I am thankful this young man does not know I am writing this letter about his cattle as it would only prolong the grief and worry he has coming up under the present set-up. He and many other small operators do not as yet realize what the roll-back of 18 percent in beef prices will mean to him.

The figures I give you below will show that it will be necessary to have 37.70 per hundred to break even, provided they all do good, none of them die, and they make a fair gain. If a drought, which is long past due, should come along, or if the price of feed should go up, and also the price of grain, it would be altogether a different story. This man has been taught the Kansas deferred system in feeding. His costs based on years of experience of feeding of cattle will be very close to the figures below. I have used one animal in order to keep the figures small. We cattlemen have a lot of respect for a 10-dollar bill even though the people in Washington might not recognize one.

Interest on purchase price of steer for 8 months, $260 at 5 percent_

9.66

If everything works, about 50 percent of these cattle would grade Good and the other half one grade lower. So far as I know there is no way of figuring the probable market value of these cattle on January 1, 1952. However, it would şeem there would be a loss from $5 to $7 a hundred on each 1,000-pound steer which means from $50 to $70 per head or over $2,000, which is enough loss that it will take several years for him to get back in the cattle business, if ever.

The price of beef is not out of line with those things the farmers are buying. For instance, today I called a merchant here in town for a combination cattle and hog waterer. The price was $108. In 1946 I bought this same waterer for $56. This perhaps will be about the same on everything the farmers buy. I well remember the buying power of the farmer was very low in 1932 for several years; as a result, we had one of the worst depressions this country has known. Could we be laying the groundwork for another era of the same kind of times. There are many things that could be mentioned and, as you understand the cattle business and farmers, we sincerely hope you will be able to get the facts brought out in the open so that we can get this unreasonable directive either canceled or applied in a workable manner.

Yours truly,

MARSHALL V. HALL.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a statement here provided by the president of the National Association of Manufacturers wanting to clear up a point in his testimony, so, without objection, that may be placed in the record.

(The material referred to follows:)

The facts show that consumer holdings of durable goods at present are far in excess of any level previously recorded. The number of passenger automobiles in use is now 50 percent greater than in 1939 or 1946. Two and one-half times as many electric refrigerators are in use in homes as in 1939. The number of washing machines has approximately doubled in the same interval.

Another fact to remember is that a large part of existing holdings of durables have been bought since World War II and, therefore, are relatively new. This also will help to control the eagerness of consumers to buy. The Department of Commerce comments on the present situation as follows:

* The high and rising production volumes of all types of consumer durables in the last 5 years have resulted in record per family holdings of the major items.

"To illustrate, from 1946 to 1950, inclusive, the total number of new nonfarm dwelling units built was close of 5 million; almost 21 million new passenger cars were produced; 21 million electric refrigerators; 75 million radio sets; 12 million television sets; more than 17 million washing machines; and 18 million electric and gas ranges were turned out by American factories. Thus, it would appear that even a sizable curtailment in the flow of the consumer hard goods would not for some time result in any real hardship or privation. In view of the fact that the production of the consumer durables, including housing, involves the same materials and labor resources needed for the production of military 'hard' goods, this sector of consumption faces varying degrees of curtailment in 1951." [Italics supplied.]

FREQUENCY OF PURCHASE OF DURABLES

Even if a shortage of durable consumer goods developed, the impact on the cost of living would be much less than the impact of a shortage of nondurable goods or services would be. The reason is that nondurable goods must be bought currently and continuously while durables are purchased only at infrequent intervals. The average family in the middle-income brackets buys a refrigerator only once every 12 years and a washing machine only once every 20 years. No serious hardship is likely to result if the purchase has to be postponed for, say, one more year. Consumers are not likely to bid desperately against each other for house furnishings as they would for a limited supply of items they must buy continuously.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now stand in recess until 2: 30 this after

noon.

(Whereupon, at 12:25 a. m., the hearing was recessed until 2:30 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator MOODY. The committee will be in order.

Mr. Mopsick, will you come forward, please, and tell us what you think about this bill?

STATEMENT OF HARRY MOPSICK, LINDEN, N. J., REPRESENTING NATIONAL TENANTS' COUNCIL

Mr. MOPSICK. My name is Harry Mopsick. I come from Linden, N. J. I am here today to speak as president of the National Tenants' Council, New Jersey State Council for Rent Control Protection, New Jersey Tenants' Council, and the Union County Federation of Tenants' Leagues.

