to that, either public housing or private housing, under the present market conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. We do not know anything about it, and thought you might throw some light on what the program was, or what the plan

was.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir, I will be very glad to tell you briefly what has been contemplated.

The Detroit plan, in essence, is the same thing as is contemplated in your urban redevelopment section of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill. It provides for public acquisition of slum area, with the clearing of the existing dilapidated dwellings, the replanning and replatting of those areas, the sale of the property, either to one large investor or to individual investors if the site being disposed of can be disposed of in that way.

We are, as I said, in the process of experimenting with it to the extent of actually acquiring one such section. We have appropriated one and a half million dollars in the last 3 years for that purpose.

We, of course, do not anticipate that we will get back from the sale of the cleared land anywhere near what it is going to cost us to acquire the slum area from which the buildings will be removed. To that extent, there will be a subsidy to slum clearance, in which we are planning to participate, in which we would have to participate, under the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, to the extent of one-third of that cost. If the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill is passed, we can proceed infinitely more rapidly to redevelop the heart of Detroit, which is, like all other major cities, increasingly a problem to us.

The CHAIRMAN. The plan rather appealed to me for the reason that it seemed to me that a person could buy a home, under those circumstances for $250 or $300 down payment, and with monthly payments of either $32.50 or $35 a month, and that they could be built to rent for $32.50 or $35.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would be bearing false witness if I undertook to say that we had devised any method in Detroit by which, without subsidy to rents, we could build standard housing and rent them for any such figure as that. There may have been something put out prior to the war which described that figure, but the housing costs have made it impossible now.

The CHAIRMAN. As I recall it, the acquisition of the land by the city would stand in the place of Government grants and Government annual contributions, but the grant would be made originally by the city for the acquisition of the land. I do not know enough about it, of course. I thought perhaps you might be able to tell us about it.

Mr. EDWARDS. I think the essence of the plan constitutes a subsidy to slum clearance, and not a subsidy to the value of the land which would be used for the rebuilding. The total charge for the land to its economic value is expected to be borne by the project or home erected on it, according to the representations which have been made about it to our council, in enlisting our support for the proposal. A subsidy for slum clearance, of course, would be very large. We do not anticipate receiving more than somewhere between 30 and 50 percent of the cost of acquisition of the land. I frankly regard the whole proposal as an experiment. I think it is an experiment which should be conducted. I do not think it is a substitute for public housing, because I am well aware of the fact that in Detroit the low-income

families will not be able to rent, or purchase, the dwellings which are developed on this site.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall that under the State laws the city of Detroit is authorized to condemn?

Mr. EDWARDS. For the purpose of resale?

The CHAIRMAN. Slum clearance.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir; under State law it is authorized to condemn

for that purpose.

The CHAIRMAN. As a part of your city planning program, would be part of that, would it not?

Mr. EDWARDS. The State housing act authorizes that, and I believe there is another act also which grants the city authority for that purpose. We have recently secured the passage, in the State legislature, of a bill which amends the insurance laws, which allows insurance companies to make investments in housing of the character that I have been describing. Prior to that there had been a section of the insurance code which had been interpreted as banning their making such investments.

The CHAIRMAN. How long has the Detroit City Council, through the housing commission or otherwise, been studying this problem?

Mr. EDWARDS. Well, certainly since before my time, Mr. Chairman. I recall hearings before the council on the general housing question as far back as 1936, 1937, 1938.

The CHAIRMAN. Last week we were told that the Detroit Common Council took some action on this bill. Can you tell us something about that?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, sir, in the last council-that is the council prior to the present one-the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, or its equivalent, was endorsed by the common council. A proposal was made 2 weeks ago to rememorialize Congress on this same topic, and that proposal failed by a 4 to 4 tie vote in the council session. Needless to say I voted in favor of it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BUCHANAN. How many members do you have on the council? Mr. EDWARDS. We have nine members. We lost one by his appointment as director of the Detroit Street Railway. Incidentally, we lost a majority on the topic at the same time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gamble asks whether or not the mayor could break the tie.

