Mr. MULTER. If every dollar that was appropriated for those schools and hospitals was used either in Paducah alone and in Aiken, S. C., for that purpose; if it were, you could not get enough schools and hospitals in either of the areas.

Mr. SNYDER. But the Atomic Energy Commission has the appropriation to go ahead, and it has not only the authority to build, but also to staff.

Mr. MULTER. That is not so. Do you know of any appropriations to build schools or hospitals that it has?

Mr. SNYDER. I do not know whether they asked for it in the new appropriation bill.

Mr. BROWN. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I might say that I hope you, who represent the real-estate people throughout the country, will not advocate the building of another town controlled by the Government as in the case of Oak Ridge, where they are having so much trouble right now.

Mr. SNYDER. We are not doing that, sir.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Snyder, if you do not advocate that the Atomic Energy Commission build these houses in its areas, and also build these hospitals in those areas, why do you harp on the fact that they have the authority to do it?

Mr. SNYDER. What is the other reason? If you have the authority, that is all you need, is it not?

Mr. MULTER. You tell us that they have the authority. I think you are saying that you want them to use the authority.

Mr. SNYDER. No, sir; I did not say that.

Mr. MCKINNON. Going back to the two bills of last year that you referred to, which were passed by the Congress and signed by the President, those bills cite a historical need. They do not project themselves into a new situation such as you have in South Carolina or in Kentucky or in Idaho, or in many other impact areas. They are only a remedy for communities that have a historical need that dates back over a period of years.

But now we are going into a defense period in which we are going to have certain new areas where there are needs for complete community facilities, and these two bills are not applicable to such a need. That is one of the reasons why Mr. Brown was referring to the fact that we need a certain section in the defense housing bill in order to make these towns operative.

Mr. SNYDER. I think the defense housing bill is very well put. But I believe the House Committee on Education and Labor is the committee concerned with the matter of schools.

Mr. MCKINNON. That is part of the whole need.

Mr. SNYDER. That is what I am speaking of. With respect to defense housing, we are in a position to talk about that; on the other facilities, we are not.

Mr. MCKINNON. But the bills you referred to are not applicable to the situation we now face in this defense period we are now in.

Mr. MULTER. Coming back to the other facilities without getting into an argument as to whether or not golf courses are proper—Ï might say I am one who thinks golf courses or any other recreation facilities are as important for the contentment of our people as anything else-how are you going to get the water and sewage and sani

83473-51-pt. 3- -14

tary facilities into these areas if you do not provide for it on the Federal Government level?

Mr. SNYDER. Sir, I do not know of any area that does not have water and the other facilities you are speaking of. At least it has not been pointed out on the basis of the critical list to which I referred.

Mr. MULTER. I suggest that you read the testimony given to us by the Atomic Energy Commission when they were before this very committee on the defense housing bill, and also give attention to their statement that they do not want to build the houses. They have had the authority. They have had a very sad experience in Oak Ridge. They do not want to build or manage houses. They agree with us that the Government should not do that. They feel that private industry should do it, and they do not want to do it.

Mr. SNYDER. May I suggest one thing, Mr. Multer. Private industry does want to do it, and we will do it. We have suggested ways by which it could be done, but until Congress forces whoever it is who is holding up the designation of these areas and the removing of restrictions, private industry cannot do it.

Mr. MULTER. Permit me to amend your statement. If the Government guarantees them against any loss of any kind from the beginning of the job and thereafter while the units are being rented, private industry would do it.

Mr. SNYDER. Private industry has always done so down through the history of this country without Government guarantees.

Mr. BROWN. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I might say that this Savannah River project consists of 250,000 acres of land, and there will not be a house there when it is completed.

Mr. SNYDER. Do they want houses, sir?
Mr. BROWN. Of course they do.

Have you read the testimony? Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir. Up to the present time, do you know how they have relaxed the restrictions?

Mr. BROWN. They have bought the land and have the labor and materials and are ready to go, but they cannot build, because they cannot get any money for facilities. That is why it is being held up.

The CHAIRMAN. The reason for that is the defeat of the defense housing and community facilities and service bill that was defeated in the House. That would have stimulated in every way possible the building of these houses by private enterprise.

Mr. SNYDER. By Government, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. No, by private enterprise. That was defeated simply by the fact that the House refused to consider that bill by a vote of 219 to 170. The House recommitted the bill to the committee. In other words, it leaves the law as it was.

