Hon. SAM RAYBURN, Speaker of the House of Representatives. THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Attached is a letter addressed to you by the Secretary of the Air Force recommending the enactment of a proposed draft of legislation, also attached, bearing the title "To authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to establish land-based air-warning and control installations for the national security, and for other purposes." This legislation has been approved by me for inclusion in the National Military Establishment legislative program for the Eighty-first Congress, first session, and responsibility for handling it on behalf of the Establishment has been placed in the Department of the Air Force. Sincerely yours, JAMES FORRESTAL. The SPEAKER, The House of Representatives. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, DEAR MR. SPEAKER: There is submitted herewith draft of a proposed bill to authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to establish land-based air-warning and control installations for the national security, and for other purposes, which the Department of the Air Force recommends be enacted into law. The Secretary of Defense has assigned responsibility for the preparation and submission of this measure on behalf of the National Military Establishment to this Department. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to enable the Secretary of the Air Force to establish and develop, within and without the continental limits of the United States, in fulfilling the air defense responsibilities of the Department of the Air Force, such land-based air-warning and control facilities as he may deem necessary in the interest of national security. The establishment of an effective landbased radar protective screen will entail the construction, installation, and equipment of temporary or permanent public works, including buildings, facilities, appurtenances, utilities, and access roads. To accomplish the necessary construction work, the proposed legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Air Force to acquire land and rights thereto by donation, purchase, exchange of Government-owned land, or any other means, and to erect temporary or permanent facilities thereon without regard to sections 1136, 3648, and 3734, Revised Statutes, as amended. The fiscal effect of this proposed legislation for construction will be $85,500,000 divided into increments in the fiscal years 1949 and 1950. This report has been coordinated among the departments and boards of the National Military Establishment in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Secretary of Defense. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report to the Congress. Sincerely, O STUART SYMINGTON. MARCH 17 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 21), 1949.-Ordered to be printed Mr. MAYBANK, from the Committee on Banking and Currency, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1731] The Committee on Banking and Currency, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1731) to extend certain provisions of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947, as amended, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. INTRODUCTION Your committee conducted a comprehensive hearing on the subject of Federal rent control, and incorporated into its own record the more extensive hearings held before the House Committee on Banking and Currency on the same subject. Your committee was particularly careful to see that within the limited time the committee was able to sit, in addition to the Government witnesses, different geographical groups, landlords, tenants, and public-interest groups, were all given adequate opportunity to present their views to your committee. Your committee as a result of its extensive study of the need for the extension of rent control, and of its long hearings and studies in connection with housing legislation, has concluded that the emergency with respect to the housing shortage growing out of the exigencies of World War II still exists, and that it is necessary for a further limited period to continue a program of Federal rent control. Your committee was impressed by the evidence presented showing that if rent control was not continued at least for another year our national economy would suffer a tremendous strain. Large sections of our population among the low- and fixed-income groups would suffer. Already we are concerned about the increase in unemployment, the decrease in savings, the unhealthy growth of installment purchases and small loans, the decline and leveling off in trade and industrial production. If, on top of all this, rent controls are relaxed or lifted entirely so that rents continue to go up-we are likely to find that the farm groups, industry, retail trade the whole economy would suffer a severe blow. Any increase in rents today would be at the expense of diets, medical care, clothing, and other necessities of life of millions of American citizens. If as the President pointed out in his recent message to Congress the most optimistic interpretationis placed upon the slight reduction in the cost of living in recent months, it would be unwise to lift living costs again by rent increases even larger than the moderate ones taking place under the present system of control. Such a course would inflict further hardship upon the families who have already been the prime victims of inflation, and would make it harder to exercise moderation in wage demands. In your committee's recent report on S. 1070, the Housing Act of 1949, we discussed at some length the existing housing shortage, and the urgent need for a large housing