I think they have to go as high as $52.50 a month, and nothing down except the impound, which amounts to about $90.

Mr. TALLE. The reason I ask, is, a veteran I know very well wrote to me and asked my help in trying to solve his problem. He wanted to get a loan from the Veterans' Administration and got nowhere with it.

Mr. BAUMAN. If they have a reasonably secure position, one that is not a fly-by-night job, and they can pass the ordinary credit references, they can obtain a GI loan and get a house for less than hundred dollars. That just includes the escrow impounds and anywhere from $42 to $55 a month, which includes everything.

Mr. TALLE. In this instance, the complaint was that no loan could be made without an appraisal by the Veterans' Administration, and the Veterans' Administration Office failed to send an appraiser out to examine the property. So that stopped it. The veteran finally gave up and went to FHA.

Mr. BAUMAN. I see.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McDonough.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. Do you have any figures to show how many individual property owners there are in the Los Angeles area?

Mr. BAUMAN. No, I don't, Congressman. I don't know how many there are.

I know that we have, in our branches, around 30,000 that are supposedly members of the Small Property Owners League.

Mr. MCDONOUGH. I think the committee should know that Mr. Bauman, in coming here, is representing not the large investors in rental property, but is representing the salaried home owner who perhaps has a duplex, or one or two units, many of whom depend almost entirely on that rental for his or her livelihood. He isn't what you would call a representative of any vested interests. He is a representative of the individual investment on the part of the small property owner, and it is a compliment to them that they would go to the time and expense to send a representative here to inform the committee and I think he has made a very fine statement.

Mr. BAUMAN. May I say this, Congressman: That many of our members are members of unions, and such, too. We have janitors, and people who have managed to buy two and three units, and when these various unions were assessing members fees to fight this rent control, we had our members in this who were on the other side. They were being assessed fees to fight themselves, because we have many members in the Retail Clerks Union, who paid $25 into a fund to fight rent control, and they had four or five units themselves and were members of the Small Property Owners League but they had to do it or they would lose their jobs.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the people of Los Angeles take a great deal of interest in their Government's affairs and I know that they take great advantage of their right to seek redress in grievances. I think that is very commendable.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bauman.

Call the next witness, Mr. Hallahan.

Mr. HALLAHAN. Mr. Jack Pinkston, representing the Home and Property Owners' Alliance, Inc.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Pinkston.

Mr. PINKSTON, Mr. Chairman, I am Jack Pinkston of Dallas. In the interest of saving the time of the Committee, I have a prepared statement in a joint statement of the Honorable Carlton Moore, Sr., of Houston, a member of the Texas Legislature, and also of myself, Jack Pinkston. of Dallas, Tex.

I would like to make certain pertinent remarks from the entire statement and then I would like the statement included in the record, if Your Honor please.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

JOINT STATEMENT OF CARLTON MOORE, SR., AND JACK PINKSTON, ON BEHALF OF THE HOME AND PROPERTY OWNERS' ALLIANCE, INC.

Mr. PINKSTON. We reside and own property in Houston and Dallas, respectively. Our appearance before this honorable committee is made on behalf of the Home and Property Owners' Alliance, Inc., which is chartered as a Nation-wide organization designed to correlate through a system of education, the thinking processes of all who own property, plus those who aspire to sustain unto themselves and to posterity the sacred right of the individual to own property.