Now, the only method by which those houses can be built is under the Atomic Energy Act. That means that the Government will build them, will hold them, and will rent them.

I might add that a few days ago a delegation came up to my office and asked me to do what I could to see that their rents were reduced. They were employed by the Government. The Atomic Energy Commission rented the property to them, and established the rents. That is no function for the Government to be in; you admit that. It is wrong that the Government should build houses and rent them to people who are engaged in activities of that type. The housing ought to be built by private enterprise insofar as it can be done. Yet

I think that bill was largely beaten by the influence-perhaps misguided influence of people who were interested in the building industry. I just cannot conceive why they have done that.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I have made the statement before and at the beginning of this hearing, and I make it again, that this committee can pass a defense housing bill in 20 minutes, and the House will pass it in 10 minutes, if this committee will only approve a defense housing bill for the purposes for which you and the gentleman from Georgia are talking about. That is all that is necessary. The House is ready to pass that defense housing bill. We are ready to do it now. I have said so at the very beginning.

Mr. MULTER. If that were so, then you should have allowed the bill to be considered, and then offered your amendments.

I say it is bad faith for anyone to come in here and say, "We will give you the kind of housing bill you are entitled to," and then vote down the rule.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad to learn of the gentleman's assurance inasmuch as the House has been quite unpredictable.

Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, the line of voting in the House has been very predictable. However, the gentlemen on the other side do not want to follow the majority.

Mr. BROWN. I might say that I am not criticizing anyone.

Mr. COLE. The majority of this House is ready to pass a defense housing bill today. We would have done it last week when the House was in recess.

I was

The CHAIRMAN. I must say that it was unpredictable to me. astonished when they refused to consider it. But, perhaps, I was not on the inside, and did not know.

Mr. MULTER. May I conținue now, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, of course.

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Snyder, you have given us statistics and figures. I just want to call your attention to the fact that they are at variance with the figures of the 1950 Census of Housing as given to us by the Department of Commerce.

Mr. SNYDER. Which figures, sir?

Mr. MULTER. Vacant dwellings.

The figures, as reported by the Census of the Department of Commerce on housing, show that there are 3,263,000 vacant dwellings which include mostly units which were either dilapidated, seasonal or not offered for rent or for sale. According to these figures there were only 512,000 vacant units in the entire country which were not seasonal and not dilapidated and were offered for rent or for sale.

In other words, throughout the whole country, vacant dwelling units that are being offered for rent, and can be rented, and are rentable, and can be occupied, total not more than 512,000, which is 1.1 percent of the total dwellings in this country.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Multer, may I ask how you defined dilapidated? Mr. MULTER. Deteriorated to such an extent that the unit is not habitable.

Mr. SNYDER. That is not the definition, sir. The definition is that the unit needs one or more major improvements.

Mr. MULTER. You say one or more major improvements?
Mr. SNYDER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MULTER. Without that major improvement it is not habitable?

Mr. SNYDER. It could be a bathroom or a hole in the roof that requires fixing. That is dilapidated.

Mr. MULTER. Do you say that in this year, 1951, a house in an urban area is habitable without a bathroom?

Mr. SNYDER. I am sorry, sir, I did not quite understand your question.

Mr. MULTER. Is a dwelling in an urban area habitable unless it has a bathroom in the house?

Mr. SNYDER. Certainly. I was born and raised in one.
Mr. MULTER. How long ago?

Mr. SNYDER. I am 42 now.

Mr. MULTER. I am talking about 1951.

Mr. SNYDER. I lived in it until I was 23 years of age.

Mr. MULTER. Do you want a man to live in a house in an urban area which house does not have a bathroom in it?

Mr. SNYDER. I did last summer.

Mr. MULTER. Well, the pleasure is yours, and you are entitled to it if you want it.

Let us go on to the next set of figures.

Mr. SNYDER. May I also state that if you will read the rest of the breakdown of what dilapidated as against nondilapidated is, you will find that the total percentage is accurate. And it is also quoted in HHFA's report on the preliminary census report. (The matter referred to is as follows:)

THE HOUSING SITUATION, 1950

TABLE 6.-Vacant nonfarm dwelling units—percentage of all units, 1950

Effective vacancies (year-round use, not dilapidated, available for rent or sale)

For rent...

