Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, I think as soon as the war is out of the road and ship construction comes to practically a stand-still that a lot of these people will not be getting the salaries that they are getting at the present time and will want to return to their homes.

I think it is only natural to expect that.

Mr. McGREGOR. But if we continue to build houses in California, and continue to make it attractive for them to stay there, they are going to stay there and will not return to their former States and homes.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, you have to have a job. I do not think it relies on the kind of a house one has. It is the employment that is going to make it attractive whether they are going to stay or not.

I can cite you an instance in my own congressional district of a farmer who has three boys. Two of them have been taken into the service. He is forced to employ somebody else.

He gets, for instance, two married employees. He has to have a house for them to live in.

Under the present provision the farmer is only entitled to $200 a unit, and he cannot construct a house, so the farmer has been penalized to keep up with the trend of housing.

In my district they have no excess houses.

Mr. HOLMES. I note under this H-2 program that you mentioned that you have about 6,000 units at San Francisco, 3,000 to be sold outright and 3,000 rented at rent fixed at $60 a month.

Was that program agreed to by the contractors in that area to take up and construct those units? Or is it just simply an allocation and optional with them whether they want to build them or not?

Then I notice, in San Diego, the bids in the Federal Register call for 1,200.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, the Navy objected to the 1,200 and asked that only 1,000 be constructed.

Mr. HOLMES. Well, the bids asked in the Federal Register are 1,200 units, regardless of the Navy.

Now, do you feel sure in your own mind there are plenty of contractors capable enough to go through with that program?

And I also understand this calls for a little better type of house, would allow them to build a unit up to about $8,000, rather than limited to the amount we had previously, of about $5,000.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes. With respect to the privately financed H-2 program the considerations are how many units can the community absorb in the postwar period without overbuilding the market.

We get that information through consultation with industry, the lending institutions, and the builders.

And the other consideration is how big a program would the local production committee on urgency approve, and we always go through that process.

Mr. HOLMES. But you feel sure they will go through with that program?

Mr. BLANDFORD. I am confident of it.

Mr. HOLMES. It would seem to me that there certainly ought to be a great field for that activity, for the reason you have a lot of people who have been denied the right to build.

They did not want to build a $4,000 or a $5,000 home because they wanted some of the little niceties that could not be incorporated in a $5,000 unit.

It seems to me that all over the United States there ought to be 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 people in that category that would want to build homes.

Mr. BLANDFORD. We have been constantly pressing for maximum construction consistent with the war effort, because it means jobs during this conversion period, and it means relieving congestion.

So we are pressing constantly all the time for more and more volume. The only ceiling is the availability of material.

Mr. HOLMES. Well, when I was going through lumber yards I did not find any shortage of lumber, but they cannot get priorities to use it.

Mr. BLANDFORD. The War Production Board tells us that at this moment lumber is tighter than it has ever been.

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, and yet they tell us there that with thousands of feet they cannot sell it, even to the War or the Navy Department, and they cannot sell it to anybody else. And they want to know why can the Government not buy some of this. They cannot sell it.

I was going to ask one other thing, Mr. Chairman. I notice it is 11 o'clock.

I was asked by a member of the Appropriations Committee this morning if I knew anything about these new projects that you are now constructing in Detroit. I was going to ask Mr. Blandford if he would kindly give me a little resume on that.

I do not mean right now.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes.

Mr. MCMILLEN. These houses contemplated for returning student veterans, would that be for more than an ordinary 4-year course that those houses would be occupied by student veterans?

The CHAIRMAN. We hope not that long under this act.

Mr. MCMILLEN. Then what would become of the house after that? Mr. BLANDFORD. They would be demolished.

Mr. McMILLEN. Beg pardon?

Mr. BLANDFORD. They would be demolished.

Mr. McMILLEN. You are just expecting that in a short period after VJ-day?

Mr. BLANDFORD. I wonder if I could just take one moment to restate what we are talking about.

First of all, we are talking about maybe 75,000 veteran cases, out of 2,000,000-75,000 problem cases after we have exhausted private enterprise, and relief also upon an optimistic picture of existing houses. That is a residual out of 2,000,000, who cannot pay for a private house, and who cannot even find one perhaps in some of the congested areas, who are not eligible to our war housing, who have not gotten a job. They are distress cases, a limited category.

Secondly, in terms of doing something about it, our thought was, first, let us stimulate the communities to do something about it. Secondly, let us open up the supply that we already have. Let us use what we have for those distress cases.

Only to a limited extent, and I do not know to what extent, might there be some building.

HOUSING FOR DISTRESSED FAMILIES OF SERVICEMEN

AND VETERANS WITH FAMILIES

THURSDAY, MAY 24, 1945

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Fritz G. Lanham (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

We were discussing on Tuesday information that was being furnished by Mr. Blandford, in connection with the matter of housing for families of veterans overseas and returning veterans and their families.

The early session of the House on Tuesday, of course, prevented the conclusion of the hearing, from the standpoint of Mr. Blandford, so I thought we would ask him first this morning if there are any further statements he desires to make, or any further information which he wishes to give the committee in reference to the bill.

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. BLANDFORD, JR., ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL HOUSING AGENCY-Resumed

Mr. BLANDFORD. I do not think at this point, Mr. Chairman, that I have any further statement to make. I would be happy to respond to questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blandford, while you are here, suppose I read the suggested bill which you sent to the committee, tentatively, for its consideration of this matter. The bill reads as follows:

A BILL To amend the Act entitled "An Act to expedite the provisions of housing in connection with national defense, and for other purposes," approved October 14, 1940, as amended

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Act entitled "An Act to expedite the provision of housing in connection with the national defense, and for other purposes," approved October 14, 1940, as amendd (U. S. Code, 1940 edition, Supp. III, title 42, sections 1521 et. seq.), is hereby amended by adding, after sec. 404, the following new title:

TITLE V

HOUSING FOR FAMILIES OF SERVICEMEN AND VETERANS WITH FAMILIES

SEC. 501. In those areas or localities where the Administrator shall find that an acute shortage of housing exists or impends and that, because of war restrictions, permanent housing cannot be provided in sufficient quantities when needed, the Administrator is authorized to exercise all of the powers specified in titles I and III of this Act, subject to all of the limitations upon the exercise of such