duties of the Administration (including appropriations therefor, which are hereby authorized) shall be available, in such amounts as may from year to year be authorized by the Congress, for the administrative expenses of the Administration.

(c) The Housing and Home Finance Administrator, the Home Loan Bank Board (which term as used in this section shall also include and refer to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, and the Chairman of the Home Loan Bank Board), the Federal Housing Commissioner, the Public Housing Commissioner, and the National Home Mortgage Corporation, respectively, may, in addition to and not in derogation of any powers any authorities conferred elsewhere in this Act

(1) with the consent of the agency or organization concerned, accept and utilize equipment, facilities, or the services of employees of any State or local public agency or instrumentality, educational institution, or nonprofit agency or organization and, in connection with the utilization of such services, may make payments for transportation while away from their homes or regular places of business and per diem in lieu of subsistence en route and at place of such service, in accordance with the provisions of 5 U. S. C. 73b-2;

(2) utilize, contract with, and act through, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, any Federal, State, or local public agency or instrumentality, educational institution, or nonprofit agency or organization with the consent of the agency or organization concerned, and any funds available to said officers for carrying out their respective functions, powers, and duties shall be available to reimburse any such agency or organization; and, whenever in the judgment of any such officer necessary, he may make advance, progress, or other payments with respect to such contracts without regard to the provisions of section 3648 of the Revised Statutes;

(3) make expenditures for all necessary expenses, including preparation, mounting, shipping, and installation of exhibits; purchase and exchange of technical apparatus; and such other expenses as may, from time to time, be found necessary in carrying out their respective functions, powers and duties: Provided, That the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes shall not apply to any purchase or contract by said officers (or their agencies), respectively, for services or supplies if the amount thereof does not exceed $300: And provided further, That funds made available for administrative expenses in carrying out the functions, powers, and duties imposed upon the Housing and Home Finance Administrator (except those imposed pursuant to titles II and V hereof), the Home Loan Bank Board, the Federal Housing Commissioner, and the Public Housing Commissioner, respectively, by or pursuant to law may at their option be consolidated into single administrative expense fund accounts of said officers or agencies for expenditure by them, respectively, in accordance with the provisions hereof.

ACT CONTROLLING

SEC. 803. Insofar as the provisions of any other law are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, the provisions of this Act shall be controlling.

SEPARABILITY

SEC. 804. Except as may be otherwise expressly provided in this Act, all powers and authorities conferred by this Act shall be cumulative and additional to and not in derogation of any powers and authorities otherwise existing. Notwithstanding any other evidences of the intention of Congress, it is hereby declared to be the controlling intent of Congress that if any provisions of this Act, or the application thereof to any persons or circumstances, shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this Act or its applications to other persons and circumstances, but shall be confined in its operation to the provisions of this Act, or the application thereof to the persons and circumstances, directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. Passed the Senate April 22, 1948. Attest:

CARL A. LOEFFLER,

Secretary.

The CHAIRMAN. We also have before us H. R. 43, introduced by Mr. Celler, of New York; H. R. 1759, introduced by Mrs. Douglas;

H. R. 2035, introduced by Mr. Crawford, of Michigan; H. R. 2523, introduced by Mr. Javits; H. R. 3508, introduced by Mr. Foote; H. R. 4012, introduced by Mr. Dirksen; H. R. 4144, introduced by Mr. Fletcher; H. R. 4770, introduced by Mr. Celler; H. R. 4771, introduced by Mr. Celler; H. R. 4916, introduced by Mr. Klein; H. R. 5015, introduced by Mr. Mitchell; H. R. 5729, introduced by Mr. Buchanan; H. R. 5862, introduced by Mr. Fletcher of California; H. R. 5920, introduced by Mr. Boggs of Louisiana; H. R. 6192, introduced by Mr. Javits of New York; S. 1543, introduced by Senator Sparkman of Alabama, and any related bills which I have omitted mentioning and which have been referred to the committee or which might be referred to the committee during the pendency of these hearings, which we hope will be as short as possible but sufficiently adequate to get a full understanding of all matters involved in these bills.

It is our purpose to have adequate hearings, though not prolonged to the point where we will defeat our purpose by delaying action. It is not our purpose to delay action on this bill. It is our purpose to get a bill reported out just as quickly as we possibly can in order to insure that it might be enacted before Congress adjourns.

