approach to the design than you can expect from any Federal bureau. The CHAIRMAN. It has been the general policy of this committee to encourage architects along that line.

Mr. FISHER. I am very glad of that; and, of course, it is a matter in which we are very deeply interested. However, I should like to make the point that our principal desire in appearing at this hearing is to make the very strongest possible plea that this committee get behind the idea of having post-war planning started now. After all, we realize-and it has already been said in the previous testimony-that in the period from 1933 to 1935 an effort was made to help relieve the unemployment situation through the construction industry. No plans were ready for any projects, practically speaking. They started from scratch, in the first place, with only a list of projects; and in the second place, before investigation by the P. W. A. Board of Review. After they had got through all that mill of more or less necessary red tape, only then could the acquisition of site, financing, and preparation of drawings and specifications be started. Although there was much talk of relieving unemployment through the construction industry, actually there was no real volume of employment until nearly 2 years after the start of the program. Our fear is that exactly the same thing is going to happen from the time an armistice is signed, unless we get on with an insurance type of post-war preparation.

I think the legislation which has been suggested by the American Society of Civil Engineers is not so very much different from that which has already been suggested by the Lynch bill and the Maas bill. All three are along the same line of philosophy; that is, they do not suggest that the Federal Government is going to pay for the construction, but at least they offer to States and localities loans of funds to get them going and toward doing something.

The CHAIRMAN. You agree with the others who have appeared that there ought to be one Federal agency having control of this matter, do you not?

Mr. FISHER. I do.

Mr. CAPOZZOLI. What is your opinion concerning the recommendation made by Mr. Hale with reference to the establishment of a revolving fund to be used by localities or municipalities which request a temporary loan, to be repaid later on from the project?

Mr. FISHER. I have not studied the text of that bill in any great detail; but, as I say, it seems to me to be similar in philosophy-basic philosophy-to the Lynch bill and the Maas bill. Its basic idea is to loan, as I understand it, money to State, county, or local governments for the preparation of drawings, and when, as, and if a project goes ahead, the local government will pay the loaned funds back to the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. That will help people to get away from the idea that there is some Federal grab bag here in Washington into which they can reach and pull out financial plums.

Mr. FISHER. That is right. We certainly feel that a very large number of local communities are in better relative position to finance their own public works now than the Federal Government is, with its tremendous war burdens, and so forth. But the background of Federal aid throughout the past 10 years has built up a psychology which is making all the local communities sit back and wait to see what they

are going to get out of Uncle Sam. If we can break that and get something started-more than just talk-there are hundreds of communities all over the country that have fairly well developed programs written, typewritten, printed, and what not, listing buildings and other projects that are desirable and listing estimates of the cost of constructing them, but they have never gone any further than that, except in a very few instances.

I have no statistics here with me, but we have a number of reportsand I suppose the American Society of Civil Engineers has the samethat indicate that there are only a very small number of those projects on which anything has been done in the way of physical planning or actual preparation for getting under contract, which is the important matter. In other words, if the armistice were to come tomorrow or 6 months from now, and nothing more is done than has been done so far, we would still have the prospect of being in exactly the same position we were in in 1933.

Our feeling is that the extreme urgency is to get something started among the local governments on actually making drawings and specifications for projects for which they own-or know they can acquire the sites and which they know they can finance. That involves a lot of stimulation, not only of the local governments as such, but of the local business people, who we are working on with the United States Chamber of Commerce, for instance; and I think a certain amount of activity is being built up along that line, through the United States Chamber's various connections all over the country. But our feeling is that the inertia is still very, very serious among the local governments and that any help that can come from Congress in the way of a statement as to what Congress proposes to do, rather than leaving them in the present status of not knowing what Congress proposes to do, will be of great help. If Congress feels that a proper stimulation would be along the lines of a loan for planned preparation only, that would be very helpful.