Mr. EDWARDS. No; under our charter he does not get that opportunity. He has the opportunity to tell us when we are wrong by vetoing, but he cannot break the tie. I think you know from his statement that he is very much in favor of the bill which you are considering. Mr. GAMBLE. That is why I asked the question.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you see in this bill which might help immediately the present emergency with respect to shortage of housing? With the exception of the title VI financing, that is?

Mr. EDWARDS. Title VI financing is very important. I am not very sure of my section numbers, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I refer to the Federal Housing Administration provision.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I believe title VII is the section which deals with veterans cooperative groups and certain other building corporations. which will be given even more lenient mortgage provisions; is that not right?

Mr. BUCHANAN. That is title IV in this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. There is no doubt about the fact that considerable advantage will be taken of that section, in order to proceed. I am of the opinion that one of the most serious problems in relation to getting housing built is the question of financing. The market is there, people are screaming for housing-I have them in my office almost every day describing just bitter personal family situations that seem absolutely intolerable by persons who are unable to meet the down payment provisions or the cost of acquisition of a new home.

I think several features of this bill tend to bring housing closer in touch with the economic market that is demanding housing at every turn. I think that is true in relation to title VI; I think it is true in relation to the provisions for veterans housing; I think it is true in relation to urban redevelopment; I think it is also true in relation to the section dealing with public housing.

The CHAIRMAN. An estimate was made by Mr. Egan of the Public Housing Administration, as I recall it, to the effect that they would not expect to build any houses under that provision this year, or perhaps next year. That is why I asked the question as to what you saw in this bill which you believe would be of assistance in this present emergency.

Mr. EDWARDS. I have no doubt that the long-term effect of this bill would be much greater than its effect in the next few months, but I believe this housing problem is not one that is going to disappear. The CHAIRMAN. What do you think we can do to meet this present emergency? That is basically what we are concerned with at this time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Pass this bill. I think it is the best thing that can be done.

The CHAIRMAN. How would this bill help the present situation? Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, there is no way that I know of, even if you have the site, even if you have the financing, in which you can get housing built in less than a number of months' time. Certainly any large project is going to take anywhere from 6 months to a year or a year and a half. I cannot predict any method of short-cutting that under present circumstances. But, the fact that we cannot lick the problem faster than we aparently can, offers no excuse for not starting in to lick it as soon as we possibly can.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the problem, whether we are not doing something in this bill which would interfere with the momentum of housing construction which we expect this year. That is giving some of us a great deal of concern. If we keep this amendment going, we expect to build over a million units this year, against 840,000 last year, and again six hundred-some-odd thousand in 1946. It is not a question of financing so much as a question of materials and labor. We have had assurances from the trades that they are expanding their programs, their materials programs, so we may expect that situation to get better as we go along. Those materials are mostly available at the present time, although there are some few bottlenecks which are still seriously interfering with our amendment we felt that was the key to the problem of meeting the present emergency, continuance of title VI, Federal Housing Administration financing.

Six weeks ago, before they ever had hearings on this bill in the Senate, we passed a title VI extension bill for a period of 1 year, in

accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Foley. In substance, that provision is included in this bill, as is the bill which we passed out a number of months ago for paraplegics.

Also, you have in mind, I think, that this committee has passed five or six bills, which, up to the passage of S. 866 in the Senate, were pending on the calendar of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee.

We have been very much concerned and are very much concerned, in this committee, with our present emergency. Our problem is what effect is this bill going to have on the present emergency? What aid would this bill give in the present emergency?

Mr. EDWARDS. I think, Mr. Chairman, that one comment I would like to make on that is this: by placing the question of housing, of an integrated housing program, on the Nation's docket as an important national "must" item, you will lend authority to the belief that the housing industry is not going to be a "boom and bust" industry, that it is going to continue to operate at a high level of employment for some years to come, and I think that thereby you will begin to encourage additional labor to get into the field, and additional manufacturers to undertake the supplying of materials for the field.

