to put So-and-So in because they have greater need." Why do wo not just say that for 60 days after the project has been opened, or 90 days, or a year, the veterans shall have first priority? Mr. BUCHANAN. They do have priority. It is very clear. Mr. COLE. I think not. It says "veterans shall have preference." Mr. COLE. It says they shall be given preference. What does that mean? They may be given preference. They may prefer them but still not allow them in. Mr. MULTER. The section reads: * * shall give preference, as among applicants eligible for occupancy of the dwelling and at the rent involved, to families of veterans and servicemen (including families of deceased veterans or servicemen), where application for admission to such housing is made not later than five years after July 1, 1948. As among applicants entitled to the preference provided in this subsection, first preference shall be given to families of disabled veterans whose disability is service-connected. then you have a definition of veteran in subsection (14). Mr. BUCHANAN. You certainly do not want clearer language than that; do you? Mr. COLE. Yes; I do. You may give them preference. That does not mean they are going to get in first. They may have a preference. But that does not mean that they will have first choice. Mr. BOGGS. What does it mean? Mr. COLE. It means they will be preferred provided there is not somebody else who is an applicant with greater need. The rest of the language of the act indicates that. Mr. BOGGS. Where is that provided? Mr. COLE. Right in the act. Mr. BOGGS. If it is there, I think we ought to strike it out. Mr. COLE. Page 77: In selecting tenants, the greatest need shall be given due consideration. Mr. MULTER. Does that not mean among veterans? It is under the title "Veterans Preference." Mr. BUCHANAN. There is an entire section relating to veterans. Mr. BOGGS. We should provide that high-income people do not get into these projects. Mr. COLE. I think so, too. Mr. WHITLOCK. May I point out something this committee may have overlooked in regard to this very question of how well this veterans preference is working out in the matter of public housing, Mr. ChairAt Indianapolis on May 5, a news release given out by the American Legion following the national executive committee's meeting, and I want to read to you certain parts of it. If you care to, I will insert the whole thing in the record: man. Moving vigorously to protect GI rights, the American Legion was on record today as demanding the removal of four Federal officials associated with the sale of a war surplus housing project at Knox, Ind., to private speculators for less than was bid by 139 veteran occupants of the units. The national executive committee of the American Legion called upon President Harry S. Truman to remove for alleged malfeasance in office the following officials: Raymond M. Foley of Washington, D. C., Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. John Taylor Egan of Washington, D. C., Acting Administrator of the Public Housing Administration. Orvil R. Olmsted of Chicago, Ill., director of region III for the Public Housing Administration. Everett Lothrop of Chicago, Ill., assistant regional director for the real estate and disposition of the Public Housing Administration. Mr. BUCHANAN. Who said that? Mr. WHITLOCK. The national executive committee of the American Legion adopted a resolution, which is attached, to the effect that the veterans preference was not being administered by the Public Housing Authority or the Housing and Home Finance Agency, in the interests of the veteran, and called on the President, by resolution, and by this release given to the press, which was not given wide coverage in Washington, but was elsewhere in the country, calling for the removal from office of the Administrators of the Public Housing Authority and the Housing and Home Finance Agency. Mr. MULTER. That proves the law is all right but is not being properly administered, if what they say is true. Mr. WHITLOCK. We believe in veterans preference. If you are going to enact it, it should be made to work. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that release may be placed in the record. (The press release referred to is as follows:) INDIANAPOLIS, IND., May 5.-(ALNS)-Moving vigorously to protect GI rights. the American Legion was on record today as demanding the removal of four Federal officials associated with the sale of war surplus housing project at Knox, Ind., to private speculators for less than was bid by 139 veteran occupants of the units. The national executive committee of the American Legion called upon President Harry S. Truman to remove for alleged malfeasance in office the following officials: Raymond M. Foley of Washington, D. C., Administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency. John Taylor Egan of Washington, D. C., Acting Administrator of the Public Housing Administration. Orvil R. Olmstead of Chicago, Ill., director of region III for the PHA. Everett Lothrop of Chicago, Ill., assistant regional director for real estate and disposition of the PHA. The case grew out of the sale of the Knox housing project to the Knox Homes, Inc., owned by the Levine Bros. of Lorain, Ohio, for $150,000 after 139 veterans occupying units in the project had bid $175,000. The Indiana American Legion was the first to protest this action. The NEC resolution also asked financial relief for the veterans from Congress. CRAIG SCORES DEAL George Craig of Brazil, Ind., young member of the national executive committee of the American Legion, just back from Washington, D. C., where he and National Judge Advocate Ralph B. Gregg had testified at a congressional inquiry into the sale of the Knox housing project, pulled no punches in scoring the deal. Rising