I would like to ask permission of the Chair to insert my prepared statement in the record after the completion of my testimony. Senator CAPEHART. Without objection, your statement will be printed in the record.

Mr. MOPSICK. The National Tenants' Council is composed of a group of outstanding individuals interested in housing and rent control throughout the United States. The New Jersey State Council for Rent Control Protection has as its member organizations the following:

New Jersey Council, CIO.

Veterans of Foreign Wars, Department of New Jersey.

Catholic War Veterans, New Jersey State Department.

New Jersey Tenants' Council.

Jewish War Veterans of New Jersey.

New Jersey Housing Council.

New Jersey Federation of Colored Women's Clubs.

We also have cooperating with us the New Jersey State Federation of Labor, AMVETS, and American Legion, Department of New Jersey.

The real estate lobby is still the greatest enemy of the American home. They were so identified by President Truman last year, and I am sorry to report that they are still qualified to carry this title at the present time. The heart of the need of housing in this country today is middle- and low-income housing. This is the type that is mostly under rent control and would be most benefited by the original version of the Federal housing program. The proposed cut-back in the Federal public housing program, as maneuvered by the real estate lobby in a recent vote before the House, besides paralyzing the housing program, constitutes a potent reason for the continuation of Federal rent control. The real estate lobby, in its drive to kill the Government's efforts to alleviate the critical housing shortage, strangely enough is providing additional grounds for the continuation of Federal rent control. The real estate lobby wants to have its cake and eat it, too. They are against housing on one hand and against rent control on the other, which proves that they are interested in a continued housing shortage for unlimited realty profits and are against controls because they restrict even greater profits.

The present national emergency, with its mandatory restrictions, will aggravate an already existing severe housing shortage. The building industry has failed to meet the challenge and it now becomes the task of the Government to prevent further injury to the American home brought on by the housing shortage.

Controls will be with us so long as supply does not meet demand. The cutting of constructive housing programs on the one hand, and the effort to eliminate controls on the other, together constitute one of the gravest threats to the American home today.

These are the reasons why the real estate lobby has continued to earn its right to the title of being the greatest enemy of the American home.

What has happened in our great country during the past year with regard to evaluating the need for continuation or termination of Federal rent controls? I submit to you excerpts from reports I have received from several of the members of the board of our National Tenants' Council:

From Father Charles Owen Rice, of Pittsburgh, Pa., I received the following:

In the Pittsburgh rental area it is still exceedingly difficult for people to find shelter. It is still considered a catastrophe when a family has to move. I personally have been getting calls from desperate people who cannot find rented quarters. It is particularly difficult for a family of any size to get settled. There is no doubt but that if rent ceilings were lifted in Pittsburgh, there would be a shameful amount of rent gouging.

The following is an excerpt from a report received from Maida Steinberg, of Chicago, Ill.:

The need for an adequate rent-control program in the city of Chicago is all too obvious. The present law was designed as a rent decontrol law. Lack of

new building and an increase in population and number of families only serves to point up the need for control-and stronger controls, not decontrols. The amount of vacant housing in this community is virtually zero. This, of course, puts the tenant in a very bad bargaining position-he must have a place to live and there is no place to live. Without controls he would have to pay whatever high prices the landlord chose to ask. The landlord is in a complete monopoly position. With our present and admittedly weak law, rents on the average are rising steadily. Under the table bonuses, unfair tie-in sales, overceiling charges are common. And the provisions in the present law designed to prevent such practices are too weak to effectively discourage them.

Now, with the influx of thousands of defense workers into this highly industrial community the situation grows worse. All of which makes our need for adequate controls that much stronger.

The following was received from John F. Cummins, publisher of the Cleveland, Ohio, Union Leader:

The housing condition in Greater Cleveland was tight before the Korean War but now with the defense program under way and the influx of workers into this area that are needed to fill the necessary jobs, rentals are now critical and will get worse.

The 1950 census shows there are 37,612 substandard dwellings in Greater Cleveland. This is approximately 14 percent of all housing accommodations in the area. This situation is known by the building and health authorities, yet allowed to exist because there is no place for the people to live if evicted from these unhealthy quarters.

There are no vacancies here where a workingman can afford to live. One worker I know personally has been commuting from Ashtabula daily for 3 years, a distance of 60 miles each way, and yet has been unable to find a place fit for him and his family of five that he can pay for.