I will ask the cooperation of the committee and the witnesses in the matter of geting a bill to the floor as quickly as possible.

Up to the present time, the committee has had no other hearings on the so-called public housing provisions of any of these bills. Two years ago this committee had short hearings on a bill known at that time as the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill. It was sent over to the House shortly before the adjournment of Congress, and the committee members who were here at that time will recall that we held hearings at that time, including one night session. But the House leadership at that time decided the matter was too controversial to take up in the closing days of that Congress. For that reason no action was taken by the House.

Last year the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill was reported out of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee and placed on the Senate calendar and there seemed to be so much controversy with respect to it in the Senate that it was found to be not advisable on the part of this committee to have hearings on the companion bill, which was known as the Javits bill, until the Senate had disposed of the matter. The sponsor of the bill in the Senate was Senator Taft, who was the chairman of the Policy Committee of the Senate. We decided that it would complicate matters if this committee had done what it could have done, of course, namely, to report out a bill. Therefore, we have awaited action by the Senate. This committee has announced as a matter of policy that as soon as the Senate had disposed of the matter, we would begin hearings. The Senate did pass S. 868 the other day, and now we are taking up this bill, along with the other bills.

As far as I know, the committee has never taken any position on the matter of public housing. The chairman has never taken any position on public housing. Our minds are wide open, and we start out on these hearings for the purpose of determining, as a matter of policy, whether it is the primary responsibility of the Federal

Government or the various State governments to clear slums and provide for low-rent housing.

If we find that, as a matter of policy, it is the Federal Government's primary obligation to clear slums and provide for low-rental housing, then, it becomes merely a question as to how much we should appropriate each year for that purpose, and as to what machinery should be set up for the administration of the law written in response to that policy.

If we determine that it is the primary obligation of the States to clear slums and provide for low-rental housing, then, we will decide, in this committee, whether there is an obligation on the part of the Federal Government to participate in any way. If we decide that the Federal Government should participate, then, it becomes a question as to how much we should participate and what standards we should set up for such participation.

In any event, after we have once decided the question of policy as to primary responsibility, then, it is a matter of very simple legislation to provide the means for effectuating that policy.

Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, I remember that just before I relinquished the position which you now hold, we had hearings on this bill, and we encountered quite a bit of opposition. Every possible dilatory action was taken in the committee to prevent the expediting of hearings. I hope that will not occur this time. I think the committee should, in one way or the other, expeditiously get through with its hearings and arrive at some conclusion. But there was such hostility shown in the committee at that time, that it was impossible to come to any conclusion.

The CHAIRMAN. It was very controversial.

Mr. SPENCE. Well, every time a quorum was not present, a point of order was made. I hope that that will not occur again, because it would just simply waste the time of the committee if we were to come to no conclusion.

The CHAIRMAN. I share your hope. I think it should be our purpose to get this matter out of the way just as quickly as we possibly can. We may be able to have some afternoon hearings, if we are granted permission to sit while the House is in session. Of course, we will not be able to get permission to sit when there are matters of policy taken up on the floor. However, we will have afternoon hearings just as often as we can.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation on that point? I think we should have afternoon sessions. However, I feel it is our responsibility also to be on the floor. During the last few years, I have missed several important measures because the committee has been sitting. I do not want to delay the action of the committee, but I think I should state quite frankly that I feel that it is my duty to be on the floor and attend to the business of legislation when the House is in session.

The CHAIRMAN. We have before us this morning Mr. Raymond M. Foley, Housing and Home Finance Administrator.

Mr. Foley has a statement.

We are very happy to have you proceed, Mr. Foley.

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My statement addresses itself to S. 866, and is not, in view of the complexity of the bill, too

long. I would be happy to have an opportunity to read it and then to go into any questions you may have.

I have with me the Commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, Mr. Richards, and the Commissioner of the Public Housing Administration, Mr. Egan, who will be available and who will have statements also.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Foley, I neglected to observe, for the record, that we set up last year a joint committee on housing, of which our esteemed colleague, Mr. Gamble, was the chairman, and it was the hope of this committee that that committee, because of its hearings held during the summer and fall would expedite consideration of this matter by reason of their studies and there are available to this committee the two reports made by the Joint Housing Committee, which I think would be helpful in understanding these problems. I suggest to the members of the committee that they study those reports very carefully because there is a world of worth while information in both of them. All right, Mr. Foley.

