progress in easing the housing shortage, so far as families of low and medium incomes are concerned. Mr. Hofstra, of New York, was quoted as saying that the housing situation was "tighter than ever before." Mr. Driscoll, of Boston, noted that the housing shortage was "extremely acute," and added that "it showed no signs of relaxation." Mr. Cox, of San Francisco, said housing conditions remained "critical" in his area; and Mr. Campbell, of Atlanta, made a similar comment. Mr. Abern, of Chicago, reported "little, if any, housing relief." Mr. Queary, of Cleveland, pictured housing conditions in the Midwest as "worse than ever before." Mr. Stephens, of Dallas, said he saw signs of "pretty slow" improvement. As regards New York City, Mayor O'Dwyer in his statement to the United States Conference of Mayors declared: New York City has a total need for 750,000 new apartments if we are to satisfy the existing absolute housing shortage. Our city has an absolute housing shortage for about 500,000 persons crowded in the crudest and most difficult conditions. In addition, there are 600,000 families living in slums and obsolete buildings, and there is at least 260,000 veterans in dire need of housing. This is the dismal housing picture in our Nation and in New York City. Our council, therefore, strongly urges the immediate enactment of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner housing bill. We maintain that its adoption will considerably ease the now-existent housing shortage. Our Government is the only medium to provide an urgent public housing program. For it has been repeatedly stated by Government officials and realty interests that private enterprise cannot and will not provide housing within the rental range of low- and mediumincome groups. But, if private enterprise cannot and will not provide housing for the low- and medium-income groups at rentals such groups can afford, our Government must provide such necessary housing. Urgent slum clearance, urgent urban development, and immediate, adequate housing at rentals within the income range of lowand medium-income groups depend upon Government aid. We, therefore, cannot overemphasize the urgency for the adoption of the TaftEllender-Wagner housing bill. At this point, I would like to include an addition made to our statement as submitted to your committee. Our secretary failed to include this in the report and I would like to bring it out at this particular point. I refer to an additional statement sent to your committee and this is dated May 17. We specifically urge the inclusion and adoption of the public housing provision in the Taft-Ellender-Wagner housing bill. This provision provides for the construction of 500,000 low-rent housing units with the aid of Federal funds. We also urge the inclusion and adoption of the slum-clearance provision in the bill. Removal of the public-housing and slum-clearance provisions would definitely hamper and cut the heart out of the bill. Private enterprise is unable and unwilling to provide adequate housing. Our Government must assume its responsibility to millions of its citizens who are inadequately housed. We therefore urge that Congress pass the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, including its provision for public housing and slum clearance. In addition to our support of this housing measure, our council is concerned over the enactment of an amendment to the bill recently adopted by voice vote of the United States Senate. We refer to the adopted amendment submitted by Senator McCarthy, of Wisconsin, that would allow the dislodging from public housing projects of all tenants earning above the legal income standards for occupancy. Such tenants were "frozen" under existing law. Now our council definitely adheres to the policy that the public housing projects are designed primarly for those of low income. For many years prior to the war, our council-then known as the City-Wide Tenants' League-fought consistently and vigorously for slum clearance and public housing. These are still our main objectives as a tenant organization. Hence, the answer to the critical housing shortage is not tenant evictions. The answer is housing-immediate and adequate housing within the means of low- and medium-income groups. Mass evictions would result if the McCarthy amendment, attached to the Senate version of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner Bill, were adopted by Congress and made law. Due to the prewar, preinflation income standards determining eligibility, many thousands of tenants will be evicted. In view of the acknowleged housing shortage existing in the city of New York, this contemplated mass tenant eviction would mean unbearable hardship to many thousands of tenants. We maintain that the critical housing shortage cannot and must not continue. And, certainly, this housing shortage cannot and must not be aggravated by adding to it in the form of tenant evictions from public housing projects. Decent, adequate, and reasonably priced housing is