to champion the 139 World War II veterans at Knox who, he said "are being dumped into the street at the whim of speculators seeking to make 125 percent profit," he said to the NEC in part: "This is a strongly worded resolution and I know there are probably some here who wonder if the Legion is not sticking its neck out in asking the President to summarily dismiss these men from office. In my 18 years of experience as a lawyer I have never seen such bad faith as has been demonstrated by these men-not once, but in successive instances. * * * It is time that the American Legion demand that such men be removed from office. * I doubt that anything can be done to right the wrong done to these Knox veterans. * * * But I do believe the American Legion is absolutely justified in asking the Chief Executive to dismiss from office those men who have prostituted the right of the veteran." * TEXT OF RESOLUTION The NEC by a unanimous vote adopted the following resolution: "Whereas Raymond M. Foley, John Taylor Egan, Orvil R. Olmstead, and Everett Lothrop have failed and neglected to discharge the duties imposed upon them by law in disposing of surplus housing units at Knox, Ind.; and "Whereas their bad faith in dealing with the veterans residing in this project has imposed great personal hardship and misery upon those who have defended their country; and "Whereas speculative interests, because of malfeasance of the above-named officers, have been permitted to profit at the expense of the veterans and the Government; and "Whereas evidence establishing the above indictments was duly introduced and conclusively proven at an investigation held by the House Subcommittee on Expenditures in Executive Departments in Washington, D. C., April 26, 27, 28, 1948; now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That: “1. The President of the United States be requested to remove from office the said Raymond M. Foley, John Taylor Egan, Orvil R. Olmstead, and Everett Lothrop; and "2. The President and the Congress of the United States take the necessary action to grant full relief to the veterans interested in this project who have been injured and damaged by the conduct of the above-named officers; and "3. A duly authenticated copy of this resolution, signed by the national commander and the national adjustant, be delivered to the Honorable Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America." Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Whitlock, are those your sentiments, also? Mr. WHITLOCK. My sentiments are that if there is a veterans preference and I believe in veterans preference-it should be made to work. Mr. BOGGS. Are those your sentiments-that Mr. Foley and these other gentlemen should be removed from office? Mr. WHITLOCK. I have pointed out here three or four places where I think there has been serious lack of performance according to the law. I am not calling for anyone's dismissal. I am calling for the performance according to the law. Mr. BoGcs. So that you do not ask for the dismissal of Mr. Foley? Mr. WHITLOCK. I am not seeking to have anyone removed by the Congress. I am seeking to see that Congress has its wishes carried out by administrators. Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have permission at the same time to include the complete statement of the national commander of the American Legion, Mr. James F. O'Neil, also made in the same issue of the same paper. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that may be done. (The document referred to is as follows:) O'NEIL STATEMENT National Commander O'Neil vigorously supported Chairman Alessandroni. He said, in part: "I have traveled some 83,000 miles since September 1. I have had an opportunity to talk with thousands of veterans, Legionnaires and non-Legionnaires, about this subject of housing. I have made it a point to do so. This is the most urgent issue before the country today, as it affects veterans. "I don't think we can ever stand in very good grace before anybody if we are willing to accept Federal subsidies for ourselves and indicate we want them denied to anybody else. I don't think we want to stand in that position. "I find myself in accord with the report of your housing committee as submitted through your National Economic Commission in this resolution. I say to you this is a critical period and if you delay it, and continue to delay it, in the hopes you are going to postpone the day, you are only kidding yourself. Very frankly, you are kidding yourself and the Legion if you assume that position. This is critical to the veteran who is in need of housing. Some of them have been forced to double up. All of us here are in comfortable circumstances, or most of us are, but I want you to think about the veteran who is forced to double up with others. He finds himself, because of economic conditions, looking to rental housing. He can't get it. He is looking to the American Legion for assistance and we want to duck behind something that is not really the issue. I say to you, in my opinion we can take action here without violating any of the resolutions or mandates of the national organization as they relate to housing." Mr. WHITLOCK. On page 85 of this title there is another point that we think this committee should recognize as to the increase of the contribution that is being made by the Federal Government to the local public housing authorities. The contribution that can be made now is in two amounts—first, it stipulates 22 percent, which now is, by law, the Federal rate. Í might say, again, on page 84, the term "going Federal rate" involves quite a long definition, then they destroy that entire definition by saying that "provided for the purposes of this act the going Federal rate shall be deemed to be not less than 22 