incorporate said preferences into the law itself. We know from experience that preferences will not be forthcoming otherwise.

(2) Incorporate in S. 866 as a new title or titles the provisions of S. 701, which would amend the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, by adding title I after the enacting clause and by adding a new title II. S. 701 is a bill to assist in the immediate alleviation of the critical shortage of moderate rental housing for veterans.

We believe that the addition of the provisions of S. 701 will insure the immediate construction of multiple housing rental developments throughout the Nation at a price the average veteran can afford to pay. A recent survey on veterans' housing needs, undertaken by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, indicated that the average income of veterans is less than $2,400 per year.

We found that 39 percent of the veterans share living quarters with other families; 6 percent live in basements or attics; only 50 percent have a private shower or bath; and only 59 percent have refrigerators. Over 81 percent of the veterans who were surveyed want to remain in their home communities. It seems to us that the Nation could well take heed of these findings and make sure that veterans are encouraged to remain in their home communities, are adequately housed and employed, and reasonably content.

On behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ketchum, as to that recent survey that you refer to in your last paragraph, how general is that? Is that a check plot system or cross section of the country? To what extent did it cover the country?

Mr. KETCHUM. We made the survey through all of our States, but I will not say that in each State they made an entire survey of all the veterans. It was a spot check survey made by the individual posts in the various communities. We have made those findings particularly in one or two various States.

The CHAIRMAN. You have made your position known to us in favor of this legislation. This is not testimony. This is just talk across the table. As I understand it, perhaps I am incorrect, I hope I am, the American Legion is not taking the position you take, is that correct?

Mr. KETCHUM. I could not answer for the American Legion, Senator. I do not know what their policy is. There has been some dispute over it.

The CHAIRMAN. The American Veterans' Committee are in favor of this legislation.

Mr. KETCHUM. It is my understanding that they are, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I have been told but I have not had it confirmed yet that the American Legion has not taken a position in favor of this legislation. That, of course, would seem to me unfortunate because you have got a great body of veterans who are veterans before any other organization and their needs are paramount before any other organization.

What we are considering here is human needs rather than what organization a man belongs to. I hope I am incorrect. I believe the cause as you state; that being so I want to see all veteran agencies go

along in solid phalanx for the cause but that would be entirely up to their judgment.

Mr. KETCHUM. I could not speak for the Legion. I do not know what testimony they are going to offer or whether they are going to offer any before the committee. All I can state is our position which has been arrived at after long study.

Senator MAYBANK. May I ask this, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Senator MAYBANK. I was just going to suggest to the distinguished veteran of Foreign Wars that there has not been anything you have heard that the American Legion would oppose it?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right.

Senator MAYBANK. I mean there is so much duplication in numbers in the two organizations.

Mr. KETCHUM. I would not say there was too much. ·
Senator MAYBANK. There is some.

Mr. KETCHUM. Probably 15 percent. That is what we have estimated.

Senator MAYBANK. But what I meant was that you have not heard they would oppose it?

Mr. KETCHUM. I do not know what their position is.

Senator MAYBANK. I have never heard that.

Mr. KETCHUM. There have been statements back and forth. Senator MAYBANK. I hope they are not going to. The only thing that concerns me in this amendment, without prejudice at all, Mr. Chairman, was the testimony of the House authorities here the other day when some question was raised. I think Senator McCarthy raised, that if you would give the veterans preference you would displace a lot of these people in these cities right now that would bring about a rather rough time on families who themselves might not be veterans but were more or less related to veterans and so forth and so on and cause quite a displacement within communities. Have you given any thought to that? I do not know whether that would be a fact or not but that was the testimony that was here. Mr. KETCHUM. Here is why we do not anticipate any particular difficulty on that. It does not mean the present occupants would be immediately evicted even though preference was given to the veterans and the veterans purchase it immediately. It will not be until 1948, as I understand it, that the present occupants will be removed from the properties.

That is the present contract drawn up for sale regardless of who purchases it. In other words, there is protection to the present occupants to make certain that they are not immediately evicted, that they have ample time and opportunity to seek other quarters. Senator MAYBANK. Just thinking out loud and not committing yourself at all, suppose this was further amended to give them 12 months?

Mr. KETCHUM. That would be all right, surely.

Senator MAYBANK. Because that was the testimony that the housing authorities came down here and said. I have always been one for veterans' preferences, as you know, on these other bills here. Mr. KETCHUM. I know that is right.

Senator MAYBANK. But the thing that worries me was this tremendous displacement that they had me believing would happen if it was given.

Mr. KETCHUM. We may be accused of being selfish in that matter but we look at it this way: the present occupants have had the benefit of what we believe to be reasonably priced rental units, now we think the veteran ought to have an opportunity. In other words, if it is a choice of who is going to occupy those eventually we feel that the man who did not have that opportunity to occupy them ought to have first opportunity if the Government is going to dispose of them.

Senator MAYBANK. The thing that worried me was the displacement feature.

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right. Well, certainly.

Senator MAYBANK. How are veterans doing on the sale of surplus housing properties now throughout the country?

Mr. KETCHUM. Not very good.

Senator MAYBANK. Why are they not?

Mr. KETCHUM. Because we cannot get any preferences for veterans in the purchase of them. They insist on selling to the present occupants.

Senator MAYBANK. Take a project that has been declared surplus and is left with the local administration. In other words, a housing development that we will say the city of Detroit or Charleston might have. That is now empty, because of the war industries moving away. Are not the veterans given preference?

Mr. KETCHUM. I would like to refer that to our national officer. Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir, I think that they are giving veterans a preference on rental of the low-cost rental.

Senator MAYBANK. I mean where they have been abandoned because of a war sale.

Mr. PEARCE. No, sir. I do not think they are getting a fair shot. I think it is going to large contractors.