If this proves to stabilize the market for housing over a considerable number of years, the immediate effect should be that it becomes a much more attractive field for builders, for manufacturers who are suppliers, and for labor, to get into.

The CHAIRMAN. The stabilization to which you refer, I presume, refers to the 100,000 units for 5 years. That would be much less than one-tenth of what we expect to build this year. Would you recommend that this plan be flexible enough so that it could be expanded to meet work necessary during a depression or recession?

Mr. EDWARDS. I think certainly it should be reexamined under any circumstances of that kind. But, it is my understanding of the total impact of the bill, taking all of its provisions together, that the production to be anticipated in the first year of its effective operationand again I do not mean within a month or two after its passage, but probably starting 6 or 8 months after its effective date-would be from 1,200,000 units, which I understand Senator Taft fixed as his figure, to a million and a half, which was the figure fixed by the Housing Administrator.

The CHAIRMAN. Per year?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. No; that was said by somebody without too much. responsibility, apparently, who contemplated that this program was geared to the construction of 15,000,000 units within the next 10 years. In the testimony before this committee thus far, we were told that apparently that statement was not correct. We tried to find out where they got the 15,000,000 units, and they could not tell us. We were told by witnesses sponsoring the bill that that figure was not a correct. figure and should not be used.

Mr. EDWARDS. I have a newspaper quote from Senator Taft on the 1,200,000 figure, which he cites, apparently approvingly, although he credits it to a congressional committee estimate. I do not know whether he is standing four square behind that congressional committee or whether he is simply quoting it. I do not happen to know which committee made the estimate.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not either. I am trying to find out where that started. We have not been able to find it out yet. In fact, that has been repudiated. Of course, that would contemplate all the construction for the next 10 years, even if we could keep up the momentum which we have attained this year. We would like to think that up to the present time we have made it possible to build houses, and, of course, we have proved that.

You indicate there are provisions in this bill which might encourage the reduction of construction costs. To what do you have reference? Let me put the question directly. What do you think there is in this bill by which the cost of construction can be reduced?

Mr. EDWARDS. I think the most important thing which can be done on the cost question under present circumstances is to set up national research and national encouragement to new techniques and methods, in the housing field.

The CHAIRMAN. We have had a great deal of experience with research down here.

Mr. EDWARDS. Some of it has been pretty effective, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I remember we set up $10,000,000 here not too long ago in order to find ways and means of extending the use of agricultural products in industry. I do not know whether we spent all of the $10,000,000 or not, but for their information they went to farmers who were growing the corn from which the alcohol was made, and from which the plastics were made, and when they got through they gathered the information from the sources from which it was already available.

Research is a good thing. It is a wonderful thing. But what information would be available to the Government that is not made available to the Ge ernment through private research of materials men, suppliers, builders, and financial institutions?

Mr. EDWARDS. My personal opinion, Mr. Chairman, is that this is a field where research opportunities are almost boundless, and where very little, compared to other industries, has been done.

The CHAIRMAN. I have a volume 2 or 3 inches thick of research which has been made on housing, and there is a very interesting chapter on the fabrication of houses, just as applies to automobiles in Detroit, where they make a new automobile every year, and which is turned in every year for a new automobile. We might call those dream houses. But do you not think that is dreaming?

Mr. EDWARDS. I am not one of those who calls research dreaming. I think it is one of those things which can be engaged in.

The CHAIRMAN. The bottleneck at the present time is the shortage of materials and labor. How would Government research answer that problem?

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me go back to say that my answer on the question of a bottleneck, as far as labor and materials are concerned, basically is that I believe this bill will stabilize employment in the industry and production in the industry so that more people will come into it. As far as the cost angle is concerned, I think that the most hopeful feature of the bill is the research feature, which should eventually aid in producing a system by which mass production means can be effectively applied to housing, and I know that that is not available at the present time because I have personally spent some time in investigating and visiting the places where these attempts are being made.