For sale only.

Other vacancies...

Dilapidated,' year-round use_

Off the market, not dilapidated, year-round use.

Seasonal

Gross vacancies__.

1 A dwelling unit is dilapidated because of (a) 1 or more critical deficiencies, (b) a combination of minor deficiencies, or (c) inadequate original construction.

Rented or sold, not yet occupied; held for settlement of estate for personal reasons of owner, etc.

Vacancy rate.-The effective vacancy rate for nonfarm units was 1.7 percent in 1950, which is higher than the 0.8 percent recorded in 1947, but lower than the estimated rate for 1940. About one-fifth of these vacant units lacked a private flush toilet or a private bath, and they tended to be smaller than occupied units. Taking into account not only the effective vacancies, but also the units which were either dilapidated, held off the market, or designed for seasonal use, the gross vacancy rate was 6.8 percent. While not strictly comparable, the gross vacancy rate in 1940 as reported by the census was 6.2 percent. (Source: Housing and Home Finance Agency, February 1951.)

"321. Definition of dilapidation.Report a dwelling unit as dilapidated when it has serious deficiencies, is run down or neglected, or is of inadequate original construction so that the dwelling unit does not provide adequate shelter or

protection against the elements or it endangers the safety of the occupants. A dwelling unit should be reported as dilapidated if, because of either deterioration or inadequate original construction, it is below the generally accepted minimum standard for housing and should be torn down, extensively repaired, or rebuilt." (Source: Enumerator's Reference Manual, p. 84, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1950.)

"A dwelling unit is considered substandard by the Public Housing Administration if it is either dilapidated or does not have the following plumbing facilities: flush toilet and bath inside the structure for the unit's exclusive use, and hot running water. The Public Housing Administration considers the absence of hot running water to be evidence generally of poor quality of the dwelling unit, but there may be some localities in which the absence of hot running water is not deemed to be a sufficient indication by itself of poor quality. In such localities, a revised count of substandard units may be obtained from table 1 by subtracting from the total the units which lack hot water only. If it is desired to eliminate the units lacking hot water only from the total count of substandard units, the distributions shown in the tables will not be materially affected.

"The criteria used to define substandard units in these tabulations are not identical with the housing characteristics included in the published reports from the 1940 census. * * ** A direct comparison cannot be made with the 1940 results because information on hot running water was not collected at that time. Further, the 1940 data on condition were collected showing dwelling units 'needing major repairs,' whereas in 1950 data on condition were collected showing units as 'dilapidated.' Because the definitions of these two terms differ significantly, the 1940 count of dwelling units needing major repairs and the 1950 count of dilapidated dwelling units are comparable only in a general way."

Source: H. C. 6, No. 45, Department of Commerce, 1950 Census of Housing, Special Tabulations for Local Housing Authorities.

Mr. MULTER. I will not argue the point with you. I will take the figures and breakdown given to us by the Department on the point of increase of rents; you show it is a 20.2-point rise in 24 cities. Mr. SNYDER. The index.

Mr. MULTER. The index; yes. And then you go along and show us how we should break that down further by multiplying it by 71 percent, by including the other cities, and then that brings it down 14.3 points.

Mr. SNYDER. That is right.

Mr. MULTER. And then you break it down still further, and you get it down to 1.6 points of the index of living costs, is that right? Mr. SNYDER. That is correct.

Mr. MULTER. Now, let us assume that you and I are living in one of those areas where the rent increase, according to the index, was 151.9 percent. That means to you and me if we are renters that when the landlord calls around for that increased rent, I have to give him 20 percent more rent than he got in 1939.

Mr. SNYDER. No. You are misinterpreting.

Mr. MULTER. Twenty points more.

Mr. SNYDER. That is right.

Mr. MULTER. When I break that down as to what my salary is and what the rent is, it will be about 35 percent more rent, and about 25 percent more of my income. Do you think I can state to that landlord, "Look, if you take this on the basis of the over-all average, it is only 1.6. Take the rest of the rent from the rest of the country and let me alone."

Mr. SNYDER. You would not get it that way. You could not draw a figure out of the air and call it 25 percent more of your income. You have taken the 1.6 points on the cost-of-living index.

Mr. MULTER. Let us take the percentage, whatever it is.
Mr. SNYDER. 19.8 percent is the average Nation-wide.