but, as you will find, those it is supposed to help want no part of most of the so-called aid.

The truth is that certain of the advocates of S. 866 were afraid to expose it to the light of informed judgment because they knew that no unprejudiced Member of Congress could approve it, once he understood its implications.

S. 866 is a hodgepodge of ambiguity. It also is the moat flagrant collection of political pork ever assembled under one tent. It is loaded with high-sounding and deceptive generalities.

In its 115 pages and more than 22,000 words, S. 866 is an unbelievable mass of economic horseplay and absurdity. Those are strong statements, but the facts bear them out.

Obviously, there are two reasons why this omnibus bill was conjured up in the first place. One reason was an attempt to compel groups which favor one provision to support all the rest of the bill in order to gain their own personal objective. It is encouraging to find that that strategy did not work. The bait has been rejected.

The second reason for writing a bill of 22,000 and more words was to guarantee that very few individuals including busy Members of Congress would have the time or the inclination to read it. But then, lest it should have been read in its original form, many thousands of new and of additional words were inserted in the form of amendments at a late date.

I venture the statment that no more than few hundred individuals in the entire country ever have read through the bill as it now stands. I will venture that no more than a few dozen have studied this bill thoughtfully. And then I will go on to state that not more than a handful of people, including the Members of the Senate, understand what it means. And yet, because of clever propaganda and tremendous political pressure, from high places, many large and wellmeaning organizations have been induced to support a bill which they accept entirely on faith. And that faith has been broken, whether intentionally or otherwise.

S. 866 is a measure which would demoralize the private building industry. The result, then, might well be an overwhelming demand for the Federal Government to step in and take full control.

But before discussing the various sections of the bill in detail, I wish to make a few general observations. S 866 would commit the Federal Government to expenditures and commitments totaling $9,602,500,000, and would require large additional but undetermined expenditures for search and other functions. Through appropriations in the usual manner? No. Only $42,500,000, or less than 1 percent of the total, would be appropriated by Congress in advance. No less than $6,950,000,000 would be irrevocably committed before appropriations were sought, and $2,610,000,000 would be committed without any appropriations procedure whatsover.

Seldom, if ever, in peacetime has Congress granted so much power and so much untrammeled authority to spend as this bill would confer on one man the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. His powers would be so broad and unlimited that he could wreck the entire economy of the nation. That authority is couched in unbelievably loose and obscure phraseology. He could run wild in the field of housing if this bill were to pass. The oportunities for political favoritism and for political punishment are astounding.

This bill is the greatest bid I have ever seen for the local communities to come to Washington and dip into the Federal Treasury. It says that Government aid to clear slums shall be extended to those localities which estimate their own needs and demonstrate that these needs cannot be fully met through reliance solely upon private enterprise and upon state and local revenues, and without such aid. This is a clear invitation to localities to appropriate all their funds for other purposes and then prove that they must have Federal aid.

What better way could there be to guarantee that the local governments will insist on Federal funds, whether they actually are needed or not? The decision is to be based on assertions by local governments and on the edict of the single, all-powerful administrator. He can give funds here and deny them there by purely arbitrary decision, based on any political or personal consideration. This section seemingly was carefully written to gain support from all, without eliminating anyone from the promised benefits, regardless of actual need. It is the acme of pork barrel legislation.

There is no guide whatsoever as to where a large part of the funds is to be used. The Housing Administrator can pass the money out where people vote right, he can hold it back where they vote wrong. He is the sole boss. There are no strings on him whatsoever. Here is a first-rate opportunity to build a fine political machine and to buy support for any housing philosophy the Administrator may choose to adopt.

The truth is that a more vicious bill could hardly have been written. And yet because it contains 115 pages and 22,000 words, and because it has had repeated support from the President and other Federal officials, it passed the Senate without any challenge of certain of its major provisions.

If the committee's plans for hearing witnesses are carried out, members of the House will at least know what they are voting on when this legislation is brought up for final disposition.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Whitlock, Mr. Lyle is here from Detroit, and you are here in Washington most of the time, I understand. Would it be agreeable to you to step aside now to give him an opportunity to testify?