percent." So they have the 22 percent contribution, and then they have, on page 85, the right to increase the fixed contribution: "The fixed contribution may exceed the amount provided in the first proviso of subsection (b) of this section by 1 percent," or, in other words, in the United States Housing Authority Act today, they provide for a 1 percent contribution. Now, in this bill they increase that to 2 percent, and so putting the 22 percent going rate, plus the 2 percent fixed contribution, you have 412 percent, which is the amount of contribution that can be made. We thought we should point that out to you because that is a substantial increase in the amount of contributions to public housing authorities. On page 86, again we have the authority to bypass the appropriation procedure by issuing notes and obligations to the Secretary of the Treasury, in amounts not to exceed $800,000,000 and if the Secretary of the Treasury does not have sufficient funds, to use the Second Liberty Bond Act. A little later I will give you a recapitulation of the total amounts that are appropriated and the total amounts that are to be provided by this method which does not allow the appropriating precedures of Congress to work. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this title VI is perhaps one of the best written sections in this bill from the stand point of draftmanship. I think, aside from these provisions which I have pointed out to you, this section has perhaps had more work done on it than the others I have talked to you about because it is the one which, of course, has had the most attention and the most emotional appeal directed toward it. I do believe, however, as I said at the beginning, that it raises a serious question as to whether it is the policy of Congress to bypass States, to bypass appropriating precedures, to encourage coercion from local groups to expand this program, because of the Congress' intent to see that there is no discrimination between low-income families, and, of course, there is the question of providing billions of dollars in ambiguous terms-we do not know whether it is $6,400,000,000 or $11,500,000,000, plus $800,000,000 more, without appropriations. We seriously question this sort of legislation and the policies which would be established, by this committee or this Congress, with so many billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. 75674-48-54 Now, Mr. Chairman, we come to title VII, farm housing. Here again, we have many of the same objections, even perhaps more glaringly because in the farm section we do not only have the Federal Government dealing with the local community but we have the Federal Government dealing with groups of people, small groups of people, and I call your attention to page 98: If a community does not have a public agency, the Secretary of Agriculture may deal with a committee of farmers in the locality to dispense these funds. In other words, we have even bypassed the local governmental agency, and are dealing with committees of farmers. If you agree with our argument that there is a place for the State and a place for the local community, it seems highly dubious to us that in such a bill as this, with such far-reaching effects, the Federal Government should be dealing with committees of farmers in small localities, in the administration of the act. We also believe that in this farm section we almost come to the point of absurdity in legislation. On page 92, when the bill defines who is entitled to assistance under this act, the wording says the man must be an owner of a farm without decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling, he must be without sufficient resources to provide it, and he must be unable to secure credit. Then we have three types of farmers; one, an adequate farmer, one, a potentially adequate farmer, and, one, a farmer who just does not seem to have any hope at all. In the potentially adequate farm, I do not believe the farmer who takes this assistance would realize what he was getting into even if he read this act carefully. In the first place, he gets a 33-year loan at 4 percent, and then the Secretary sets up an instrument which provides for security based on the applicant's equity in the farm, or additional security collateral, as he shall find necessary. There is no protection of the rights of the lender. The terms would be whatever the Secretary wants to establish. There are no safeguards established under this section. After that, the Secretary has this farmer in practical serfdom. He has the right, after he once has given him this assistance, to continue to examine him, follow his operation, and if you will look at page 100 of S. 866, the Secretary, for the purposes of this title, shall have the power to determine and prescribe the standards of adequate farm housing, by farms or localities, and I emphasize "by localities”"taking into consideration, among other factors, the type of housing which will provide decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings" and then "the type and character of farming operations to be conducted, and the size and earning capacity of the land." In other words, to get this assistance, the farmer has to turn himself over to the Secretary of Agriculture as to the type of farming he does, exactly what his operations are, how he keeps the place in repair, and the crops he raises, if you please. He is, in effect, a serf of the Secretary of Agriculture if he uses this act, and I think any farmer should realize that and understand that the use of this act would put him, as an individual, in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture who can prescribe his entire mode of operation, his entire life. Mr. BOGGS. Will the witness yield for a question? Mr. WHITLOCK. Yes. |