just as important as food and clothing. There is no substitute for adequate, decent, and reasonably priced housing. An adequate, decent home at reasonable rental, so that there is enough money left over for food and clothing, is a basic necessity for life. Therefore, in the name of the 16,000 public-housing project tenants our council represents, we strongly urge the adoption of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner housing bill as a measure to ease the critical housing shortage in our Nation and city. We further strongly urge the elimination of the amendment to the bill allowing removal of socalled excess-income tenants, first, because of the existent housing shortage, secondly, because excess income is based upon unrealistic, inflationary income standards determining eligibility. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Pike. Are there questions of Mr. Pike? Mr. SMITI. The burden of your testimony before this committee, I believe, is that you do not want these high-income groups evicted from the low-rent housing; is that correct? Mr. PIKE. Dr. Smith, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the term "excess income." Those of us who are directly concerned with this problem know what the situation in these projects is. Excess income, as determined, is a paper figure. We have thousands of tenants who are living doubled up. The housing authority takes these incomes-the income of one family unit as such. Whereas, if taken separately, either family may well be within the income limit to require eligibility. On the other hand, we have those cases of secondary wage earnersearners who are not heads of families as such. No deduction is made for that. They go to school; they work; they have clothing; they have to take care of themselves. That is considered as the income of one family. We have the case of people who want to go to school and who set aside money for schooling, people who want to get married. These family incomes as such are not considered as a part of the family income, as adopted by the housing authority. We have also the situation where pensions of widows-Army widows-where items of veterans for schooling, disability pensionsall are considered as part of the family income as such. These are the factors which make up the paper figure to which we object. In addition to that we would also refer to the inflationary value of the dollar. You know and I know the value of the dollar. Conservatively speaking, it amounts to about 40 cents, if that much. I have here an interesting report in that respect. This is a reprint from the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. I can just quote a few years. If you want me to quote the entire thing, I will. But, just as an example, in 1944 the gross weekly earnings for a family of three dependents were $46.08. In 1939 Mr. SMITH. What do you mean by $46.08? Mr. PIKE. Gross weekly earnings, in dollars. In 1945 the gross weekly earnings were $14.39; in 1939, $33.08 per week. In 1946, the gross weekly earnings were $43.74; in 1939, the amount was $30.78 per week. In 1947 the gross weekly earnings were $49.26; in 1939 the amount was $29.75 per week. Mr. SMITH. But your rent has not risen? Mr. PIKE. Pardon me? Mr. SMITH. Your rent has not risen? Mr. PIKE. Yes; it has. Mr. SMITH. How much of an increase have you had in your rent? Mr. PIKE. Twelve dollars a month. Mr. SMITH. On an average? Mr. PIKE. On an average. Mr. SMITH. We have had other witnesses here testifying that these people with high incomes should be removed from the housing projects. I think we have had several. Mrs. FICHTENBAUM. We have no objection to these tenants being removed from these projects, provided they have a place to go. In fact, we went to the New York City Housing Authority and suggested, when we saw what was coming, that we did not want these tenants with higher incomes to be subsidized. We suggested an increase in rent. In fact we were in Washington, at the time, visiting the Federal Housing Authority and suggesting this increase in rent, and we got the increase. We have no objection to these tenants being forced to move, but we certainly object to any tenant being forced to go into the streets. We do not want to see tenants dislodged from their homes-people who have worked a lifetime to build a little nest for themselves. We object to them being forced to go into the streets. We want homes for these people. They will go out as soon as housing is provided for them. Mr. SMITH. What is your own position? Do you occupy an apartment? Mrs. FICHTENBAUM. I occupy an apartment in the public housing project. Mr. SMITH. No; I was talking to the gentleman, Mr. Pike. Mrs. FICHTENBAUM. I am sorry. Mr. SMITH. Do you occupy an official position with the housing project? Mr. PIKE. No. sir. I am just a tenant in the housing project. Mr. PIKE. I am with the State department, division of placement, unemployment insurance, as a claims adjuster. Mr. SMITH. What is your salary? Mr. PIKE. My salary is $3,450 a