Mr. MULTER. Mr. Chairman, may I have unanimous consent to insert in the record a letter received this morning from the Honorable John Cashmore, of Brooklyn, urging the immediate adoption of this legislation?

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that letter will be inserted in the record.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon, ABRAHAM J. MULTER,

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, PRESIDENT OF THE BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN, May 28, 1948.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN: I realize fully that you and all the other members of the Brooklyn delegation have long and consistently favored passage of the long-range housing program now awaiting final action in the House.

In the past few days, however, I and many others here have become much disturbed at reports from Washington that this program, as embodied in the Taft-Ellender-Wagner bill, may be "lost" in the last-minute rush before adjournment.

Responsible newspaper reports have stated, in fact, that the bill, although passed by a substantial margin in the Senate on April 22, may not even be reported out of the House Banking and Currency Committee unless some congressional leaders cease their filibustering and delaying tactics.

I know I do not have to emphasize to you that we continue to have a critical housing shortage.

No yardstick has yet been devised to measure how much substandard and wretched housing conditions have contributed to delinquency and crime among the youth of this and other large cities.

Family life is undermined and demoralized. Hard-working, conscientious parents are compelled to rear their families, in many instances, in hovels that are unfit for human habitation.

Senator Wagner stated on April 19 that 4 years had already been given to study, hearings, investigations, and legislative drafting of the long-range housing program.

During all these years many of our families have lost their chance at better housing accommodations. They are the real losers in this tragic situation. A mere legislative blueprint of a housing bill, no matter how perfectly drawn, has never provided shelter for those urgently needing it as long as it has not been put to use.

Mayor O'Dwyer declared in his letter to the House committee on May 5 that despite huge city and State programs, there is still a desperate need in New York City for low-rental housing which cannot be supplied by, and which does not compete with, private construction.

President Truman in his speech of May 6 to the National Conference on Family Life emphasized that the housing shortage was an "almost fatal" problem and appealed for prompt action by the House to assist in solving it.

I have been informed that you and all the other members of the Brooklyn delegation have signed the petition to bring the bill out of committee for a vote on the floor of the House.

In view of all the facts and the urgency of the situation I request you to exert strong and sustained efforts for the final passage of this bill before it is too late.

With kindest personal regards, I am

Sincerely,

JOHN CASHMORE, President.

The CHAIRMAN. We also have a statement from Mr. Edgecomb of the Common Council of the city of Detroit in answer to certain statements which Senator McCarthy made before the committee. I told Mr. Edgecomb that if it was agreeable to the committee, his statement might follow the testimony of Senator McCarthy.

Without objection, that will be done.

(The statement referred to appears at p. 719.)

Is Mr. Lyle here?

Mr. George D. Lyle is chairman of the Wayne County Council, Michigan. He is accompanied by Mr. Arthur Clarke, Robert L. Berry, Arthur J. Madar, State commander of the American Veterans of World War II, Mr. Fergus Markle.

Mr. Lyle, you may proceed.

Mr. LYLE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. First, will you give us a little bit of your background, and tell us whom you represent?

Mr. LYLE. We come here, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as the Michigan Veterans Housing Committee, representing the four major veterans organizations in Michigan: The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the American Veterans of World War II, known as the AMVETS. The CHAIRMAN. How was this committee appointed?

Mr. LYLE. This committee is appointed by the department commanders of each organization in Michigan on a State level.

Commander Arthur Clarke, department commander of the American Legion, is a member of the committee here today. Commander Arthur Madar of the American Veterans of World War II, past department commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Robert Berry, State adjutant of the Disabled American War Veterans.

We come to you mainly because of the serious housing situation insofar as it concerns veterans. However, we have also gone on the pretext, always, that there is a housing shortage for civilians as well as for veterans. But what assists one assists the other.