Senator MAYBANK. How can we stop that?

Mr. KETCHUM. By just what we have suggested.

Senator MAYBANK. How can this committee be of assistance now to see that outside-now you take the college, in the instance of a college there is a veterans preference and the veterans in the colleges I know have first call on them. How can we get legislation immediately to make certain that the veterans get these surplus properties? Mr. KETCHUM. You cannot be assured of getting legislation through promptly. Therefore, the only thing I know that you can do is for this committee to indicate to Mr. Dillon Meyer who is the Administrator of the Federal Public Housing Administration, that you would like to see a policy established of giving veterans preference. Senator MAYBANK. To that I thoroughly agree but can Mr. Meyer make the city of Detroit or Cleveland or Charleston or what have you, can he make that city do that?

Mr. KETCHUM. Now, we are getting into two phases. As I understand your question now it is the property that is owned and controlled by the city and not by the Federal Public Housing Administration. Senator MAYBANK. It is owned by the Federal Housing Commission, but it has been operated under contracts with the cities.

Mr. KETCHUM. Well, if the city is relinquishing a contract, then

Mr. Meyer, as Administrator of Federal Public Housing has the authority to determine the disposition of the property.

Senator MAYBANK. And not the commissioners of the city?

Mr. KETCHUM. I should not see why if they are relinquishing their contract and they have not taken it over even on a sales agreement. I do not see why the authority does not rest with the Federal Public Housing Administration.

Senator MAYBANK. I have heard of instances where the Federal Public Housing Administration have left it to the communities, maybe just passing the buck you might say.

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right. That is a discretionary authority. We have appealed to more than one committee of the Congress, to try and get them to indicate to Mr. Myer that veterans preference in the purchase or disposition of those properties is very desirable.

We have repeatedly asked him for that preference, and the only preference that we have ever been able to obtain was on one housing project down in North Carolina at Wilmington, and we got that through Mr. Wilson Wyatt before he resigned as Housing Expediter, head of the Housing Administration.

Senator MAYBANK. My Myer has not done it.

Mr. KETCHUM. No, sir. Mr. Chairman, if there are no more questions

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator McCarthy.

Senator MCCARTHY. I gather you have made quite a study of the housing situation. Have you gone into the question of just what effect the practices of your building trades unions have upon the Housing Authority?

Mr. KETCHUM. That is a rather involved and complicated subject, Senator. Of course we look with some apprehension upon some of the restrictions that have been employed by the building trades unions which were developed back in the days of the depression when they were trying to spread the work.

It is unfortunate that in these tight labor markets today that some of those restrictions are still held over. However, our policy has been not to intervene or intercede in disputes between labor and management. We try to keep as far as possible

Senator MCCARTHY. Let me interrupt there. I do not know of any dispute between labor and management in your building trade. You seem to have an unusual set-up there with your building-trade union and your building contractors. They have a very definite mutuality of interest, have they not?

Mr. KETCHUM. Nominally, on the surface, but if you talk to the building contractors on the side, they will gripe their heads off about the restrictions which the trade-unions have imposed. They may not do it here before this committee.

Senator MCCARTHY. Does not your study convince you that the restrictive practices in that particular trade may be more responsible than anything else for the tremendous housing shortage.

Mr. KETCHUM. As a matter of fact, I would not say that it was primarily responsible or was more responsible than any other factor, but I will tell you this: That our commander in chief in communications to the president of the American Federation of Labor, where many of

99279-47-10

the building crafts have their membership, has appealed to him to cooperate with the Government, and with the construction industry, and with the needs of veterans, to try, insofar as humanly possible, to remove existing restrictions which we feel are a handicap to a full and expanded housing-construction program.

We have appealed to them to eliminate those restrictions and to encourage the unions to eliminate those restrictions.

Senator MCCARTHY. Unless those restrictions are eliminated, no matter what housing law we pass it is going to be impossible to get low-cost housing.

Mr. KETCHUM. That is right because naturally you are going to pay more for the labor that goes in there on account of these restrictions.

Senator MCCARTHY. Would you agree with me that in this particular instance it is not primarily a contest between labor and management but a contest between the building trades unions combining with your contractors against the public.

There is no point here between your labor union and your contractors. They have got a mutuality of interest in restricting building.

Mr. KETCHUM. I would not want to brand it as a contest between the labor unions and the public.

Senator MCCARTHY. No, let us get this straight. We are not talking about the labor unions versus the public. I am asking you this question: In this particular instance, are not the interests of the building trades unions and your contractors identical to the point that there is no contest, and that they are both cooperating in the extension and perpetuation of these restrictions, and that your contractor is equally guilty with your building trades unions.

Mr. KETCHUM. I am not so sure. It is entirely possible that the contractor is going along. Maybe it is because he has got a gun at his head and there is nothing else for him to do. In order to keep harmonious relations with labor it may be necessary for him to subscribe to those practices but I know from my experience that many contractors are not in agreement with those restrictive practices and would like to see them discontinued. They may not talk about it publicly.

Senator MCCARTHY. In any event, can we say this: that unless we go into that whole field and do something to eliminate those restrictive practices, that the passage of housing bills will help very little.

Mr. KETCHUM. I would not say it would help it very little, but I will tell you this: the continuation of those practices are going to make for high cost housing and the only way you can make for low cost housing for the veterans is through Government subsidy just like we are proposing here.

The Government is going to have to add the difference between what the high costs are and what the veteran can afford to pay. You are right as far as that is concerned.

Senator MCCARTHY. So in effect, we end with the Government— all of us-paying for these restrictive practices?

Mr. KETCHUM. Absolutely. There is no question about it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN. The chair will call to the stand Mr. Coleman Woodbury, executive director of the National Association of Housing Officials. Mr. Woodbury.