program. It is the hope of your committee that with the new construction since the end of hostilities and the high level of housing construction which we look forward to in the coming year, the intense shortage in the rental housing supply which now exists in many areas throughout the Nation will have decreased sufficiently, so that the removal of rent controls will not have the disastrous effects it would if rent controls were removed any time before next spring. Your committee is very conscious of the fact that the difference between an exorbitant rent and a fair rent is frequently the difference between whether a small percentage of vacancy, say 3 percent, exists, or a near zero vacancy exists. According to a recent survey made in 91 cities with a population of 100,000 and over, a total of the conservative estimates show an immediate unfilled need at the end of 1948 for more than 1,000,000 rental dwellings in those cities. Not included in this estimate, of course, is the need for rental housing outside of these cities, nor the present demand for reasonably priced housing for sale, additional housing demand due to new family formation, units needed to replace demolition, disaster losses, and completely uninhabitable dwellings, and units needed to promote the minimum margin of vacancies necessary to relieve inflationary pressures and to provide for a normal housing market. Many families in those cities were, no doubt, found to be living doubled up. In April 1948 according to the Bureau of Census there were 21⁄2 million married couples living doubled up, more than a 35percent increase in the number of married couples required to live doubled up in April 1940. A number of vacancy surveys were brought to your committee's attention. They all show-even those intending to show the increase in the number of vacancies-how scarce vacant rental units are, especially units renting at rates the average family man can afford to pay. In a survey of a cross-sectional group of 29 cities made on January 25, 1949, by the United States Post Office, arranged in cooperation with the Office of the Housing Expediter, it was found that the total number of units offered for rent or for sale amounted to less than onehalf of 1 percent of the total number of dwelling units in these 29 cities as reported by the 1940 census of housing. In the individual cities, the vacancy ratio ranged from zero to 1.1 percent. The investigation of the vacancies appearing to exist revealed that 3 out of every 5 vacancies were not actually available for rent or sale. Most of them were merely awaiting the arrival of the new occupant. The local advisory boards, over 700 of them throughout the country, which are in a better position to determine the actual housing supply and demand situation than any other group, and whose business it is to decontrol defense rental areas if the supply of rental accommodations is adequate, have found relatively few occasions to do so. Similarly, although the Housing Expediter made surveys in 986 counties throughout the United States he has been able to take only 31 decontrol actions. Assuming he decontrolled even three or four times that number, which some witnesses contend he could have, there can be little doubt of the tight situation existing in the supply of rental housing. Rents asked for vacant or new rental accommodations are greatly out of line with what the average wage earner or salaried worker can afford. According to the Housing Expediter, in 700 cities in all 48 States the average monthly rent for 41,205 newly constructed rental units was $109.38. Where rent control has been removed, rents have gone up sharply. In a survey conducted by the Housing Expediter the average rent for 62,000 decontrolled rental units in over 1,000 cities and towns in the 48 States was 60 percent higher than when under control. In your committee's judgment there is no doubt that the present housing situation is such that a removal of rent controls would result in an increase of from 25 to 100 percent over the width and breadth of our land. It could create such inflationary pressures that from it would ensue a widespread demand for much higher wages and salaries, resulting in strikes, and increased prices that might well require some system of price control to be put into effect. There can be little doubt that our economy would suffer a serious economic shock and the results on our domestic economy, as well as international, are not hard to imagine. Of course, your committee is aware of the general distaste the average American has for any type of control. But the relatively few cases of hardship and inequity that result from our present operation of rent control, in your committee's judgment, is far outbalanced by the good which still can be derived in terms of our national welfare. Thus your committee is satisfied that the 1-year extension of rent control is, indeed, necessary. VETERANS' PREFERENCES The Bureau of Census has issued a survey as of April 1948 showing that there were 7,375,000 families, the heads of which were male veterans of World War II. This represents approximately 20 percent of the 37,280,000 total of all families reported on that date. Preferences to veterans of World War II and their families in the sale or rental of newly constructed housing accommodations would be continued until June 30, 1950, with some changes by section 2 of the committee amendment. Most of the changes are designed to express more clearly such veteran-preference provisions, and include the following: 1. Housing accommodations created by conversion are included in the same manner as newly constructed accommodations. S. Repts., 81-1, vol. 1-91 |