Mr. BLANDFORD. As to the type of units shown in the first two bars on chart 7, it is indicated that on the old program 83 percent were family units, while under the new proposed program only 32 percent would be family units. With respect to the kind of construction, the lower two bars show that of the old program 42 percent were temporary or demountable, while under the proposed program for which we are now requesting authorization, 90 percent would be temporary. There is even a more pronounced shift to the temporary side than this chart shows, because in the bar relating to kind of construction on the old program there is included as temporary some demountable housing. These demountable houses cost approximately as much as permanent housing, and, if the communities could absorb them they could stay there. Nonetheless, on this chart they are classified as temporary. So the contrast between the old and the proposed programs is even more striking than the chart shows.

Now, I would like to add this comment, sir: We are programming on this conservative, temporary basis not because, were the materials and the time available, we should not like to see higher standards and more provision for family units. We are doing it because of the fact we are under time pressure, and because we have to deal with a shortage of material that has developed rather acutely. We feel that ours is a realistic program, in fact the only way within our framework of materials and within our framework of pressure of time to provide enough housing for war workers. On the other hand the proposed program has to be construed as supplementing what has gone before, and to that extent producing a more well-rounded program.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it possible to indicate for the record the tentative or prospective location of these various housing units? I assume they are pretty well scattered throughout the United States, are they not? Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. Mr. Chairman, we have some materials which we thought the committee should see. I thought, if the committee is agreeable, that these would more properly not be made a part of the record, but rather offered in executive session. I think this has been the practice before.

The CHAIRMAN. Could it be indicated for the record by States without reference to locations in cities?

Mr. BLANDFORD. We can do that, sir. We do have a list, and we call it list A, which we prepared on the basis of information obtained from the field, and on the basis of our own files here in Washington, which shows by communities a need for housing which aggregates about $1,000,000,000. It is admittedly a forecast.

Subsequently, we received the conservative figures as to in-migration from the War Manpower Commission and reexamined list A. We applied our much more conservative approach to the war housing program in the light of the material situation, and produced list B which adds up to the estimate of $600,000,000. This, too, is available for the committee. We also have, of recent date, list C, where we take 12 representative communities and present a more intensive analysis of the employment picture, of in-migration estimates, of the housing already programmed, in each case indicating that there is a locality need considerably in excess of the amount that we have tentatively allocated in list B. This also is available for the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason I was making the suggestion that we have it by States is that, necessarily, we are making the record here

for the consideration of the Congress. I can understand that, perhaps, it would add to your worries if you gave a detailed statement of every locality, because it would bring you, in advance of the proper time, a good many visitations and quite a bit of argumentation, but to the extent that information can be furnished with reference to the States or any illuminating data that show the necessity for the amount that is requested, I think it would be very, very helpful, because that will be accessible to the Members of the House who will pass upon it. Mr. BLANDFORD. We shall supply such a list by States. The further difficulty of presenting it by cities is the fact that conditions are constantly changing, and such a list might be misleading to particular communities.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(At this point there was extended discussion off the record, at the conclusion of which, at 12 o'clock noon, the committee adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 11, 1942, at 10 a. m.)

(The State lists referred to are as follows:)

LIST A

This list summarizes the need for new public construction of war housing as estimated by the regional representatives and their staffs to care for war workers in-migrating during fiscal 1943. The needs as shown represent conservative estimates but do not take into account the application of new and more rigorous controls to the occupancy of new and existing housing supplies, to the in-migration of workers, and to the utilization of local labor supplies. Past principles used in determining the need for war housing have been based on the assumption that such controls would not be made available and this list represents the need as determined on those principles. This list does not include all areas in which a need for housing is likely to arise during fiscal 1943, nor does it include some of the smaller communities in which a need for housing is known to exist. Family dwelling accommodations for families of 3 or more persons, primarily of temporary construction

Dormitory apartments for 2-person families.
Dormitory accommodations for single persons and married workers leav-
ing their families at home___.

202, 069

32, 300

52, 696

This list represents extreme application of the new war housing policy agreed upon in April 1942 between the War Production Board and the National Housing Agency. It assumes firm action toward controlling the in-migration of labor, utilizing local labor supply, and utilizing existing housing facilities. This list aggregates 260,000 units in contrast with 287,065 units in list A; but, due to extension in the use of temporary construction of less cost in both funds and critical materials, and to a more definite adaptation of the type of construction to the family composition of in-migrant workers by providing wherever possible dormitory apartments for married workers without children and dormitories to accommodate in addition to single persons that portion of married workers who could reasonably be expected to leave their families at home, funds required to satisfy list B would be just under $550,000,000 as against about $1,000,000,000 required to satisfy list A. The remainder of the $600,000,000 for which authorization is now requested is required to cover needs for housing at Army posts, camps, and stations in isolated places. Because the estimates distributed among States in this list are based on extremely minimum needs, because of consequent necessary revisions in final programming, and because of needs in two hundred or more war activity areas not counted in making up this list and in areas where new war activities may be located, a minimum reserve is maintained to cover these items.

Projects starred (*) in the attached list are of utmost urgency and preliminary work on them has started, using funds reserved for contingencies under present appropriations. In the event that further funds should not be forthcoming, other projects under way, urgent but not so critical, would need to be curtailed.