It shall be our earnest endeavor at all times to safeguard strenuously the right of the citizens of this Nation to maintain the family relationship, to acquire and to hold inviolate a home for their family and to determine their own destiny in accordance with the teaching and guidance of their creator, unaided and unhampered by governmental authority. In pursuance of these stated ideals, we must of necessity aline ourselves unalterably in opposition to H. R. 3871 in its entirety. We must oppose said H. R. 3871 because every provision thereof is extremely violative of the fundamental principles upon which our divine American freedom is based. Broadly stated, the twofold purpose of H. R. 3871 is: (1) To divest the citizen of his constitutional right to freedom of action and to vest in the Government the power to control the actions of the citizen; and (2) to divest the citizen of his constitutional right to own property, both real and personal, throughout his lifetime, and to control his property throughout his continued competency free from fear of interference in either case by Government agents; and to vest in the President alone, one individual, the power, at will, to confiscate any (or all) property, real and/or personal, the citizen's home included, whenever he (the President chooses, based solely upon his own individual determination, correctly or incorrectly, that such confiscation would best serve the very nebulous philosophy, viz., "in the interest of national defense,"The CHAIRMAN. The courts have upheld rent control, haven't they?

Mr. PINKSTON. I am not talking about rent control, Your Honor. The CHAIRMAN. What are you talking about?

Mr. PINKSTON. I am talking about that section with reference to the taking of the property itself, section 102 of H. R. 3871. The CHAIRMAN. Well we are considering rent control today.

Mr. PINKSTON. This

The CHAIRMAN. That is what we are hearing today.

Mr. PINKSTON. I touch rent control in this statement too, but it was our understanding that the hearing was on the whole of H. R. 3871.

The CHAIRMAN. Well let's stay with rent control.

Mr. PINKSTON. Because we do want to oppose H. R. 3871 in its entirety, as well as the provisions contained therein with reference to rent control.

The CHAIRMAN. Well we have set this hearing today, to consider rent control. I don't think we can go into the constitutional questions involved.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the owners and renters of property are vitally interested in the provision he has just been discussing, namely the power in this law to take their property away from them, so that it can't be rented, and the effect which the bill will have upon renters generally and I assume that is the point he was going to make.

Mr. PINKSTON. That is entirely correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Well it is not directly under rent control.

Mr. PINKSTON. When we consider H. R. 3871 in its entirety, we must regard the rent provisions being only in the alternative to take the power itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think not, but go ahead.

Mr. PINKSTON. And alternatively to give the President the power to control all rental property, except property used solely for agricultural purposes, far beyond the wildest imaginary contemplation of the venerable framers of our great Constitution. No emergency situation, real or conjectural, is requisite to invocation of these freedom-annihilating powers and no review of this one-man determination is provided.

That there are some in the Government of the United States today who think in such un-American channels is indicative of the grave peril now threatening to destroy from within this great divinely inspired Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our greatest hope for survival in this crisis lies in the knowledge that this great Government has endured dire crises before.

The philosophers in the theory of cyclic recurrence doubtless foresaw the probability that in this day this great Nation again would be threatened seriously with destruction by the work of our own hands.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you opposed to rent control?

Mr. PINKSTON. I am opposed to any control; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. On the constitutional ground or on other grounds? Mr. PINKSTON. On constitutional grounds; yes, sir, I will make that broad statement.

To be perfectly frank, we are opposed to controls of any type. We want to see the people left as free now as they were in the beginning in this country, and in order to do that, we certainly should forget about all of these controls, recognizing that that will bring some hardships on some of us here and there, but recognizing further that in the final analysis, our freedom is worth it.

To continue, fourscore and seven years ago a great President and eminent American statesman said substantially:

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new Nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great struggle, testing whether that Nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure on such bases.

Countless brave men have fought and died to sustain those sublime virtues inherited by us, and the least that we can do is here to dedicate ourselves to an increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

In other words, countless thousands of brave men have fought and died to gain and to sustain the very same freedoms which said H. R. 3871 now proposes to destroy by congressional action.

Title I, section 202 of said H. R. 3871, beginning on page 2 thereof, reads in part:

Whenever the President deems it necessary in the interest of national defense he may acquire by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer, or may cause proceedings to be instituted in any court having jurisdiction of such proceedings

The CHAIRMAN. I don't think that is germane to rent control. Those are defense plants and I don't think we want to go into that this afternoon.

Mr. WOLCOTT. Mr. Chairman, it goes right to the meat of this law, as I see it. If the Federal Government is going to take property away from the people

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think the Government can take away people's homes?