year. Mr. PIKE. I pay $51 a month rent, sir. Mr. SMITH. What is the average rent in the project where you are living? Mr. PIKE. Just a moment, sir. I have here the 1947 report of the New York City Housing Authority-the thirteenth annual report. I will refer to that. Mr. SMITH. Do you have any children? Mr. PIKE. Yes, sir; I have. Mr. SMITH. You have children? Mr. PIKE. Yes, sir. Mr. SMITH. How many? Mr. PIKE. One child, sir. Mr. SMITH. So that you really would belong to the group that would have to move if the law were enforced; is that correct? Mr. PIKE. That is right, sir. And I am not an individual in this respect. I can very well represent many thousands in the same category. Mr. SMITH. May I ask the lady what her position is in that respect? Mrs. FICHTENBAUM. My position in that respect is that I occupy an apartment in Williamsburg, my husband, my son and daughter. My husband is a veteran. He goes to school. His $65 a month is included in the net income of the family. As a result, that makes me and many other tenants of the same type ineligible for the housing project. However, I have no objection to moving. I repeat that. I will be glad to move tomorrow, providing I can find an apartment. In fact, Dr. Smith, many of these tenants have made application in every housing project which has been erected in the city. They have gone to the city of New York and to the mayor, asking that they be given authority to move into these projects to make room for people of a lower income. The CHAIRMAN. Is this all not rather academic? Have we not passed a law preventing the ousting of these tenants from these lodgings unless they could find other quarters? Mr. SMITH. Just one more point. It is my understanding that the income which veterans would receive, as in your case, does not enter into this picture because it is merely a temporary income. Mrs. FICHTENBAUM. But it is still included in the income. We have annual income checks. The CHAIRMAN. The income from service disabilities is not included. Mrs. FICHTENBAUM. All incomes are included, even from serviceconnected disability. Even if a youngster goes out to work and he gets $5 a week, and even if he gets a tip on a sandwich, we have to report that this kid has made some sort of money-and it is included in the income. Mr. CHAIRMAN. You are all set until next March 1, at any rate. They cannot put you out until you get other quarters. Mr. FOLGER. Mr. Chairman, I believe they suggested an amendment to this bill to change that law; is that right? Mr. PIKE. That is right. I have here suggested amendments to S. 866 which were submitted by Senator McCarthy. I would like to read No. 9, on page 4 of the old copy, which reads as follows: Every contract made pursuant to this act for annual contributions to lowrent housing projects initiated after July 1, 1948, shall require that the public housing agency make periodic reexaminations of the net incomes of the families living in the low-rent housing project involved, and, if it is found, upon such reexamination, that the net incomes of any families are increased beyond the maximum limits theretofor fixed by the Public Housing Agency, and approved by the authority, for continued occupancy in such housing, such families shall be required to move from the project, if there are decent, safe and sanitary dwellings available to them within their means and appropriate for their use. That "if" has been deleted from the bill, S. 866, by the Senate. Up to that point, the entire section is identical. That phrase "if there are decent, safe and sanitary dwellings available to to them within their means and appropriate to their use" has been deleted from the S. 866. The CHAIRMAN. That is substantially the same as the law is now, at least until March 1. Are there further questions? You want to suggest that that be introduced as an amendment of the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill? Mr. PIKE. Yes, sir; we would like that included in the law as such in view of our situation--not only ourselves but that of very many thousands of others as well. Mr. SMITH. You are now in the situation where you are making more. money than is compatible with the laws, yet you cannot find other quarters. Suppose the Congress passed a law to sell those houses to private investors. Would that solve your problem? Mr. PIKE. It would not solve my problem, whether it be Government or private. Mr. SMITH. You would not be in a position to buy one of those units? Mr. PIKE. No, sir; I would not be in any position at all to do any purchasing. Mr. SMITH. It would depend on what the rent might be? Mr. PIKE. Possibly. Mr. SMITH. There is some sentiment for that, among people who live in those housing projects. Have you ever heard of that before? In other words, there are some people living in those projects who would like to buy the units they occupy. Mr. PIKE. No; I have not heard it. Mrs. FICHTENBAUM. I know we operate in there projects and we have an interproject council, to which we have delegates coming from |