Mr. HOLMES. Do you not think we ought to go one step further! I should think a man in your position ought to know. I think it is about time that we started to get some of the civilian industries that are manufacturers of the necessary equipment that we need in public buildings started, so that there will be some equipment available at the same time. I have particular reference to private homes. You cannot get boilers, pipe, bathtubs, or anything else. I think we have arrived at the time when we should start to think about having these industries resume the manufacture of such products, so that they will also be available in case anything should happen, say, 6 months from

now.

Mr. FISHER. There you run head-on into the War Production Board. Mr. HOLMES. I understand that the War Production Board is loosening up a little on certain things. They are shutting down plants up in my section and are throwing thousands of people out of employment. They are shutting down the aluminum lines because of an overproduction of aluminum; copper is easier; other strategic materials are easier. If we are going to depend upon industry to do its share when we reconvert from war industry to civilian production, it is about time we took the necessary steps now to start those lines going and to absorb some of the unemployed.

Mr. FISHER. I think that is certainly true, as far as it can be done without interfering with the war effort.

Mr. HOLMES. I fully agree with you on that particular score.

Mr. FISHER. I think the War Production Board is beginning to take the subject seriously. Up until a month or so ago, we could get nowhere with them on that subject. But they have a small committee within the organization working on it now. I had a visit from one of their representatives about a week ago. He is traveling around the country looking into the situation. I think they are beginning to take it seriously, with the idea of some relaxation along this line within the near future.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that proper reserves for reconversion would facilitate that.

Mr. FISHER. That is one of the points I wanted to make. I think the same kind of inertia exists among civilian organizations that exists among the local governments, but there it is probably due very largely to preoccupation with war production, and also to the fact that what they might consider as a post-war reserve is being taken away from them in taxes. After all, almost nothing is being done in the maintenance of plant, buildings, and what not, because of a shortage of materials and labor. The money that would normally have been spent from year to year by any organization on that sort of thing has always been permitted as an expense by the Treasury; but when it is not being spent now, it goes into the surplus and is taxed away. The Treasury so far has been pretty unreasonable about that feature of it. They claim that business is making plenty of money in the over-all and that the carry-back funds, and so forth, should take care of business in the post-war period. But if you come down to any specific business, you are very likely to find that that is not true. The over-all picture does not necessarily apply to the individual organization.

Mr. HOLMES. The railroad picture is the one nearest at hand to demonstrate that.

Mr. FISHER. Yes. To come back to the preparation of materials, there are a certain number of materials which are still being made in quantity for war uses, so there will be no conversion for a very large proportion of the building supply industry. It is largely a matter of coming to the point where the war no longer needs their product, and their product can go into civilian construction.

There is also another feature of it. I believe. There seems to be a pretty strong feeling in the construction industry that the Army, the Navy, and the Maritime Commission among themselves have an enormous stock pile of materials which some day can be made available. In other words, to some extent they are hoarding those things. That is a very natural thing for them to do, but we hope it may be possible soon to get a real idea of what that stock pile consists of and how it will be disposed of. I suppose that gets into the whole question of the disposition of Federally owned property, to see that it be not tossed on the market by auction, for instance, to disrupt the whole civilian production set-up.

The CHAIRMAN. We have a subcommittee conducting hearings on that very matter, Mr. Fisher.

Are there further questions? We certainly thank you, Mr. Fisher: you have made a very helpful statement.

STATEMENT OF HUGH R. POMEROY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOUSING OFFICIALS, CHICAGO, ILL.

The CHAIRMAN. We have present this morning Mr. Hugh R. Pomeroy, of the National Association of Housing Officials. Please state your name, residence, and position, Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. My name is Hugh R. Pomeroy. I am a resident of Chicago and am the executive director of the National Association of Housing Officials. I am also president of the American Institute of Planners, which is a technical society of planners throughout the country, but I am appearing only in behalf of the National Association of Housing Officials.

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present to this committee our observations on the subject of post-war housing. I think the committee is highly to be commended, out of its excellent experience with making provision for emergency war housing and the appurtenant facilities, for taking the long view of what the post-war situation will be.

