General Housing

velopment, and for the construction of low-rent housing with veterans' preference. It is not incumbent upon the House to accept every sentence of the Senate bill, but it is incumbent upon us to join with the Senate and move quickly toward the solution of the housing problem. The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Snyder here?

Proceed, Mr. Snyder.

STATEMENTS OF CALVIN K. SNYDER, SECRETARY, REALTORS' WASHINGTON COMMITTEE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL ESTATE BOARDS, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD R. CARR, REALTORBUILDER OF WASHINGTON, D. C., AND WILLIAM D. DAVIS, KANSAS CITY, MO., PRESIDENT OF FARM MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., AND PAST PRESIDENT OF INSTITUTE OF FARM BROKERS

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Calvin K. Snyder, secretary of the Realtors' Washington Committee, National Association of Real Estate Boards. Our offices are at 1737 K Street, NW., in Washington and 22 West Monroe Street, Chicago, Ill. I have been authorized to appear here today on behalf of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, representing 1,028 realestate boards and a membership of 42,611 realtors throughout the country.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we should like to present our testimony in three parts.

First, I would like to make an opening statement on behalf of our association and then introduce Mr. Edward R. Carr, a realtor-builder of Washington, D. C., immediate past president of the National Association of Home Builders, who will discuss titles III, V, and VI of S. 866 as passed by the Senate and presently being considered by your committee. Then I should like to introduce Mr. William D. Davis of Kansas City, Mo., president of the Farm Management Associates, Inc., and past president of the Institute of Farm Brokers. Mr. Davis, with your permission, will discuss title VII, the farm section of S. 866. In my opening comments I should like to review the preamble to S. 866 and touch briefly on the advocated objectives of this bill. I have several charts here which I would like to use in making our presentation. By means of these graphic illustrations of local, State, and Federal expenditures and debt at all three levels of government, we will seek to prove that it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to provide a home for every citizen.

Article 1, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States reads: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of the Senate and a House of Representativesand the 10th amendment provides:

The powers not designated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It seems to me that the very first decision which must be reached by the Congress in considering S. 866 is whether or not it shall be the responsibility of the Federal Government to eliminate slums and

blighted areas, to provide a home in suitable living environment for every citizen, and to develop and redevelop the Nation's communities; whether this national policy shall be discriminatory in that it shall be directed to serve a tiny segment of the Nation's economy instead of the economy as a whole; and further, whether or not this Congress wishes to invite the communities of the Nation to come to Washington-bypassing the constitutional provision of States' rights-for every bit of assistance whether it be for housing, automobiles, clothing, food, insurance, education, or the other social necessities of our American way of life. And, finally, the Congress is confronted with whether it wishes to delegate control over its purse strings to a Government agency administrator.

This is not a new issue. It has been brought up time and time again in the past decade or more. It was part of the full-employment bill, where the purpose of the administration was to force acceptance of the principle that the Federal Government must assume responsiblity for providing every citizen with a job at a living wage. It was only after an arduous struggle in the House of Representatives that this principle was not enunciated in the act as passed.

S. 866 raises again this same issue of direct governmental responsibility for the welfare of individual citizens. It is stated in broad and resounding terms and in the obscure language of the preamble, and it is implied in numerous passages throughout the legislation.

The question is not one of the desirability of better housing. It is not even of the probability of the Government being able to provide housing for its citizens through the kinds of activity called for in this measure. The larger question is whether it is possible for the Government to undertake this responsibility without opening itself to demands for taking on responsibility for other needs-clothing, farm machinery, automobiles, vacations. There is nothing unique about housing when this question is faced.

In dealing with this bill you are looking down a long road. You are committing this Government to immeasurable financial burdens and to an incalculable expansion of function. You are taking over to the central authority that obligation which in a free country rests on industry and on the effort and ingenuity of individual citizens. You are looking down the road to an economy controlled and directed by the National Government. The result will be a different economy and a different government from what we have known. This must be kept in mind when you consider this bill.

There is another aspect of this question. Can citizens long remain free when they are dependent on the Government for these necessities with which you are undertaking to provide them? Can they long remain free when they pay rent to the Government, when they look to the Government for the source of money to finance their homes, when, in the event of foreclosure, the Government no longer stands as a protection between them and the mortgagee, but is itself the mortgagee?