Mr. GAMBLE. Also, Mr. Chairman, there are also 325 pages of statistics that I recommend very heartily that every member of this committee peruse page by page and line by line. I trust that something new will be brought out by these hearings on housing.

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND M. FOLEY, HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to come before your committee to present my views with respect to S. 866. I should like to indicate, first of all, that the bill is consistent with my philosophy with respect to the provision of housing which I have frequently expressed to your committee and to other committees of the Congress, and I am, therefore, appearing in general support of the bill. I think it would be of benefit to all the varied groups who have an interest in housing if there were enacted by this Congress legislation such as this which treats housing as the single broad problem which it is, rather than as a wide variety of matters which otherwise may appear to be unrelated.

The problem of housing is an over-all problem. It is national in scope. It is directly related to the general welfare of the entire people. A supply of adequate housing, sufficient to meet the needs of all families, is essential to a sound and stable democracy, for the character of the home is a large factor in determining the character of family life, the conditions under which children grow up and assume the obligations of citizenship, and the general attitudes of people toward their community and their Government.

We have a serious cumulative shortage of housing. We have not been able to adopt and adhere to a policy of replacing housing that should no longer be used. The production costs of new housing are too great for the pocketbooks of too large a proportion of the American people. We have slums and blighted areas in a great many of our urban communities. We have many families who must live in slums and other inadequate housing because their incomes are not sufficient to permit them to pay an economic rent for decent shelter, new or old.

From the standpoint of the general economy of the Nation, housing construction can well be in the neighborhood of $7 billion annually, and should be one of the major sustaining elements of national prosperity.

Unfortunately, however, the home-building industry has been one of the most violently fluctuating industries. The average annual number of dwelling units started during the 10-year period 1920 to 1929 was 703,000, at an average annual cost in excess of $3 billion. Even during this period, the volume of residential construction fluctuated from 247,000 in 1920, to a peak of 937,000 in 1925 and back to 509,000 in 1929. During the 10-year period, 1930 to 1939, the average number dropped to 203,000 at an average annual cost of slightly in excess of $1 billion. Over the 20-year period, the extremes were represented by the peak of 937,000 units, costing slightly over 42 billion dollars, in 1925, and the low of 93,000 units, costing slightly under $300 million in 1933.

This extreme instability in residential construction is further illustrated by the fluctuations in construction employment. During the 10-year period, 1930 to 1939, the variation in employment in on-site residential construction varied from a high of 668,000 to a low of 150,000-a decline of more than 79 percent. On the other hand, the variation in total nonagricultural employment was much less extreme, varying from a high of about 31 million to a low of about 23 milliona decline of about 25 percent.

The task which we face in housing is a difficult one. It cannot be solved simply by a 2- or 3-year period of high-construction volume. But these hard facts serve only to emphasize the imperative necessity for taking adequate measures to start now to meet the problem. We must find the means of aiding the home-building industry to achieve and sustain a higher annual volume of new housing construction. We must find the means of assisting the industry in getting a better distribution of its product in the various price and rental classes. We must find the means of effectively aiding the efforts of the home-building industry to reduce housing costs and to provide adequate housing for groups far lower in the income scale than has been achieved in the past. We must find the means of replacing our inadequate housing and of eliminating our slums and blighted areas. We must take adequate provision for decent housing for our low-income families. I believe we should recognize that even with maximum effort and substantial success, progress toward these objectives will be a gradual and continuing process, and we cannot expect some sort of a revolution that will suddenly make it possible for private enterprise to satisfy all of the Nation's requirements for decent housing at all

income levels.

This is the background against which I should like to discuss the several titles of the pending bill.

First, the declaration of national housing policy. In my judgment, the establishment by the Congress of a well-conceived, comprehensive national housing policy represents a most desirable course of action, and an essential first step. From time to time, the Congress has enacted legislation to deal with one phase or another of the housing problem. The result has been that, while there already exists a great deal of important housing legislation, there is no single, clearcut declaration by the Congress of a housing policy.