Mr. Ben Abrams of Hartford, Conn., writes as follows:

Connecticut needs a minimum of 15,000 dwellings to only very partially house the tremendous expected influx of war workers anticipated above our present heavy unhoused load. We are in much worse shape now than at the corresponding period prior to the last war.

Mr. Abrams submitted a report dated February 15, 1951, from the Housing Authority of the city of Hartford which sets forth as follows:

(1) There are 4,535 unfilled applications for housing at the present time. (2) The influx of workers in this area will aggravate and intensify a deplorable condition already existing due to a lack of adequate housing in this area. (3) Over 2,500 veterans' families are waiting to be housed. (4) Perhaps 5,000 families will remain in the Hartford area after the emergency is over.

Helen Hall of New York City reported that—

* At the annual meeting of the National Association of Consumers, held in Washington on May 8 and 9 of this year, special mention was made endorsing the Defense Production Act and the proposed amendment regarding the extension of rent control for a period of 2 years.

From Charles Persilly, chairman of the Los Angeles Tenants' League, the following:

The lifting of rent control in Los Angeles legalized the wholesale gouging of tenants and brought about the dislocation of thousands of families through eviction and exorbitant rent hikes. It has lowered the standard of living for many wage earners by appropriating inequitable portions of their wages for rents and leaving them with inadequate funds to provide sufficient food, clothing, and other necessities of living for their families. It has harmed the morale of many defense workers engaged in producing the tools of war for our boys in Korea and other parts of the world, by causing an uprooting of their children from school, their leaving their associations and forcing them to move to new neighborhoods and to inferior housing. It has brought great harm to the merchants of this city by seriously reducing the purchasing power of some 300,000 tenants. Money they 83762-51-pt. 2--22

used in buying goods in the stores is now going into the pockets of landlords and as a result of rent decontrol every taxpayer will dig down into his pocket to help pay an estimated $1,500,000 per year in rent increases inflicted on indigents—the aged, the blind, widows, and orphans-or live off relief.

Mr. Wells Taft, editor, San Diego Labor Leader, writes:

Removing of rent controls in San Diego meant rent hikes of as much as 200 percent on one-bedroom apartment to $140 a month. Four thousand families at the naval station here have applied for housing. The Salvation Army maintains dormitories for wives and children of service personnel unable to pay rents asked here. Personnel at Camp Pendleton ride 120 miles a day to reach homes at reasonable prices. Sixty percent of landlords in San Diego refused to rent quarters to families with children. Aircraft industry recruiting in Texas, Chicago, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh, with tremendous turn-over because of high price of rentals. Highest rents for comparable housing on west coast are demanded in San Diego.

Many aircraft workers are living in Mexico, south of the border, because they cannot find shelter that they can afford to pay for in the United States. San Diego has a peculiar problem because of its high percentage of white-collar workers and pensioners, all living on fixed incomes. This percentage is higher than any other in the United States. There is a large percentage of school teachers, firemen, policemen, naval and military personnel, and small-business men from every State in the Union.

Rent controls have been administered under very trying circumstances due to budgetary cuts by Federal Housing Expediter Tighe E. Woods. It is always a source of amazement to me in viewing the vast operations of the Housing Expediter's office how so much can be done with so little. It is indeed a personal testimonial to the Expediter and his undermanned staff. Here is a man that has, year after year, performed a thankless and important job and who is definitely entitled to more assistance. His problems are many and embrace the entire community.

After considered thought, I respectfully urge that this committee recommend for insertion in the new rent act the creation of a national advisory rent board composed of representatives of all interestslandlord, tenant, and public-to aid and assist the Housing Expediter in matters involving the operation of the rent law and help him with policy decisions affecting the entire country. In this way, we would be relieving the Housing Expediter of many responsibilities and problems so that he would have more time to devote to his duties. If this committee feels that there is merit to my recommendation, I would be happy to submit to this committee at a future time a more detailed plan for the set-up and operation of such a national board.

The local advisory rent boards have in a great measure in the past, worked out to the great benefit of both the Administrator and the general public. There are isolated instances in which some activities of these local boards have created confusion among landlords and tenants, but I am happy to say that these are few and far between. I would like to relate such an instance that has happened in my own particular area of New Jersey, to wit: the northeastern defense rental area. The advisory board there had, for many years, performed an important public service in assisting the area rent director and hearing applications and helping the general public. Unfortunately, within the past 2 or 3 months they have, in my opinion, committed a serious blunder which caused a great deal of confusion. A recommendation was made by the board for a 20 percent increase for small landlords and publicity was released to that effect. Upon investiga