We feel that the Congress, in the recent move it has taken, has deprived us of the one vehicle we had for providing immediate housing, and that is allowing the Federal Housing Administration title VI extension to expire as it did.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you or anyone representing your committee appear before the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency in connection with this bill?

Mr. LYLE. We did not. In fact, we were denied the opportunity. We requested an opportunity to appear before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee when they were holding hearings, and that opportunity was not afforded us.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Did you get an opportunity to testify when the field investigations were being held in the city of Detroit by the Joint Housing Committee?

Mr. LYLE. I was called before that committee as chairman of the rent advisory board. They specifically asked that the chairman of the rent advisory board be present, and I did give a few of my views as to housing under that pretext, if you want to put it that way.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Did you take the same position at that time as you are taking today?

Mr. LYLE. I did, sir.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Lyle.

Mr. LYLE. Is that sufficient as to our background and why we are here? If it is, I will proceed with the statement that I have here.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE D. LYLE, CHAIRMAN, WAYNE COUNTY COUNCIL, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, ACCOMPANIED BY COMMANDER ARTHUR CLARKE, DEPARTMENT COMMANDER, AMERICAN LEGION; COMMANDER ARTHUR MADAR, AMERICAN VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II; ROBERT L. BERRY, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; AND FERGUS MARKLE, AMERICAN VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II

Mr. LYLE. We have been officially delegated by the Michigan Veterans' Housing Committee to present the following statement, which represents the opinions and convictions of the four great Michigan veterans organizations, which it is our honor and privilege to represent in matters relating to housing.

Therefore, we respectfully submit:

That we are unalterably opposed to the amendments to the TaftEllender-Wagner bill, as presented by Senator Flanders.

That we are not familiar with the detailed provisions of the Flanders amendments; for these amendments are too numerous and too di

verse to assimilate and analyze in the limited period which has been available. But we are familiar with the results which they are intended to accomplish, which we believe are as follows:

1. Stimulate and expand Government housing on a large scale. 2. Extend Federal control over real estate to such an extent that State and local authority in this field would largely disappear.

3. Vest in the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency a degree of bureaucratic power which is not compatible with American democracy.

4. Create under the authority and control of the Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency a national propaganda machine, which could be used to attempt to indoctrinate the American people with ideologies which are opposed to the American democratic system.

5. Insure a tax-financed national experiment in state socialism on a vast scale at a cost of in excess of $6,000,000,000.

We are sincerely convinced of the allegations contained in the five preceding paragraphs; we further believe that a great majority of the American people will agree with us when they have had time to study the proposals, and analyze all of the implications. Certainly the majority of the members of Congress have had similar views over a period of several years, as evidenced by their negative consideration of the Wagner-Ellender-Taft bill.

Public housing and slum clearance, by the Federal Government, is not an untried theory. Initiated on a broad scale by the Housing Act of 1937, there has been 10 years of actual experience by the National Government; and the National Government in cooperation with local governments, in planning, directing, building, and operating public housing.

We maintain that this 10-year record contains no evidence that this venture in state socialism has improved the morale or the morals of any segment of the citizenry; or that it has resulted in economic or social betterment for any or all of the American people.

We contend that it has made no substantial progress in clearing the slums; that it has not housed the lowest income groups; that its operating verging at times on the criminal, has at all times been inefficient and wasteful.

The contentions made in the two preceding paragraphs, we are informed, are largely verified by evidence compiled by various congressional investigating committees.

In view of these facts, we cannot understand either the logic or reasoning of those Members of the Congress who would reenergize and expand this questionable undertaking of government.

Nor can we understand how the Congress of the United States can honestly embark on a project of this magnitude, which so vitally affects the lives of millions of American citizens, and initiates à definite change in our established form of government, without first arriving at a declaration of national policy. A declaration of national policy which is first formulated by the Congress, then publicized, and finally submitted to the electorate for endorsement or rejection. A policy which includes answers to the following form questions:

1. Is it the duty and proper function of the government on any level, to house any of its citizens, except indigents, criminals, and those mentally infirm, by means of a permanent tax-supported subsidy?