These are the kinds of questions which come up as you consider S. 866. The proponents of this bill have a beguiling argument. But there is the obligation of looking beyond to the fundamental issues it raises. You are assuming for the Government a task without evidence that it can be accomplished by the Government. You can be

certain that the very effort to accomplish it, even though the effect may fail, will bring about profound changes in the relationship of the Government to the citizen. You may at the end find that we are without both houses and freedom.

Thus, a great deal rests upon determination of whether or not it is the Federal Government's responsibility. We say that it definitely is not, and I should like to present a few charts to help illustrate and emphasize our point of view.

This first chart is the public debt per capita and is broken down into classifications for the years 1940 through 1947. At the lefthand column is shown the local public debt per capita; in the middle column, the State public debt per capita; and, in the last column, the Federal public debt per capita.

You will note that the local public debt per capita has decreased, from 1940, from $127 to $96; that the State per capita indebtedness has decreased from $27 to $21; and that the Federal indebtedness, since 1940, has increased from $326 to the present indebtedness of $1,794 per capita.

The next chart is a break-down to show the individual State per capita indebtedness as related to the Federal per capita indebtedness. You will note that the States of Nebraska and Iowa are the lowest, with approximately 75 cents. The rest of the States are graduated to show you Kentucky, Wisconsin, Georgia, Ohio, Texas, California, and Alabama. The highest State per capita indebtedness was Louisiana, with $72.01. This is approximately 2,500 percent less than the Federal per capita indebtedness of $1,794.

The next break-down is a break-down of municipal per capita indebtedness. Milwaukee, for example, was lowest with $11.25; Des Moines, Iowa, $40.21. New York has the highest, $393.23, it being the largest metropolis as well. Again we find that we have about 300 percent difference between the highest local per capita indebtedness and the Federal per capita indebtedness of $1,794.

It has been claimed that restrictions of State and local laws have prohibited the increase of bonded indebtedness, and that an upward revision of those restrictions would weaken the financial structure of the municipality or State. We all know the old adage that a chain is no stronger than its weakest link. These charts which I have just shown you illustrate forcefully that the weakest link in our economic chain is the per capita indebtedness of the Federal Government in relation to the per capita indebtedness of local and State governments. We cannot continue to heap upon the shoulders of the Federal economic picture more indebtedness before we ask the municipalities and States to assume a greater burden.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to insert at this point an analysis of excerpts covering the limitations on taxing powers and debts from the constitutions and restrictive limitation laws of the States who have representatives on this committee. Also, the most recent amendments to legislation concerning taxing powers and debts. This information was obtained from The Tax Reporter of the Commerce Clearing House, Inc. Without exception, there is not one State whose constitution prohibits a change in the existing tax and debt limitations as long as the majority of the voters favor such change. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, that will be made a part of the record.

blighted areas, to provide a home in suitable living environment for every citizen, and to develop and redevelop the Nation's communities; whether this national policy shall be discriminatory in that it shall be directed to serve a tiny segment of the Nation's economy instead of the economy as a whole; and further, whether or not this Congress wishes to invite the communities of the Nation to come to Washington-bypassing the constitutional provision of States' rights-for every bit of assistance whether it be for housing, automobiles, clothing, food, insurance, education, or the other social necessities of our American way of life. And, finally, the Congress is confronted with whether it wishes to delegate control over its purse strings to a Government agency administrator.

This is not a new issue. It has been brought up time and time. again in the past decade or more. It was part of the full-employment bill, where the purpose of the administration was to force acceptance of the principle that the Federal Government must assume responsiblity for providing every citizen with a job at a living wage. It was only after an arduous struggle in the House of Representatives that this principle was not enunciated in the act as passed.

S. 866 raises again this same issue of direct governmental responsibility for the welfare of individual citizens. It is stated in broad and resounding terms and in the obscure language of the preamble, and it is implied in numerous passages throughout the legislation.

The question is not one of the desirability of better housing. It is not even of the probability of the Government being able to provide housing for its citizens through the kinds of activity called for in this measure. The larger question is whether it is possible for the Government to undertake this responsibility without opening itself to demands for taking on responsibility for other needs-clothing, farm machinery, automobiles, vacations. There is nothing unique about housing when this question is faced.

In dealing with this bill you are looking down a long road. You are committing this Government to immeasurable financial burdens and to an incalculable expansion of function. You are taking over to the central authority that obligation which in a free country rests on industry and on the effort and ingenuity of individual citizens, You are looking down the road to an economy controlled and directed by the National Government. The result will be a different economy and a different government from what we have known. This must be kept in mind when you consider this bill.