Mr. WOLCOTT. Under the provisions of this act, they have the authority to do it and if they are not going to do it, we should exempt them from the act. That is what he is talking about.

Mr. PINKSTON. That is it, exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't think there was ever any contemplation of that.

Mr. WOLCOTT. If there isn't any, then we should take it out of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Mr. Pinkston.
Mr. PINKSTON. (Continuing).

to acquire by condemnation, any real property, including facilities, temporary use thereof, or other interest therein, together with any personal property located thereon or used therewith, that he deems necessary for the national defense, such proceedings to be in accordance with the act of August 1, 1888 (25 Stat. 357), as amended, or any other applicable Federal statute. Upon or after the filing of the condemnation petition, immediate possession may be taken and the property occupied, used, and improved for the purpose of this act, notwithstanding any other law. Property acquired by purchase, donation, or other means of transfer may be occupied, used and improved for the purposes of this section prior to the approval of title by the Attorney General as required by section 355 of the Revised Statutes, as amended.

Thinking logically, the term "any real property" does not exclude any real property, and therefore of necessity it also means all real property. The term "or other interest therein" certainly includes the fee simple title therein.

The term "together with any personal property located thereon" necessarily means all personal property in this Nation, since all such personal property is located on the real property where it is situated. The term "upon the filing of the condemnation petition immediate possession may be taken and the property occupied," undoubtedly means that it is not necessary to await any action on the petition by the court.

And the term "prior to the approval of title by the Attorney General," removes the last possible obstacle to the immediate confisca tion by the President of every item of property of whatsoever nature in this Nation.

In other words, disregarding the meaningless verbiage contained therein, the said quoted section 202 means simply, to wit: That the President, by condemnation, may take any or all real and personal property in this Nation whenever he chooses. These are not mere idle words to those of us who have seen our Tidelands confiscated on identically the same excuse, viz: in the interest of national defense. Joe Stalin has no more power over the property within the Soviet Union than these provisions propose to give the President of these United States.

It can be said with definite certainty that not more than 1 percent of the people of this Nation now know about the provisions of this bill, and it is further certain that as the people learn about these provisions they will become fighting mad. The Boston Tea Party will be comparable to an ordinary Sunday afternoon tea party, beside the chaos that will reign through this Nation, if said H. R. 3871 should pass this Congress. The people of this Nation are not going to sit idly by while their homes and their property are being confiscated.

Surely no loyal American Senator or Congressman will vote to create a one-man dictatorship over the property of this Nation, as clearly is contemplated in said H. R. 3871.

Said H. R. 3871 is objectionable in that it would permit the Government to engage freely in the manufacture, processing and production of goods, commodities and materials in competition with its citizens, notwithstanding the fact that such governmental operation is repugnant to free enterprise.

Mr. WOLCOTT. I think you are making an exceptionally good statement. It is very, very well prepared.

Now, we have to go to the floor to answer the roll call, and if there is going to be any confusion here while you are discussing this, perhaps we better go and come back together, because we can't follow this gentleman's argument during this confusion.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is the confusion?

Mr. WOLCOTT. The confusion has been all around me here. I have been trying to follow this statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will recess and return when the roll call is over.

(Whereupon, at 3:05, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 3:45 p. m., of the same day.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. We will resume the hearings. You may proceed, Mr. Pinkston.

Mr. PINKSTON. Particular objection is made to title IV-A, titled "Rent Stabilization," for the reason that the same is merely a guise by which the advocates of rent control hope to accomplish indirectly that which they are convinced they cannot accomplish directly-the renewal of rent controls Nation-wide.

Experience has proved conclusive to the satisfaction of everyone who has viewed the facts with an open mind that rent controls constitute the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon any people. Experience in France over a span of nearly 30 years proves that in addition to usurping and destroying the freedom of both the property owner and the tenant, rent control accomplishes exactly the reverse of that which