the total ***

**** This points to the additional fact that those areas in which GI home loans have been an important part of the construction economy will feel the impact of termination even more than other areas where it has not yet played an important part. For example, in some of the areas of rapid growth, such as the west coast and Southwestern areas, the GI program has, in recent years, accounted for close to 40 or 50 percent of all new home building. The impact on the economy of these localities will, undoubtedly, be severe

"*** Cities such as Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, and so forth, have all suffered from the impact of the recent change in mid-1955 on FHA and VA maturities and downpayments. It is not difficult to understand how much more direct and devastating an effect elimination of the entire VA program for World War II vets will have in these and simliar communities all over the land ***"

Hon. Dante B. Fascell, extension of remarks, May 7, 1956:

*** This program has proven to be vitually important to our entire economy. It has profited the entire populace, both veteran and nonveteran alike

It is particularly important to Miami's vast home-building industry that Congress settle the matter at the earliest possible moment Hon. Dante B. Fascell, extension of remarks, May 10, 1956:

"... Senator George Smathers too recognizes the need for immediate congressional action in extending the GI home loan guaranty program

66* * I take this opportunity to call to the attention of my colleagues in the House the Senator's letter of endorsement and urge them to make their views on this proven program known: ***

""*** The extension of this program is of extreme importance to the economy of their respective communities * ** [Senator Smathers' quoted letter to Congressman Fascell]'

"*** The abrupt termination will affect, not only the lender, and the realestate dealer, but also the furniture, hardware, electrical appliance, and building industries as well ***

"*** If the program is allowed to end as is presently provided by law labor, too, would be seriously affected

**

***Every American has prospered due to the benefits granted the veteran. The veteran GI home-loan guaranty program has produced the greatest home, furniture, and electrical appliance buying spree that America has ever known. If we are to continue this prosperity, all of us must join in urging the Veterans' Affairs Committee to immediately extend consideration to pending legislation which would effect an extension ***”

Hon. John Sparkman, United States Senate, Congressional Record, January 11, 1955: "There is nothing which will contribute more to the preservation of our American way of life than making it possible for people to own their own homes or to assist energetic young people in getting started in a farm or business operation. The whole Nation has gained by reason of the increased stability and civic responsibility which necessarily follows from the establishment of vast numbers of veterans' families in their own homes which never could have been attained without the benefits of the preferential financing terms of the GI loan. ***

"We also should consider carefully the industrial impact which the GI loan program has had and the consequences which would result from its discontinuance. All of us are aware of the large part played by the construction industry in maintaining high economic levels during the past several years. During the past year it is estimated that nearly 25 percent of all homes completed were financed with GI loans. About 17,000 builders are engaged in the construction of homes which are sold to veterans with the assistance of GI loans. Since the beginning of the program it is estimated that about $17 billion was paid by veterans in connection with the purchase of new residences. In turn, this sum can be translated into proportionate amounts paid to construction workers, to the producers and sellers of building materials, and then returned to the economic stream. When viewed in this light it will be seen that in producing $17 billion worth of veterans' homes a large lift is given to a broad segment of our national economy."

Mr. John Dickerman, National Association of Home Builders, as quoted by the Washington Post, May 13, 1956:

"A cutoff of GI home-loan program next year will have an unusually heavy impact on the home-building industry and repercussions throughout the entire economy, John M. Dickerman, executive director of the National Association of Home Builders, said yesterday.'.

The United States Savings and Loan League, statement issued May 14, 1956: "The sudden impact of a complete withdrawal of the GI loan from the housing field would have a strong effect on the Nation's economy and if coupled with similar reductions in production of automobiles, appliances, etc., it would have serious recessionary tendencies."

Hon. Herbert H. Lehman, United States Senate, Congressional Record, May 24, 1956:

"Aside from the legitimate needs of the individual veterans and the desirability of continuing the program from the standpoint of a benefit to the veterans, we must not lose sight of the fact that this program is playing an extremely important role as a support factor in our national economy. With the sharp curtailment in the manufacture of automobiles, farming equipment, and various other industries, it would be foolhardy to alow one of the main props to be knocked out from under the residential construction industry. The first 4 months of this year is witnessing a substantial decline in the number of housing starts. The optimistic words of administration spokesmen on this subject early this year obviously were without foundation in fact. It is now fairly clear that housing starts for 1956 will be between 15 and 20 percent lower than starts in 1955. Can we afford a further substantial drop in 1957?