Our association normally does not appear before legislative committees because we are not engaged in trying to influence legislation. The CHAIRMAN. Yours is not a governmental organization?

Mr. POMEROY. Ours is not a governmental organization. I am here at the request of the committee and by direction of the president of the association, Mr. J. A. Fowler, of Memphis. I have here a statement which I shall read in part and comment upon as I go along.

The National Association of Housing Officials is the one national organization of housing officials in the country. Its membership includes individual housing officials at all levels of government and official housing agencies, principally local housing authorities. Nonhousing officials and citizens who are interested are admitted as associate members, and there are others as well. The association is a clearinghouse for housing information, operating in this regard by issuance of a number of publications and through regional conferences and national meetings, in addition to extensive correspondence and staff consultation. Numerous committees of the association are continually studying various technical and administrative problems in the housing field. Through the reports of these committees, other publications, and in other ways the association seeks to improve housing administration and management and to facilitate and aid the training of administrative and management personnel. A series of regional committees, focalizing in a national committee, deals with current procedural and administrative problems arising in the relations between the central and regional offices of Federal housing agencies and the local housing authorities with which these offices deal. The association is not a promotional organization, either of projects or of programs, and does not seek to influence legislation.

Out of its wide knowledge of the housing field, the association from time to time formulates broad statements of recommended housing policy. Because of the need for the formulation of the basis for a post-war housing program for the United States, taking advantage of the experience of the extensive developments in housing during the past 10 years, a committee on post-war housing of the association has

been at work for some time on a report on the subject. It is expected that the work of this committee will soon be completed and that the report will be before the board of governors of the association for action next month. A copy of that report will be filed with this committee.

The attitude of the association with respect to post-war housing objectives can be summarized as follows:

First, the objective of a housing program for the United States should be the provision of adequate housing for all families; that is, housing of at least a minimum standard of adequacy for every family, with housing beyond the minimum available in satisfactory neighborhoods as individual desire may require and as individual initiative may make possible.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a rather comprehensive statement, Mr. Pomeroy. We are going into a period now that is necessarily going to be expensive for the American people, both in the part that is operated through the Federal Government and that which is operated through States and municipalities. Of course, it is a wonderful vision to see everyone in a home that is in no way substandard; but are we going to be able to do that all at once when this war is over?

Mr. POMEROY. I do not think so-all at once. What we are concerned with is a determination of the size of the total job and the elements that enter into it. We must take our time for the planning that is necessary to do it. We must facilitate private enterprise getting further and further down the income scale, so that the maximum amount of it can be done by private enterprise. But I think the rest of this outline will begin to answer the question you have raised. However, the statement that I have made indicates that we believe that the national objective should be at least a minimum house for every family, and beyond that, individual initiative and desire should have the opportunity of a proper range of selection for decent housing.

The second element of this objective requires a housing supply that will serve a market representing the diverse needs of all the peopleas to types, sizes, locations, and income levels served.

We have not had that kind of housing supply because-No. 3housing production between the two World Wars lagged far behind the need, did not replace substandard housing-except for the small amount of public housing built, totaling about four-tenths of 1 percent of the total housing supply-and served only a small segment of the market, leaving families in lower income groups to be served by second-hand housing of various degrees of suitability and decency, and resulting in instability of home ownership, accelerated deterioration of older neighborhoods, and increased local governmental costs.

In support of those statements, we built less housing than we needed between the two World Wars, particularly in the 1930's, when we built new houses only two-thirds as fast as new families were created, which means that total housing production in the decade of the 1930's relied to a considerable extent on the conversion of 5 million dwelling units required by reason of new families, less demolitions. Nearly 6 million dwelling units were provided by boxcars, stores, tents, and shacks.

Fourth, the housing objectives of the Nation should include: First, the best use of existing housing, calling for adequate maintenance, and for repair and modernization as required; second, the replacement of